❓ Mr. Watson questions why a subdivision application wasn't referred to relevant departments given concerns about agricultural land and water impact. The answer details the history of the application, the Tribunal's focus, and the Department's referral practices.
AnsweredQoN 2569Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
With regard to the subdivision application for Lot 189, Lower Denmark Road, Bornholm, Albany, I ask:
(a) given that the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) judgement on this matter stated that the proposed subdivision was in an area of high quality agricultural land, and that the Cuppup Creek system drains directly into Wilson Inlet, why was the initial application not referred to the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of Water as an accurate assessment of the land description which was essential to the SAT finding; and
(b)
what determines the policy to which
relevant local government, public body or private utility and service provider subdivision applications may be referred to by the Western Australian Planning Commission for any objections or recommendations affecting the subject land?
(a) given that the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) judgement on this matter stated that the proposed subdivision was in an area of high quality agricultural land, and that the Cuppup Creek system drains directly into Wilson Inlet, why was the initial application not referred to the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of Water as an accurate assessment of the land description which was essential to the SAT finding; and
(b)
what determines the policy to which
relevant local government, public body or private utility and service provider subdivision applications may be referred to by the Western Australian Planning Commission for any objections or recommendations affecting the subject land?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
18 May 2010
Responded by
Minister for Planning
Response time
28 days
(a) The land is 11.6 ha in area. In 1995 the owner applied to subdivide the land into 2 lots of about 2.5 ha and 9 ha. The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) refused the application and a subsequent appeal to the then Minister was dismissed by the Minister. In 1999 the owner applied to subdivide the land into 2 lots of approximately 5.2 ha and 6.4 ha. The WAPC again refused the application, with no appeal lodged against the decision. The owner lodged the latest application to subdivide the land in 2006 which the WAPC refused. A subsequent application for review of that decision by the State Administration Tribunal (SAT) was dismissed in 2007.
The subdivision applications proposed the creation of two rural small holding lots within a locality identified in operative planning documents, the Local Rural Strategy and the then draft Local Planning Strategy for the City of Albany, to be retained for agricultural purposes and to resist the intrusion of land uses which may cause land use conflicts into the locality. The agricultural value of the land was not in question, and in the 2007 decision SAT (para 70) took the view of the owner in this regard:
The Tribunal is inclined to favour the applicant's position on the horticultural potential of the site.
which the owner had advised the Tribunal (para 47)
....the site was too small, and the soil too poor and waterlogged to have any potential as a viable agricultural lot.
The Tribunal's consideration of the proposed subdivision rested on planning principles including the impact of rural small holding lots into a locality identified for the protection of continued agricultural activities.
As the site was known to the Department of Planning (DoP), and consideration of the planning merits of the proposed subdivision did not rest on the agricultural qualities of the land, the proposed subdivision's referral to the Department of Agriculture and Food for an assessment of the agricultural value of the land was not sought.
Moreover, the Department of Agriculture and Food has for many years advised DoP that as a general rule their role in land use planning is limited to providing higher level advice in relation to a strategic approach to rural land, not on providing comment in relation to individual subdivision proposals.
Advice on the impact of the proposed subdivision on the water resources in the locality was sought from the Department of Environment and Conservation which advised that it did not object to the proposed subdivision and provided advice including:
In the event of future residential development occurring, storm water and waste water needs to be carefully controlled to prevent ingress of additional water and nutrients into the natural drainage system on the property which is part of the Hay River / Wilson Inlet catchment.
The Tribunal's consideration of the proposed subdivision did not rest on the impact of the proposed subdivision on the water resources in the locality.
(b) Departmental officers use their professional assessment to determine the planning issues associated with a subdivision application, and those referral agencies which are to be consulted in relation to the application, unless guidance is provided via an operational arrangement between agencies e.g. mandatory referral of applications for unexploded ordnance in predetermined areas to a designated agency.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
The subdivision applications proposed the creation of two rural small holding lots within a locality identified in operative planning documents, the Local Rural Strategy and the then draft Local Planning Strategy for the City of Albany, to be retained for agricultural purposes and to resist the intrusion of land uses which may cause land use conflicts into the locality. The agricultural value of the land was not in question, and in the 2007 decision SAT (para 70) took the view of the owner in this regard:
The Tribunal is inclined to favour the applicant's position on the horticultural potential of the site.
which the owner had advised the Tribunal (para 47)
....the site was too small, and the soil too poor and waterlogged to have any potential as a viable agricultural lot.
The Tribunal's consideration of the proposed subdivision rested on planning principles including the impact of rural small holding lots into a locality identified for the protection of continued agricultural activities.
As the site was known to the Department of Planning (DoP), and consideration of the planning merits of the proposed subdivision did not rest on the agricultural qualities of the land, the proposed subdivision's referral to the Department of Agriculture and Food for an assessment of the agricultural value of the land was not sought.
Moreover, the Department of Agriculture and Food has for many years advised DoP that as a general rule their role in land use planning is limited to providing higher level advice in relation to a strategic approach to rural land, not on providing comment in relation to individual subdivision proposals.
Advice on the impact of the proposed subdivision on the water resources in the locality was sought from the Department of Environment and Conservation which advised that it did not object to the proposed subdivision and provided advice including:
In the event of future residential development occurring, storm water and waste water needs to be carefully controlled to prevent ingress of additional water and nutrients into the natural drainage system on the property which is part of the Hay River / Wilson Inlet catchment.
The Tribunal's consideration of the proposed subdivision did not rest on the impact of the proposed subdivision on the water resources in the locality.
(b) Departmental officers use their professional assessment to determine the planning issues associated with a subdivision application, and those referral agencies which are to be consulted in relation to the application, unless guidance is provided via an operational arrangement between agencies e.g. mandatory referral of applications for unexploded ordnance in predetermined areas to a designated agency.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.