The state's peak planning body has hit back at claims that its thinking on Satterley Property Group's Perth Hills project had been clouded by local opposition and political pressure.
The state's peak planning body has hit back at claims that its thinking on Satterley Property Group's proposed North Stoneville residential development had been clouded by local opposition and political pressure.
Fighting Satterley's appeal against the rejection of the North Stoneville structure plan, the Western Australian Planning Commission says its work and decisions had focused on the high bushfire risk in the proposed location of 1,000 big residential blocks.
On the first day of a three-week State Administrative Tribunal hearing, WAPC lawyer Ian Repper attacked bushfire and traffic modelling being relied upon by the Nigel Satterley-led group in its attempts to gain approval for developing the remote, hilly bushland.
Mr Repper said a traffic management plan failed to demonstrate whether every car could get out in a "reasonable worst case" fire scenario, nor did it adequately address the potential effects on the evacuation of people who now lived in surrounding areas.
He said Satterley had attempted to cure defects in its traffic modelling with a "half thought-through" proposal for a bushfire refuge within the 535-hectare development site - albeit without any details of the shelter's location, who might pay for it or what it might be used for "when not in an emergency".
Lawyers for Satterley lined up against legal teams from the WAPC, Save Perth Hills and Shire of Mundaring as the development group tries to secure SAT approval for its North Stoneville structure plan.
Today’s hearing marks an update to a dispute that has been going for five years in the SAT and even longer in public debate.
The WAPC rejected Satterley's first attempt at to secure approval for structure plan in 2020 and again refused the developer's second crack in late 2023.
Satterley wants to develop residential lots, ranging from 1,000 to 2,000 square metres in the Perth hills, on land owned by the Anglican Church.
Community group Save Perth Hills has been the leading voice in opposing the residential proposal, citing bushfire risks and traffic impacts.
The proposed development is about 3km east of John Forrest National Park and 2km south of Toodyay road.
The federal government approved the North Stoneville plan in September 2024 under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act.
Then-federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek penned a letter to WA Premier Roger Cook, to confirm the environmental sign-off.
However, Ms Plibersek said the federal government had “no ability or authority to intervene in local planning or zoning decisions as they relate to bushfire risks or traffic management”.
“These are a matter for state governments,” she wrote.
“I trust the Western Australian Government is taking every necessary step to address these concerns.”
The approval process for the proposed North Stoneville development rests with the SAT, but the extent of discretion is one issue that is likely to be hammered out between Satterley and WAPC.
Mr Repper told the SAT the WAPC's role was to determine the structure plan as put forward by Satterley rather than suggest modifications that "could make this plan suitable".
He said the inherent bushfire risk was so high that the tribunal had to "absolutely certain" that measures were in place to significantly reduce the danger to residents.
But a bushfire plan put forward by Satterley had failed to demonstrate how the bushfire risk was being reduced from "catastrophic" to low.
There were no bushfire management plans put for the estate once the development was completed beyond the routine firebreak notices and existing responsibilities of landowners and authorities, Mr Repper said.
The residential lots would be smaller than many of the lots in surrounding area, but "significantly larger than your standard urban blocks".
"Maintaining a hazard level of low requires management," Mr Repper told the tribunal.
The hearing continues.
