(c) set aside the decision that is being reviewed and, relevantly, substitute its own decision.

(b) 4.06 hectares in area and fenced on all four boundaries, including the southern common boundary shared with the Adjoining Land;[2]

(c) mostly vacant aside from some scattered vegetation and a small structure with the appearance of an animal shelter (rural structure) located in the north-west corner; and

(d) bound by three roads, being De Burgh Road along its northern boundary, Maxwell Road along its eastern boundary and Cecelia Road along its western boundary.

1. Neither the Respondent, nor the City of Swan (City) (which administered planning and development controls in the Swan Valley prior to the commencement of the Scheme in 2021), has any record of any relevant development approval being granted for the Subject Land.

1. The Development is centrally located on the Subject Land and includes the following:[3]

1. The Development has accumulated progressively on the Subject Land over time, including prior to the Applicant becoming the registered proprietor. The Development involves the sea containers being located together with any number of vehicles in close proximity. The materials before the Tribunal include a timeline of aerial imagery which identifies:

(1) a single sea container placed next to the rural structure on or around December 2021;[4]

(2) relocation of the first sea container to the current location, and placement of a second sea container on the Subject Land on or around April 2022;[5]

(3) the initial presence of vehicles located between the two sea containers in the form of two vehicles visible in June 2022;[6]

(4) a fluctuating number of up to five vehicles present in the vicinity of the two sea containers in the period between August 2022 to February 2024;[7]

(5) a third sea container placed on the Subject Land on or around April 2024;[8]

(6) a fourth sea container placed on the Subject Land on or around June 2024, together with the presence of up to eight vehicles in the vicinity of the sea containers;[9] and

(7) more than a dozen additional vehicles are located in the vicinity of the sea containers in the period since June 2024 to the latest aerial imagery taken in July 2025.[10] As at July 2025, there were approximately 26 vehicles present on the Subject Land.

1. On 7 October 2024, officers from the Department of Planning Lands and Heritage (DPLH), which supports the Commission, attended the Subject Land in response to receiving a complaint from members of the public. DPLH's officers observed at least three sea containers and multiple vehicles.[11]
2. The following day, the DPLH wrote to the Applicant to notify him of an allegation that unauthorised storage of sea containers and vehicles was being conducted on the Subject Land.[12]
3. On 28 October 2024, DPLH officers again attended the Subject Land and observed at least three sea containers and multiple vehicles present on the Subject Land.[13] That day, and again on 2 December 2024, DPLH officers and the Applicant had telephone discussions regarding the presence of sea containers on the Subject Land.[14]
4. On 3 February 2025, the DPLH again wrote to the Applicant.[15] The letter noted that a development application for retrospective planning approval, in respect of the sea containers, had not been received. The Applicant was advised that, unless he lodged an application for (retrospective) development approval within 21 days, he was required to remove the sea containers and vehicles from the Subject Land. The DPLH cautioned the Applicant that a failure to comply may result in compliance action being taken against him.
5. In March and April 2025, there was further email correspondence between the Applicant and the DPLH regarding the sea containers and development application (21-51010-1) for a 'Proposed Winery, Residence and Caretakers' Dwelling' on the Adjoining Land (Adjoining Land DA).[16]
6. On 7 May 2025, the DPLH sent the Applicant a letter warning that he was to be issued with a direction under s 214 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act) requiring the cessation of the use of the Subject Land for storage and to remove all stored items including sea containers and vehicles.[17]
7. On 12 May 2025, the DPLH again attended the Subject Land. The four sea containers and multiple vehicles remained on the Subject Land. [18]
8. On 23 June 2025, the Commission issued the Applicant with the Direction, together with an enclosed letter.

1. The Direction requires the Applicant to:[19]
   1. Cease all storage activity on the [Subject Land]; and
   2. Remove all stored materials, including, but not limited to, sea containers and vehicles.

1. The Adjoining Land DA was received by the WAPC on or about 2 April 2025 and was formally accepted on 26 May 2025.
2. The Adjoining Land DA proposed, among other things:

(a) a single house and winery development including caretaker's residence; and

(b) a total of fifteen (15) sea containers comprised within the edges of a walled garden (9 containers) and within a winery shed (6 containers).

1. The WAPC approved the Adjoining Land DA on 13 November 2025 which authorised the construction of a '[s]ingle house, ancillary dwelling - rural shed, caretaker's dwelling, two sea containers and the planting of vines (intensive agriculture)' on the Adjoining Land.
2. The Adjoining Land DA relates only to the Adjoining Land. It does not propose, nor does it authorise, any development on the Subject Land.

1. Since December 1995, land use planning in the Swan Valley has been the subject of specific legislative and decision-making arrangements.
2. The Swan Valley Planning Act 1995 (WA) (Original SVP Act) established the 'Swan Valley' and identified planning objectives for a number of areas. The Original SVP Act also established a specialised planning committee to inter alia provide advice on development applications within the Swan Valley.[20]
3. The SVP Act repealed the Original SVP Act.[21] The SVP Act is to, relevantly, provide for a Swan Valley Planning Scheme for the purposes of the PD Act.
4. The 'Swan Valley' is defined in s 4(1) of the SVP Act by reference to a plan held at the offices of the WAPC that has been certified by the Minister. That plan is delineated in a map contained in sch 1 to the SVP Act.
5. The Subject Land is within the 'Swan Valley' and is shown on the map included in sch 1. The SVP Act applies the definition of 'development' set out in s 4(1) of the PD Act.[22]
6. Section 5(1) sets out the objects of the SVP Act, which relevantly include:

(b) to maintain the rural character and conserve the heritage of the Swan Valley; and

(c) to ensure that horticulture, viticulture, hobby farming and equestrian activities remain the principal land uses in the Swan Valley;

(d) to discourage land uses in the Swan Valley that are incompatible with its rural character and the principal land uses referred to in paragraph (c); and

...

