4 August ARELJ - Case Note - Judgement Clarifies Extent of Non-Conforming Use Protections August 4, 2020 By Sally Parker ARELJ, General, Industry, Resources and Energy ARELJ, Regulations, Industry 0 Brent Lillywhite, Marisa Taliangis, and Radhika Kayarat Partner, Consultant, and Lawyer, Corrs Chambers Westgarth In Shire of Murray v IVO Nominees Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 45, the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court of Western Australia found that the clearing of bushland and digging of a drain for agricultural purposes was not protected by the non-conforming use provisions under the local planning scheme. The Court reasoned that as these activities involved the physical alteration of the land, as opposed to the use of land, they fell outside the protections of the applicable nonconforming use provisions, and instead required planning approval. This decision will be relevant to those in the resources industry relying on the protections provided by non-conforming use provisions to carry out their extractive industry activities. Member Login Required to Access Case Note Read More Related Articles FORREST AND FORREST PTY LTD AND MINISTER FOR ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS [2023] WASAT 28 Western Australia’s State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) has rejected a review, by Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd, against the refusal of consent to impact an Aboriginal site in constructing weirs across the Ashburton River. A unanimous three-member panel published its decision in April 2023. SAT’s decision and reasoning has direct significance and use for anyone involved in processes for a s 18 consent under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 and broader relevance for the law around protection of Aboriginal heritage in Western Australia. With the WA Government announcing the reversal of recent statutory changes and a return to the 1972 legislation, SAT’s decision has increased relevance. ARELJ - Case Note - Yindjibarndi Case “Occupation Requirement” Authority ARELJ Case Note - Applying the Cautionary Principle to Harvesting Timber in Victoria ARELJ - Case Note - Financial Consequences of the Dismissal of a Native Title Claim ARELJ Case Note - Implications of New Provisions in the Human Rights Act Following Waratah Coal Decision ARELJ - Case Note - Australian Offshore Petroleum Regulation: Defining and Protecting the National Interest Showing 0 Comment Comments are closed.