Satterley Group’s 1,000‑lot Perth development rejected by tribunal

Developer Nigel Satterley’s long-held dream to build a 1001-lot town site in Perth’s hills has been dealt a fatal blow with the State Administrative Tribunal rejecting his eponymous company’s structure plan for the site.

While noting there was a housing crisis, the tribunal rejected Satterley Group’s 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 brutal decision is a huge win for opponents of the plan, the Save Perth Hills group, which has been fighting urbanisation of the area for nearly four decades.

Save Perth Hills spokeswoman Debra Bishop was elated.

“After 35 years, Save Perth Hills and the community has saved Perth Hills. We have won. We have beaten a plan that was putting profit before people,” she told ABC Perth.

Bishop called on the Anglican Church, who own the land, to abandon its plans for North Stoneville in favour of rural lots.

“Rezone your land to rural, five to 10 acres and bigger. It’s safer in bushfires, environmentally more sensitive, and you will get the support of the local community,” she said.

The tribunal upheld the Western Australian Planning Commission’s 2020 rejection of the North Stoneville structure plan, agreeing the risks posed to lives by such a massive influx in population in such a bushfire prone area was unacceptable.

The Tribunal 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.”

A spokeswoman for Satterley Group said the company was disappointed with the decision but would need to review the judgment.

“Given the significance of the decision and the detailed matters considered through the proceedings we will take the necessary time to carefully review the Tribunal’s reasons in full and consider the implications for the site,” she said.

A spokeswoman for the Anglican Diocese of Perth thanked the SAT and said the church would take some time to reflect and take advice on the most appropriate next steps.

During the SAT hearings, lawyers for Satterley argued modelling it had done around traffic and human behaviour proved the development could go ahead safely.

However, the company conceded its dream to establish the townsite would not be realised until a major upgrade of Toodyay Road is complete – which may not happen until the 2040s.

The company argued that, with mooted Main Roads upgrades to nearby Seaborne Street and Great Eastern Highway, they could still safely pursue between 350 and 400 lots at the site until EastLink was complete.

WAPC lawyers also revealed Satterley had offered to only build 135 lots at the site until road improvements were complete.

The tribunal rejected the company’s modelling and its arguments around human behaviour during a bushfire.

“The evidence provides a strong basis for a finding that bushfire evacuations are, generally speaking, ‘chaotic and confusing’ and that people, including those that have prepared well for the eventuality, make decisions that might be said to appear to be irrational,” it said.

The tribunal, however, flagged that its decision did not mean the area was not suitable for urban development.

“What decisions others make as to the future of the site is a matter for them, informed by the facts and circumstances and, indeed, any future proposed structure plan, of the time,” it said.

Urbanisation of North Stoneville has been ferociously rejected by the surrounding community since it was first floated in 1991.

It has also been rejected by the Shire of Mundaring council, the Department of Fire and Emergency Services, in more than 4000 public submissions, and twice by WA’s highest planning authority since 2020.

The community opposition revolves around the loss of native bushland and fire risk.

The WAPC rejected the most recent North Stoneville structure plan in December 2023 because of the bushfire risk.

Tribunal Judge Henry Jackson has been mulling a decision since public hearings concluded late last year.

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.