(k) to ensure that development and subdivision in the Swan Valley are only permitted if this does not prevent the objects in paragraphs (a) to (j) from being satisfied.

1. Section 5(2) also requires any person exercising a power or performing a function under the SVP Act, or under the PD Act in relation to the Scheme, to have regard to the objects of the SVP Act. On review, having regard to s 29(1) of the SAT Act, s 5(2) applies to the Tribunal.
2. Part 2 of the SVP Act is directed to the Scheme. Division 1 deals with the nature and effect of the Scheme. Division 2 is directed to the contents of the Scheme. Division 3 addresses the process for the preparation, and approval, and of the Scheme.
3. The Scheme has legislative effect,[23] and is subsidiary legislation for the purposes of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA).[24]
4. Upon the Scheme's commencement, the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the City of Swan Local Planning Scheme No 17, ceased to apply to the land shown in sch1 to the SVP Act.[25]
5. The process for preparing the Scheme is found in sub-divisions 2 to 4 of pt 2 of the SVP Act.[26] The Scheme must be approved by the Minister.[27]
6. Division 2 of pt 2 informs the content of the Scheme. The Scheme must be consistent with the objects of the SVP Act.[28] It must also include provisions to ensure that any new 'non-rural development'[29] of 'Swan Valley rural land is designed and located so as to minimise any nuisance or other detrimental impacts that could arise from existing or possible future uses of other Swan Valley rural land for horticulture or viticulture'.[30]
7. Regulations made pursuant to either s 258,[31] s 259[32] or s 261[33] of the PD Act apply as if the Scheme were a 'local planning scheme'.[34] These regulations do not include the 'deemed provisions' contained in sch 2 to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA) (LPS Regs), which are made pursuant to s 256 of the PD Act.[35]

1. The PD Act applies to land in the Swan Valley, with the Scheme being the applicable 'planning scheme'.[36] As explained, for the purposes of the Swan Valley, the concept of 'development', as defined in the PD Act, applies. That is, 'development' for the purposes of the Scheme includes both the 'use' of, and 'works' on, land.
2. There is a statutory prohibition in the PD Act on 'development' being commenced or carried out on land contrary to the terms of the relevant 'planning scheme'. Ordinarily, in the absence of an exemption contained in the planning scheme, there is to be no 'development' without development approval being obtained.[37] A 'planning scheme' for the purposes of the PD Act, includes the Scheme.[38]
3. Division 1 of pt 13 of the PD Act is directed to enforcement and legal proceedings. Section 214 confers powers on a responsible authority with respect to unauthorised development, which in the case of the SVP Act, extend to the Respondent.
4. Section 214(1)(a) relevantly characterises unauthorised development as follows:

(a) a development is undertaken in contravention of a planning scheme ... if the development -

(i) is required to comply with the planning scheme ...; and

(ii) is commenced, continued or carried out otherwise than in accordance with the planning scheme ...;

(2) If a development, or any part of a development, is undertaken in contravention of a planning scheme ..., the responsible authority may give a written direction to the owner or any other person undertaking that development to stop, and not recommence, the development or that part of the development that is undertaken in contravention of the planning scheme ... .

(3) If a development has been undertaken in contravention of a planning scheme ..., the responsible authority may give a written direction to the owner or any other person who undertook the development -

(a) to remove, pull down, take up, or alter the development; and

(b) to restore the land as nearly as practicable to its condition immediately before the development started, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Section 214(4) provides that a responsible authority may give directions under s 214(2), s 214(3)(a) and s 214(3)(b) in respect of the same development, within the same directions notice.
2. Section 214(6) requires a direction given under s 214(3) to specify a time, being not less than 60 days. for the direction to be complied with.
3. Perforce of s 214(7), a failure to comply with a direction given under s 214(2) or s 214(3) is an offence. There is a right to seek a review of a decision to issue a direction given under s 214 of the PD Act.[39] If, on review, the Tribunal confirms or varies a direction, it may direct that the confirmed or varied direction is to be complied with within a period of not less than 40 days.[40]

(b) is a planning scheme for the purposes of the PD Act.

1. The WAPC is responsible for the enforcement and implementation of the Scheme.[41]
2. The aims of the Scheme relevantly include to:[42]

...

(b) conserve the rich history and cultural heritage of the Swan Valley through protection of its unique natural landscape and rural character; and

(c) ensure quality agricultural land in the Swan Valley is retained for horticulture and viticulture, with other rural land predominantly used for hobby farming, equestrian activities and associated rural land uses; and

(d) ensure that the use and development of rural land is compatible with horticulture, viticulture, hobby farming, equestrian activities and the rural character of the Swan Valley; and

(e) ensure all development is appropriately located, designed, scaled and landscaped and existing vegetation retained to enhance the unique rural landscape character of the Swan Valley; and

...

(g) limit residential, commercial and light industrial uses to designated areas and ensure that they do not impact rural land uses or the rural character and amenity of the Swan Valley; ...

