Perth property developer Nigel Satterley is heading back to court to revive the North Stoneville townsite which was rejected after a lengthy legal stoush by the State Administrative Tribunal last month.
Satterley, on behalf of the North Stoneville landowner the Anglican Church, lodged an appeal of the SAT’s decision on Tuesday.
A spokeswoman for Satterley Group declined to comment.
In September, the SAT rejected Satterley Group’s 1001-lot structure plan for the 535-hectare bush site that was to house up to 2800 people, describing it as flawed and unable to proceed even with modification.
The decision was hailed as a major win for opponents of the project, who have been fighting proposed urbanisation of the site for 35 years.
The appeal has enraged the Save Perth Hills group.
“This notice of appeal is a refusal to accept a clear, independent and judicial ruling made to
protect human life,” Save Perth Hills Chair Debra Bishop said.
“Satterley’s plan has suffered multiple high-level rejections, including from Department of Fire and Emergency Services, Shire of Mundaring, and WA’s Planning Commission, since 2019.
“Six years of mediations and appeals at SAT concluded last month with the Tribunal ruling Satterley’s North Stoneville plan so flawed it was beyond any modifications to make it safe.”
Bishop said the group was also angry at the Anglican Church for continuing to pursue the project despite the rejection from the SAT.
“This appeal action offers the Church an important moral choice: publicly withdraw support
for Satterley’s appeal and respect a decision designed to keep people safe,” she said.
Save Perth Hills wants the Church to rezone the land to rural.
In its judgment the SAT said the structure plan did not adhere with state bushfire planning policy, which prioritised the preservation of life and the strict management of bushfire impacts in planning
“Section 2 of SPP 3.7 provides that the preservation of life and the management of bushfire impact are ‘paramount’ and, as we have been at pains to reiterate, SPP 3.7 and the guidelines require the management of bushfire risk, where it cannot be avoided altogether, to an acceptable level,” it said in its decision.
“We find that the structure plan does not demonstrate that that can be done on the site.
“Indeed, in our view the structure plan proceeds on the basis of such basic flaws that it cannot be ‘saved’ by the making of modifications.
“Our finding is that the structure plan put before us and relied upon by Satterley is so flawed as to warrant a refusal to approve it.”
