Carrooda Pty Ltd v City of Gosnells  WASAT 73
Carrooda Pty Ltd and Sansom Nominees Pty Ltd (Applicants) submitted a development application (Application) to the City of Gosnells (Respondent) under the City of Gosnells Local Planning Scheme No. 6 (LPS 6). The development application was for the erection of a 4.45m by 18.99m, double-sided, LED, pylon sign (Sign) located at 3 Austin Avenue, Maddington (Property) and would have frontage to Albany Highway. The Respondent rejected the application on 17 March 2020. On 21 April 2021, the Applicants commenced proceedings in the Tribunal seeking the review of the decision under section 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act).
During the proceedings, the Applicants sought leave to change the features of the sign to a two panel, 13.07m high sign and the location of the sign. On the orders of the Tribunal, the parties filed an agreed statement of facts. In the statement of facts design of the sign was again amended to be one-sided and reduced in height to 12m. The Respondent contended that change to the design of the sign and its location (Proposed Changes) are substantially different to the original Application and the Applicants were required to lodge a new development application.
As a preliminary issue, the Tribunal was required to consider whether the Proposed Changes were minor or substantially different and whether the Application remained the same in substance or the amendments were so sweeping that they resulted in effectively a new development application following the test in Pacesetter Homes Pty Ltd & Anor v State Planning Commission (1983) 84 LGERA 71.
In its decision, the Tribunal noted that the land use and land required for the Amended Sign remained the same. The Tribunal also noted that the amended height of the sign will be lower than its original height by less than 10%. The Tribunal considered that these changes to the Application were not significant. The most significant departure from the Application was the location of the sign. However, the Tribunal noted that the new proposed location of the sign was within 50m of the original location and still on the Albany Highway frontage.
Having regard to the above, the Tribunal found the Proposed Changes would not substantially alter the signs appearance to passing motorists or neighbouring properties.
In light of this, the Tribunal held that the Proposed Changes did not substantially change the Application. The Applicants were granted leave to amend the Application in line with the Proposed Changes.