1. The Subject Land is zoned 'Priority Agriculture' under the Scheme. The objectives of this zone are set out in Table 2 in cl 21 as follows:
   1. To protect priority agricultural land in the Swan Valley including existing vineyards and other areas of horticulture from incompatible land use and development.
   2. To provide for long-term agricultural production in the Swan Valley by preventing further subdivision of land and protecting good quality soils from non-agricultural use and development.
   3. To limit hospitality and tourism development and land use to where it is incidental and complements agricultural production and does not detract from the rural character and amenity of the area.
   4. To ensure all land use and development enhances the cultural heritage, natural environment and protects the unique rural landscape character of the Swan Valley.
2. Clause 22 (Table 3) provides for the permissibility of defined land uses across the various zones within the Scheme. A 'storage yard' is specified as 'X' ('not permitted') within the Priority Agriculture zone.
3. The effect of cl 23(2) is that a land use that is an 'X' use within a particular zone is not permitted.[43]
4. Land use terms are defined in the table at cl 2 in sch 1 to the Scheme. 'Storage yard' is relevantly defined to mean 'premises used for the storage of goods, equipment, plant or materials'.
5. Perhaps unusually, the Scheme does not apply a general prohibition on 'development' otherwise than in accordance with the Scheme.[44]
6. However, that apparent lacuna is of no real moment. That is because the effect of cl 55 of the Scheme is that development approval under pt 10 of the Scheme must be obtained before commencing or carrying out any works on, or using land in the Scheme area, unless the development is exempt under cl 56. That is, the Scheme requires approval for both limbs of development.
7. The effect of cl 56(1) is to identify development for which approval is not required under the Scheme. In doing so, the Scheme applies cl 61 of the deemed provisions, which sets out a range of development (both uses and works) that does not require development approval.
8. Within cl 61(1) of the deemed provisions is a table setting out a number of 'works' that do not require development approval. For works to be exempt, they must be of a class specified in Column 1 and must also satisfy any conditions contained in Column 2, of the table.[45] At item 17, the table identifies that 'temporary works', being works 'in existence for less than 48 hours, or a longer period agreed by the [WAPC], in any 12-month period', do not require development approval.
9. Likewise, cl 61(2) of the deemed provisions identifies a range of 'uses' that do not require development approval. There is nothing in cl 61(2) that would exempt a 'storage yard' or similar land use from the requirement to obtain development approval.
10. Clause 56(2) sets out various forms of development that do not require approval in the Priority Agriculture, Swan Valley Rural or Rural Residential zones.
11. The alleged Development being carried out on the Subject Land is a 'storage yard', a use not exempted by cl 56 of the Scheme.
12. Schedule 1 to the Scheme includes defined terms, including 'works' which, 'in relation to land' relevantly means:

(a) any demolition, erection, construction, alteration of or addition to any building or structure on the land; and

(b) the carrying out on the land of any excavation or other works;

...

1. Schedule 5 includes a table which prescribes additional site and development requirements that apply to the Swan Valley. Item 1.2.6 (which applies to all zoned land in the Scheme) provides:

Transportable buildings and sea containers (unless fully enclosed within a building) are not permitted in any zone without development approval, subject to the following requirements:

1. no more than two sea containers on any lot; and
2. to be situated behind the primary street setback or the minimum setback of existing buildings on site, whichever is greater; and

1. not to be visible from primary or secondary streets through location, design, appropriate screening with vegetation or other mechanisms; and

1. screened so as not to be visible from adjoining side and rear properties through landscaping, decorative panels or other treatments.

1. There are also specific Scheme controls directed to land within the Priority Agriculture zone. Item 2.2.1 provides that no development may occur within the Priority Agriculture zone without the approval of the WAPC, unless the development is exempt pursuant to cl 56(2).
2. The Scheme provides discretion for the Respondent to approve variations to site and development requirements.[46]
3. Clause 74 of the Scheme applies pt 10 of the deemed provisions in respect of enforcement and administration. By cl 79, relevant DPLH officers may be authorised to, for the purpose of monitoring whether the Scheme is being complied with, enter and inspect any building or land in the Scheme area.

1. Both the Applicant and the WAPC filed submissions and relevant materials.[47] In my view, the key evidence in the Review is the photography, including the aerial photography, of the Subject Land.[48]
2. The Respondent called Mr Peter Wright, a senior planner and the investigating officer at the DPLH, to give evidence.[49] While Mr Wright's evidence addressed the issue of the classification of the Development under the Scheme, that question is ultimately for the Tribunal.
3. Nevertheless, I have found Mr Wright's evidence to be helpful, particularly his impressions of the impact of the Development as well as his evidence, which I will come to, detailing the DPLH's dealings with the Applicant from October 2024.

Issue 1: Whether the Development is unauthorised 'development'

1. As with local and regional planning schemes made under the PD Act, as well as redevelopment schemes made under the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority Act 2011 (WA) (MRA Act),[50] the Scheme has legislative effect. The Scheme, like local, regional and redevelopment schemes, seeks to regulate and control the use and development of land.
2. The Scheme is a 'planning scheme' for the purposes of the PD Act. In my view, there is no reason why the principles that have developed in relation to the interpretation of planning schemes made under the PD Act, and the MRA Act, should not apply equally to the Scheme.
3. In Otago Pty Ltd and City of Cockburn,[51] the Tribunal set out the following principles, which I gratefully adopt:
   1. Before considering the terms of TPS3, we note that, as is the case with any subsidiary legislation, the construction of a local planning scheme is a process of determining the objective meaning of the legislation by the application of recognised rules of interpretation to the legislative text, understood as a whole and in its context. The meaning of the legislation must emerge from the statutory text, understood in its context, but also having regard to the statutory purpose being pursued.
   2. We also bear in mind that planning schemes are not usually drafted by parliamentary counsel and are often expressed in terms which lack the precision of an Act of Parliament. Planning schemes should therefore be construed broadly rather than pedantically and with a sensible practical approach. That is particularly important given that the terms of planning schemes are regularly referred to, often without the assistance of professional legal advice, by planners, government officials, landowners and prospective landowners to identify the permissible uses of land to which the scheme applies. The Court of Appeal has cautioned against placing a counter-intuitive judicial gloss on the plain language of planning schemes because to do so would reduce the capacity of the range of persons who use such schemes to comprehend their meaning. That having been said, the exercise nevertheless remains one of identifying the objective meaning from a consideration of the legislative text, understood as a whole and in the context in which and purpose for which it was enacted.

