THE Shire of Mundaring and Save Perth Hills (SPH) have both been successful in seeking to become involved in Satterley Property Group’s request for a review of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC)’s refusal of North Stoneville SP 34.

On Friday, February 21 the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) said it had granted the shire leave to make submissions and SPH leave to intervene subject to certain conditions.

The WAPC has refused to approve the structure plan for reasons which include concerns about traffic, bushfire risk and environmental matters.

The decision by SAT deputy president Judge Henry Jackson grants SPH leave to intervene and the shire to make opening submissions at the time the parties file their opening submissions in advance of the hearing.

On Wednesday the shire said the decision reinforced its commitment to ensuring local planning and community concerns were represented throughout the appeal process.

Mundaring President Paige McNeil said North Stoneville was the biggest development ever proposed in the shire.

“We welcome the opportunity to present the impact this urban development will have on our regional road network and the bushfire risk to people and property,’’ she said.

“Our submission will also explore the potential cost to ratepayers of managing the public open space and proposed conservation area,” she said.

With the hearing date for determining the amended structure plan scheduled for September the shire is continuing to work with its legal representatives to prepare their submission.

The SAT decision said SPH had an interest in the subject matter of the primary proceedings that went well beyond the mere expression of its constitutional objects.

“In short, it is a long-standing organisation with members who have taken significant and sustained action over many years regarding the strategic planning of North Stoneville and particularly by opposing the structure plan and its predecessor,’’ Judge Jackson said.

“In doing so it appears to have been recognised by, at least, the shire.

“At least at this stage I am satisfied that those actions are and have been motivated by its members’ experience of several significant bushfires in the vicinity of the subject land which have threatened their lives and property, and their fear that the development of the subject land will exacerbate the risk of bushfire.’’

Judge Jackson’s decision said SPH could file up to five lay witness statements by a date that would allow Satterley’s experts to have regard to the lay evidence ahead of the completion of their reports for filing (currently required by April 4).

SPH is also able to file an expert report on the topic of human behaviour in fire (HBIF).

“Counsel for SPH may lead any of the witnesses called by it but may not cross-examine any witness called by another party.’’

Save Perth Hills said the community members and expert witness at the appeal hearing would provide relevant first-hand evidence of evacuation constraints and bushfire impacts, both short-term and life-long, that would underscore the need for safer planning in bushfire prone zones.

SPH chair Peter Brazier said they had pursued intervention because of the potential magnitude of the structure plan’s impact on the community.

“This is a plan that will knowingly place our community, and thousands more people, in bushfire danger, in an era of increasingly frequent and severe bushfire catastrophes,” he said.

“It’s only right that our local community members can bring their invaluable lived-experience into the court room, regarding a flawed and dangerous plan that, if approved, our community will have to endure, forevermore.’’