Satterley to head back to court to revive North Stoneville dream

Perth property developer Nigel Satterley has returned to the courts to challenge the recent rejection of his long-planned North Stoneville townsite. Acting on behalf of the landowner, the Anglican Church, Satterley lodged an appeal against the State Administrative Tribunal decision on Tuesday. This move seeks to revive a development proposal that was dismissed by the tribunal last month following extensive legal proceedings. The Satterley Property Group has pursued this specific project in the Perth Hills region for several decades. A spokeswoman for the Satterley Group declined to provide comments regarding the new legal action. The dispute centers on a structure plan comprising 1001 lots intended for a 535-hectare bushland site. The proposal aimed to accommodate up to 2800 residents. In September, the State Administrative Tribunal formally rejected this plan. The tribunal characterized the proposal as fundamentally flawed, stating that it could not proceed even with modifications. Opponents of the project celebrated this outcome as a significant victory. These groups have actively resisted the urbanization of the site for 35 years. The immediate reaction to the appeal has been intense criticism from the Save Perth Hills advocacy group. Debra Bishop, the chair of Save Perth Hills, described the notice of appeal as a refusal to accept a clear, independent, and judicial ruling designed to protect human life. She noted that Satterley’s plan had already faced multiple high-level rejections since 2019. These previous setbacks included objections from the Department of Fire and Emergency Services, the Shire of Mundaring, and Western Australia’s Planning Commission. Bishop stated that six years of mediations and appeals at the tribunal concluded last month with the final ruling that the plan was too defective to be made safe through adjustments. Bishop expressed anger directed specifically at the Anglican Church for continuing to support the project despite the tribunal’s rejection. She argued that the current appeal presents the church with a critical moral choice. According to Bishop, the church should publicly withdraw its support for Satterley’s appeal and respect the decision intended to ensure public safety. The Save Perth Hills group advocates for the church to rezone the land to rural status instead of pursuing residential development. The tribunal’s judgment cited non-compliance with state bushfire planning policy as a primary reason for the refusal. This policy prioritizes the preservation of life and the strict management of bushfire impacts within planning frameworks. The tribunal referenced Section 2 of State Planning Policy 3.7, which establishes that preserving life and managing bushfire impact are paramount considerations. The policy requires that bushfire risk be managed to an acceptable level where it cannot be entirely avoided. The tribunal found that the submitted structure plan failed to demonstrate that such management could be achieved on the specific site. The tribunal members emphasized that the plan contained basic flaws that prevented it from being saved by simple modifications. They concluded that the structure plan relied upon by Satterley was so deficient that it warranted a outright refusal of approval. The legal process involves Satterley appealing this determination, while community groups continue to press for the protection of the bushland area from urban expansion. The case highlights ongoing tensions between large-scale housing developments and environmental safety regulations in the Perth Hills.