1. As stated, the SVP Act applies the definition of 'development' as found in the PD Act. That definition is broad and includes 'the development or use of any land including' ... 'any demolition, erection, construction, alteration of or addition to any building or structure on the land' and 'the carrying out on the land of any excavation or other works'.
2. In Taylor and WAPC,[52] it was also noted that the definition of 'development' is inclusive. Accordingly, the definition set out in the PD Act is not an exhaustive statement of what constitutes 'development'.
3. The concept of 'development' is the bedrock on which development control in this State rests. That is so because unless the threshold point of 'development' is reached, the PD Act and all instruments made pursuant to it, have no application.
4. Despite the apparent breadth of the definition, in all instances whether the use of, and/or works on, land is 'development' is a question of degree.[53] Such an approach recognises that there will be a range of activities and/or works that are sufficiently trivial that to treat them strictly as 'development', would be to ignore the legislative purpose of planning laws. As I have elsewhere observed, 'Parliament did not intend the tentacles of planning law, to intrude too far into the activities and works undertaken in one's backyard'.[54]
5. In University of Western Australia v City of Subiaco (UWA),[55] Burt CJ explained that the term 'development', as defined in the (now) PD Act, encompassed two ideas:

The first is the 'use' of land which 'comprises activities which are done in ... or on the land but do not interfere with the actual physical characteristics of the land' and the second being 'activities which result in some physical alteration to the land which has some degree of permanence to the land itself'.

1. The notion of 'development' is said to be 'context dependent'.[56] That is, the question of whether activities or works is 'development' will depend on the context in which the works or activities occur. Such contextual considerations take account of the location of the relevant land, its zoning and applicable planning controls, the size of any structure, the nature of the works and the intensity of the activities, all from the perspective of protecting the public interest.
2. Put another way, the critical question of whether works on, or the use of, land reaches the threshold point of being 'development', is approached from the viewpoint of its town planning impacts. In large part, town planning controls are directed to managing the impacts of development on the environment, neighbouring properties and the public realm. As is made apparent by the deemed provisions,[57] aside from in the context of heritage considerations, internal building work that does not affect the external appearance of a building, is generally not regarded as 'development' for town planning purposes.
3. As I have also observed elsewhere,[58] there is not, and cannot be, a one-size fits all approach as to whether works and/or activities constitute 'development'. Each case will turn on its facts.

1. Turning to the facts of this case. The Subject Land sits within the Swan Valley and is zoned for Priority Agriculture purposes. At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal together with the parties undertook a site view. The Tribunal observed the sea containers and vehicles present on the Subject Land and viewed them from each of the surrounding streets. The Tribunal also observed the Adjoining Land, which is immediately south of the Subject Land.
2. The Subject Land sits within a predominantly rural context. Surrounding properties are used for agricultural purposes, namely viticulture. While the context is rural, the lot sizes are not large by rural standards. They are certainly not broadacre farming lots. As a result, the sea containers present are clearly visible from surrounding properties, including those on Cecelia Road and Maxwell Road.
3. Taking account of the objectives of the planning framework, as evinced in the SVP Act[59] and the Scheme,[60] there is a legislative intent to maintain and preserve the rural character and heritage of the Swan Valley, and to ensure that quality agricultural land remains available for rural uses. The SVP Act and the Scheme prioritise horticulture, viticulture, hobby farming and equestrian activities as being, and remaining, the principal land uses in the Swan Valley and to discourage land uses that are incompatible with these priority uses. These objectives are also reflected in the Priority Agriculture zone, which includes the Subject Land.[61]
4. In addition, sch 5 to the Scheme includes additional development requirements. Those additional controls relevantly identify sea containers (unless sitting within an enclosed building) are not permitted to be located on any land within the Scheme, unless development approval has been obtained. Furthermore, the general position is that no more than two sea containers are permissible on any lot within the Scheme.
5. Having regard to the terms of the Scheme, read and applied as a whole, there is a clearly discernible intent to preserve, manage and prioritise the traditional farming activities of the Swan Valley, including viticulture, for the long-term and to prevent development that is inconsistent or incongruent with such uses. Allied with the protecting of such land uses is the objective to 'protect the unique rural landscape character of the Swan Valley'. In doing so, the Scheme also manifests an intention to closely regulate the presence of sea containers across the Swan Valley.
6. That is not to say sea containers are to be regarded as prohibited structures. Given that the Swan Valley is, and is planned to remain as, a productive agricultural area, the presence of such structures in the landscape, which support or are ancillary to such uses, must reasonably be anticipated as an aspect of that rural amenity. However, by reason of sch 5 of the Scheme, in all instances the placement of a sea container on any land within the Swan Valley requires development approval. It is trite that cl 39, which allows for variations to site and development requirements does not operate as, in effect, an exemption from the need to obtain development approval.
7. The words of the Scheme have legislative effect. While the Scheme should be read and applied broadly, in a practical and commonsense manner and consistent with its evident purpose, it should also be read and understood as having the force of law.[62]
8. Accordingly, in the context of the Scheme, there is no room for argument that the sea containers on the Subject Land do not require development approval. They do. Accordingly, I find that each of the sea containers constitutes 'development' for the purposes of the Scheme.
9. Leaving the terms of sch 5 of the Scheme to one side, the sea containers are plainly significant structures that, in the context of the Subject Land, constitute 'development' in the orthodox town planning sense. That is because they are each large, prominent structures that are highly visible from the surrounding locality.[63] That is apparent from the site view attended at the commencement of the final hearing. The fact that the Applicant has attempted to locate them close to some trees and has recently painted them a drab green colour to soften their appearance, does not change the conclusion that they constitute 'development'.
10. Nor is that conclusion changed having regard to the apparent reasons why the sea containers have been placed on the Subject Land. The Applicant's explanation, from the bar table, is that the sea containers are not being used for commercial purposes but contain items being stored for family members does not lessen or change the fact that their presence has town planning impacts that are not insignificant. Planning law is concerned with the impacts arising from the use and development of land; it is not directed to individual intentions or personal considerations.[64]
11. For completeness, there is also no basis for an argument that the sea containers have been temporarily located on the Subject Land, to be exempt from development approval. That exemption operates where works are carried out on land for less than 48 hours, unless a longer period is agreed. In this case, there have been four sea containers on the Subject Land since June 2024.
12. While I note that the Subject Land is not currently used for productive rural purposes, it remains the case that in rural and agricultural areas, there is, at times, a misconception that undertaking farming activities carries with it the right to undertake what are regarded as being necessary physical works in association with those activities. Certainly, the impression I have in this case is that the Applicant considers this is a rural area and that the Commission is being heavy handed in its dealings with him. He just wants to be left alone.
13. However, planning laws apply equally in rural and agricultural areas. As the Court of Appeal made clear in Shire of Murray v Ivo Nominees Pty Ltd,[65] the right to undertake farming activities or rural uses does not affect any requirement for approval to be obtained to commence or carry out development that involves the physical alteration of land. The question of whether there is 'development' of land is a question of fact; to be determined having regard to the degree of physical alteration to the land, an examination of the degree of permanence to that physical alteration, and all the circumstances.

