//
[2008] WASAT 260
General information, not legal advice.
State Administrative Tribunal (WA)
2008-11-05
Original judgment source is linked above.
I certify that this and the preceding [50] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
32 Mr Skinner submitted that management controls for the DRF are not required as a result of the proposed subdivision or the location of the proposed central boundary, but rather as a result of an independent need to protect the DRF. However, the proposed subdivision facilitates development of the site and thereby gives rise to additional risk to the DRF; cf SinAusBel Pty Ltd and Western Australian Planning Commission [2006] WASAT 266; (2006) 45 SR (WA) 67 at [35][48]. Furthermore, the location of the proposed central boundary in the area of the DRF in itself gives rise to the management problems discussed earlier, which condition 1 avoids.
37 One of the purposes of the PD Act is to 'promote the sustainable use and development of land in the State' (s 3(1)(c)). In Western Australia, 'development' does not include 'subdivision': see Landpark Holdings Pty Ltd and Western Australian Planning Commission [2007] WASAT 130 at [25]. However, subdivision generally facilitates land use and development, and sustainability or ecological sustainability is now recognised as an important objective of orderly and proper urban and regional planning generally, including subdivision planning; see Moore River Company Pty Ltd and Western Australian Planning Commission [2007] WASAT 98 at [83][93] and [95][146].
38 In Telstra Corp Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133; (2006) 146 LGERA 10 (Telstra), Preston CJ of the NSW Land and Environment Court observed at [108] as follows:
(2006) 146 LGERA 10
(2004) 221 CLR 30