1. The planning objects of the SVP Act and the Scheme, which I discussed above in the context of the sea containers, equally apply to the vehicles that are present on the Subject Land.
2. The number of vehicles on the Subject Land has fluctuated over time. Based on the aerial photography, at some points, there has been 26 vehicles present on the Subject Land. From the bar table, the Applicant explained that the vehicles were used as part of a hobby being undertaken by a family member. He explains it would be too expensive for the cars to be stored elsewhere.
3. The Applicant's attitude that underlies his written and oral submissions is that this is a rural area and he should simply be left alone. In his view, the Commission is too zealously policing how he uses and enjoys the Subject Land. The vehicles that are on the Subject Land are related to a family member's hobby.
4. While the Applicant does attempt to screen the vehicles by placing the four sea containers in a square arrangement, with the vehicles placed between them, they remain highly visible from the surrounding locality. To be frank, the vehicles are unsightly and leave one with the impression that the Applicant is operating an industrial use such as a storage or scrap yard business. The sheer number of vehicles, which have no connection to any authorised land use, is adversely impacting the amenity of the immediate locality. Nor does the presence of this many vehicles on rural land in the Swan Valley align with the objectives of the applicable planning framework.
5. Mr Wright considered that the Development on the Subject Land was resulting in a negative impact on the visual amenity for the area and reducing the volume of land that is available to be put to uses which are compatible with the Scheme.[66] I agree.
6. Again, the precise reason why the vehicles are being stored is not to the point. Their presence on the Subject Land is not authorised and are resulting in, I find, significant town planning impacts on the surrounding locality.
7. While the Applicant pointed to other properties close to West Swan Road which had materials and machinery strewn over them, I am unaware of their planning circumstances, including what uses they may be lawfully put to.

1. Before I turn to the terms of the Scheme, which of course I must apply, the principles of planning law recognise that the mere placement of structures, goods or materials on land, do not support a conclusion that the relevant land is not being used in any active sense.
2. In Daniele v Shire of Swan,[67] Ipp J found that the placement of 20 derelict railway carriages on rural living land was 'development', in part, because the presence of the carriages perpetuated a change in the character of the land, even though its physical characteristics remained unaltered.
3. Likewise, in Parkes v Environment Secretary,[68] a landowner stored and sorted scrap materials on land that adjoined the Peak National Park. The presence of the scrap brought about a fundamental change in the character of the land and significantly harmed the amenities of surrounding land. Lord Denning MR found that the scrap was relevantly being stored on the land, and that such storage was 'development' in a town planning sense.
4. In both cases, the placement of materials on land was found to constitute 'development' by reason that the presence of such materials impacted the character of land to such a degree as to result in town planning consequences. That is, the mere placement of such materials was sufficient to support a finding that the land was being used for storage purposes.
5. In this case, the sea containers together with the volume of vehicles present have perpetuated a significant adverse change in the character of the Subject Land. Nor can their presence, even in this rural context, be regarded as temporary or de minimis.
6. The Direction alleges that the Applicant is using the Subject Land as a 'storage yard', which is defined in the Scheme to mean 'premises used for the storage of goods, equipment, plant or materials'.
7. In this matter, the Applicant was not legally represented. His oral submissions contained much evidence. Having regard to the Tribunal's objectives,[69] I allowed the Applicant significant latitude in how he presented his case. He explains that he is storing the vehicles on the Subject Land in association with a family member's car hobby. Likewise, he explains that the sea containers are present because they will be used in association with the Adjoining Land DA, and contain goods and materials owned by an in-law that will be moved to the dwelling to be constructed on the Adjoining Land.
8. I accept the Respondent's submissions that, applying the ordinary meaning of the relevant terms of the definition, the Subject Land is being used for the purposes of a 'storage yard' in that:

(b) the sea containers and vehicles are relevantly being 'stored'; and

(c) the sea containers and vehicles fall within the description of 'goods, equipment, plant or materials'.[70]

1. While I have separately assessed whether the sea containers and vehicles meet the threshold requirement of constituting development, I accept the Respondent's submission that it is more appropriate to assess the Applicant's use of the Subject Land in an overall sense. Viewed through this lens, I find that the collection of sea containers and vehicles are being stored on the Subject Land so as to constitute a 'storage yard'.
2. That is, I find that the Applicant has undertaken the Development as alleged by the WAPC. The Development is not authorised under the Scheme.
3. In the light of that finding, it is therefore necessary to consider whether the Direction should be affirmed, varied or set aside.

1. Even where development is found to be unauthorised, the Tribunal retains a discretion in relation to the decision to issue a written direction. That discretion derives from the fact that the review of the decision to issue a written direction is undertaken on a de novo basis.
2. The Tribunal has enunciated a number of principles that inform the exercise of that discretion under s 255 of the PD Act. In Ipilatesperth Pty Ltd and City of Joondalup (Ipilatesperth),[71] I identified the following factors as being relevant that inform the exercise of discretion:

(a) It is in the public interest of the proper and orderly development and use of land that planning law should generally be complied with. It is expected that, ordinarily, those who carry out subdivision or development will comply with planning legislation and any applicable approval. ... [That is so because] unless the legislative purpose of planning is upheld, private advantage may accrue to individuals which others cannot enjoy.

(b) The impact of the contravention of the scheme on the relevant locality and the environment. This will involve an assessment as to whether the breach is technical in nature in that it is unnoticeable other than to those well versed in the relevant law.

(c) The factual circumstances in which the planning scheme was contravened.

(d) The time that has elapsed since the unauthorised development was undertaken.

(e) The expense and inconvenience which would be involved in remedying the contravention of the planning scheme.

1. As the Tribunal explained in Morea Architects and Town of Vincent,[72] the factors set out above are not an exhaustive statement of the considerations that may inform the exercise of discretion. Each case falls to be determined on its own facts.
2. In this case, as I will come to, the Respondent submits that the Tribunal should be mindful of establishing, in effect, an adverse precedent in the administration of planning laws in the Swan Valley if the Direction is not affirmed.
3. I turn now to consider these matters.

The public interest in complying with planning laws

1. It is trite that the starting point is that planning laws should ordinarily be complied with. Planning controls operate for the benefit of the community. The efficacy of such controls depends upon their formal enforcement as well as a pervasive culture of general observance and respect for that underlying communal purpose.[73]
2. As was explained by Kirby P (as he then was) in Warringah Shire Council v Sedevcic,[74] unless planning controls are enforced and upheld, private advantages may accrue by individuals that others cannot acquire and there may also be resultant damage to the environment.
3. Furthermore, as I recently observed in Zorzi and Town of Cambridge,[75] the purposes of the PD Act, which include 'to provide for an efficient and effective land use planning system' and to 'promote the sustainable use and development of land in the State', depend on the planning controls being enforced when not adhered to. A land use planning system can hardly be said to be 'efficient', 'effective' nor 'sustainable', unless planning laws are complied with.
4. In Ipilatesperth,[76] I also set out that it is 'fundamental' that the community understand the need to comply with planning controls. If a relaxed approach to compliance was adopted, the overall effect would likely be adverse amenity impacts across the community resulting from the activities of those who view planning controls as optional or aspirational.
5. In this case, the Applicant presents as someone who regards planning controls as an unnecessary imposition on how he wants to use what is his property. At no level, does he consider or acknowledge the underlying community purpose of such controls, nor the visual impact of the Development on surrounding properties. He presents as being indifferent to any argument that his use of the Subject Land is adversely impacting surrounding properties.

1. This is not a case where the contravention of planning laws is merely technical, nor can it be said that the presence of the sea containers and vehicles on the Subject Land is not causing town planning impacts.
2. As I have already stated, the accumulation of the vehicles has an industrial look consistent with a storage or scrap yard; land uses which are a long way from the traditional uses such as viticulture and horticulture which the applicable planning controls seek to preserve and prioritise.
3. The impacts of the Applicant's contravention are significant, as they are diminishing the amenity and character of the locality. Also relevant is that the use of the Subject Land as a 'storage yard', is a prohibited use under the Scheme.

1. I find that it is not without significance that the Applicant purchased the Subject Land at a time when there were two sea containers and up to five vehicles located on the Subject Land. That does not excuse or authorise their presence, but the fact is the Applicant is not responsible for locating those sea containers on the Subject Land. However, as the registered proprietor of the Subject Land for nearly two years, he is now responsible, and accountable, for them.
2. The factual circumstances of the contravention do not otherwise assist the Applicant. The aerial photography provided by the Respondent evinces the progressive movement of two more sea containers as well as multiple vehicles onto the Subject Land by the Applicant, since his purchase in April 2024.
3. The evidence of Mr Wright, which I accept, sets out the attempts by the DPLH to alert the Applicant to the potential issues arising from the presence of the sea containers and vehicles on the Subject Land.
4. I find that the DPLH has been very fair in its dealings with the Applicant. Having been made aware of the presence of sea containers and vehicles, the DPLH attended the Subject Land on 7 October 2024. The following day, on 8 October 2024, the DPLH wrote to the Applicant. Officers then engaged in telephone communications with the Applicant on 28 October and again on 2 December 2024. That was followed up with a further letter on 3 February 2025 which explained that unless he applied for retrospective approval for the Development within 21 days, he was required to remove the sea containers and vehicles from the Subject Land.
5. The DPLH then cautioned the Applicant that a failure to comply may result in further action being undertaken against him in respect of development contravening the Scheme.
6. In March and April 2025, there was further email correspondence between the DPLH and the Applicant regarding an application for retrospective approval as well as the Adjoining Land DA. That communication was followed by a further letter warning the Applicant that he was to be issued with the Direction requiring him to cease use of the Subject Land for storage and to remove all stored items including sea containers and vehicles.
7. Finally, on 12 May 2025, DPLH officers again attended the Subject Land, where the Development remained. The Direction was then issued on 23 June 2025.
8. These facts, together with the Applicant's submissions in the Review, evince an attitude that compliance with the planning laws is not a relevant priority for him. In his oral submissions, he repeatedly characterised the conduct of the DPLH, and the decision to issue the Direction, as, in effect, an unwarranted intrusion and an overreach of planning laws.
9. The Applicant also argued that because his wife owns the Adjoining Land, they should be entitled to treat the two parcels as, in effect, a single legal unit. That submission was directed to his argument that the Adjoining Land DA will include two of the sea containers on the Subject Land. Furthermore, materials being stored in sea containers will be transferred to the residence that is approved to be constructed.
10. However, it is not possible, in any relevant sense, for planning authorities, including the Tribunal, to treat the Subject Land and the Adjoining Land as, in effect, a single planning unit. The two lots are in different legal ownership. That does not change by reason of a marriage certificate. They are separate lots, held on different certificates of title by different owners, and can be dealt with as such.
11. Furthermore, the Adjoining Land DA related only to the Adjoining Land.[77] On no view, does the Adjoining Land DA authorise the placement of any structures or materials on the Subject Land. If the Subject Land was intended to be used in association with the Adjoining Land, then the Adjoining Land DA should have included the Subject Land.
12. The terms of the Scheme are clear and unambiguous. The presence of the sea containers on the Subject Land can only be authorised by a development approval. The Applicant has long been on notice that the Commission was of the view that the sea containers and the vehicles were 'development' that required approval. Despite being invited to seek retrospective approval to regularise the Development, the Applicant has made no attempt to seek development approval or otherwise remove the items that are of concern to the WAPC.

1. I find that this is not a case where the WAPC has, in effect, sat on its heels in enforcing compliance with the Scheme.
2. While, it seems, two sea containers have been present on the Subject Land since April 2022, the Respondent has acted diligently in following up once it became aware of the existence of the Development in October 2024.
3. Also relevant is the fact that WAPC only became the 'responsible authority' for the Swan Valley upon the commencement of the Scheme in August 2021. In assuming land use planning responsibilities, including development control, the WAPC cannot reasonably have been expected to have a detailed knowledge of the history and planning circumstances of every parcel of land in the Swan Valley, as these records would be relevantly held by the City. Indeed, in this case the WAPC has had to make inquiries with the City as to whether it was aware of any relevant development approvals for the Subject Land.[78]
4. The timeline of events leading to the Direction being issued, which are set out at [129] to [133] above, satisfy me that the Respondent has acted in a timely and in an appropriate fashion. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the WAPC has 'not acted too swiftly; nor has it been tardy'.[79] I accept that submission.

The expense and inconvenience in remedying the contravention

1. Both the sea containers and the vehicles are, by their nature, readily transportable. They are not, in any relevant sense, permanently affixed to the Subject Land.
2. Even though they can be moved, given the number of both sea containers and vehicles present on the Subject Land, I accept that it will take some time and will involve some cost and inconvenience. That is especially so in the winter months, when the damp ground might make the removal of the sea containers more difficult. However, during the warmer months in summer and early spring, that is not an issue.
3. Furthermore, the expense and inconvenience in complying with the Scheme must also be viewed against the fact that the Applicant is conducting what is a prohibited use of the Subject Land.

1. In addition to these factors, the Respondent also submits that the decision to issue the Direction must be understood in the broader context that it has only assumed planning responsibilities for the Swan Valley relatively recently (in April 2021).
2. The Respondent points to the ongoing pressure within the Swan Valley for land to be put to non-rural uses, uses which have no relevant connection with the traditional uses of horticulture and viticulture which are prioritised by the applicable planning framework.[80]
3. The Respondent submits that the Tribunal's decision on the Review will set a precedent on the level of threshold activity that may be carried out on rural land within the Swan Valley without a development approval being obtained. Furthermore, the cumulative effect of rural land being put to non-rural uses results in an unplanned and adverse change to the Swan Valley's character and amenity. The introduction of such uses also leads to greater potential for land use conflicts with the Swan Valley's traditional uses.
4. The Respondent argues that the 'bespoke' planning framework that applies to the Swan Valley, is a strong additional factor that informs the discretion under s 255 of the PD Act.
5. I accept that Respondent's argument that the proper administration of the planning framework for the Swan Valley is also, at least at some level, at issue in the Review. The Respondent's submission, as I understand it, is that this is the first occasion that the WAPC has been required to take enforcement action pursuant to the Scheme. Accordingly, I agree that the outcome of this Review will be of some significance to the Swan Valley community.
6. From the WAPC's perspective, the Review is important so as to reassure the local community that even though the City no longer administers local planning controls, the WAPC is prepared to take action to ensure compliance action, so as to protect local character and amenity. That is, in issuing the Direction, the WAPC is seeking to maintain the pervasive culture that is required to preserve the efficacy of planning laws. In my view, the Respondent's submissions on this point are, in effect, a manifestation of the argument that there is a public interest in planning laws being complied with.

1. I am satisfied, and I find, that the correct and preferable decision is to confirm the Direction.
2. In this case, I find that the factors that inform the discretion under s 255, taken together, overwhelmingly incline towards confirming the Direction, albeit varied pursuant to s 255(2). The Applicant's contravention of the Scheme is blatant, it has persisted and is having, I find, a significant impact on the amenity and character of the locality. The contravention is also contrary to the planning objectives embedded within the SVP Act and the Scheme. The Applicant has both commenced and continued to carry out what is a prohibited use of the Subject Land over what is now an extended period.
3. Taking account of the factual circumstances, the Applicant's attitude towards planning laws has not helped. In my view, officers from the DPLH have been very fair in their conduct of this matter. On repeated occasions, officers have engaged with the Applicant on his use of the Subject Land in the context of the planning framework. The Applicant has been invited to take the step of seeking to regularise the presence of the Development on the Subject Land; an invitation which he has chosen not to take up.
4. The Applicant was also warned that enforcement action would be taken if the Development remained on the Subject Land. Aside from painting the sea containers a drab green, he has done nothing to address what is a significant contravention of the Scheme.
5. As I have set out, I also accept the WAPC's submissions that a decision to set aside the Direction, as to allow the Development to remain on the Subject Land, in circumstances where I have found it comprises an unlawful use, would establish what might be interpreted by some as a precedent or benchmark that significant unauthorised development may be tolerated in the Swan Valley. Such an outcome would be averse to, and in conflict with, the clear planning objectives for the Swan Valley and their underlying communal purpose.

The reference to 'all' vehicles in the Direction

1. The Applicant's submissions in the Review complain about the indiscriminate nature of the Direction which required him to remove 'all' vehicles. He points to the fact that a farm tractor is on the Subject Land.
2. It must be said that the presence of some vehicles on the Subject Land must be reasonably anticipated. For example, where connected with an authorised use being made of the Subject Land, the vehicles naturally associated with that use are lawfully present. That is because they are an aspect, and form part of, the lawful use being made of land. For this reason, farm machinery and vehicles may be present on properties that are lawfully being used for such purposes.
3. Therefore, the practical consequence of the Direction is that some vehicles may remain on the Subject Land, provided they are associated with some lawful use being made of it. However, the multiple vehicles that are present on the Subject Land at present, have no connection with any authorised land use. It is those vehicles that the Direction applies to. That is clear by the terms of the Direction which is directed to 'all stored' vehicles. Any vehicles being used for an associated lawful use being made of the Subject Land, are not relevantly being 'stored'.

1. For these reasons, the Direction will be confirmed. Pursuant to s 255(2) the Applicant will be given 50 days from the date of these reasons to comply with the Direction.

1. The Direction the subject of the review is varied in accordance with Order 2.
2. The Applicant is hereby given written notice that the NOTICE OF DIRECTION UNDER SECTION 214(3) OF THE PLANNING ACT on page 2 of the Direction issued to him on 23 June 2025, is varied to read as follows:

In accordance with sections 214(2) and s 214(3) of the Planning Act, you are now required to comply with the following written direction in relation to 144 De Burgh Road, Caversham:

1. Cease all storage activity on the land; and
2. Remove all stored materials, including, but not limited to, sea containers and vehicles.

In accordance with section 214(6) of the Planning Act, you have 50 days from the date of these orders, to comply with the directions set out above.

In accordance with section 214(7) of the Planning Act, it is an offence to fail to comply with this Direction within the time specified. If convicted, you will be liable for a penalty of up to $200,000 and a further fine of $25,000 for each day during which the offence continues.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

[2] Respondent's Bundle, page 31, includes details of Subject Land ownership and size.

[3] Respondent's Bundle, pages 170 - 172; 182 - 188, includes photographs and aerial photographs of the Subject Land.

[7] Respondent's Bundle, pages 177 - 180.

[10] Respondent's Bundle, pages 183 - 188.

[11] Respondent's Bundle, pages 11 - 13 and page 92.

[13] Respondent's Bundle, page 92 and pages 170 - 172.

[16] Respondent's Bundle, pages 38 - 64.

[18] Respondent's Bundle, pages 14 - 17 and page 92.

[29] SVP Act, s 13(1) defines 'non-rural development' to mean 'residential development, tourism or hospitality development, or any other development, that is not related to horticulture, viticulture, hobby farming or equestrian activities'.

[31] PD Act, s 258 is directed to regulations for the procedure and costs for local planning schemes.

[32] PD Act, s 259 is directed to regulations for the expenses involved in undertaking an environmental review of schemes pursuant to s 48C(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA).

[33] PD Act, s 261 is directed to regulations made for the fees for local government planning matters.

[34] SVP Act, s 40. Local planning schemes are made pursuant to pt 5 of the PD Act.

[35] And given effect by s 257B of the PD Act.

[43] With the exception - not applicable here - of the discretion afforded by cl 23(6) of the Scheme, which enables the Respondent to approve a development application for a class 'X' use if the application relates to land that is being used as a non-conforming use and the proposed use is considered to be less detrimental than the existing non-conforming use. See Scheme, cl 23(6) (Respondent's Bundle, page 111).

[47] Respondent's SIFC (Exhibit 1), Respondent's Bundle (Exhibit 2), Applicant's SIFC (Exhibit 3), Applicant's Bundle (Exhibit 4).

[48] Respondent's Bundle, pages 170 to 189.

[49] Witness Statement of Peter Wright (Exhibit 5), Supplementary Witness Statement of Peter Wright (Exhibit 6).

[51] Otago Pty Ltd and City of Cockburn [2021] WASAT 27.

[52] Taylor and Western Australian Planning Commission [2023] WASAT 16; (2023) 108 SR (WA) 307 [65].

[53] Claude Neon Ltd v City of Perth [1983] WAR 147, 149 - 150 (Pidgeon J).

[54] Zorzi and Town of Cambridge [2025] WASAT 77 [222].

[55] University of Western Australia v City of Subiaco [1980] WASC 28; (1980) 52 LGRA 360, 364.

[62] Scutti v City of Wanneroo [2018] WASCA 175; (2018) 53 WAR 417 [125(9)] (the Court).

[63] Moles and City of Armadale [2021] WASAT 140 [257].

[64] GMF Contractors Pty Ltd and Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale [2006] WASAT 353; (2006) 48 SR (WA) 1; (2006) 151 LGERA 74 [67].

[65] Shire of Murray v Ivo Nominees Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 45 (2020) 243 LGERA 89 [41] (Buss P, Mazza and Beech JJA).

[66] Witness Statement of Peter Wright, para 26.

[67] Daniele v Shire of Swan (1998) 20 WAR 164, 176 (Owen J agreeing).

[68] Parkes v Environment Secretary [1978] 1 WLR 1308 [1979] 1 All ER 1311, (Lord Denning MR).

[71] Ipilatesperth Pty Ltd and City of Joondalup [2020] WASAT 52; (2020) 100 SR (WA) 72 [101].

[72] Morea Architects and Town of Vincent [2006] WASAT 263; (2006) 44 SR (WA) 301 [62].

[73] Swan Bay Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Cockburn [2010] WASC 81; (2010) 174 LGERA 1 [74] (Hasluck J).

[74] Warringah Shire Council v Sedevcic (1987) 10 NSWLR 335; (1987) 63 LGRA 361, 365.

[75] Zorzi and Town of Cambridge [2025] WASAT 77 (S) [93].

[76] Ipilatesperth [104] - [105].