Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteFiona Argyle lost her Supreme Court challenge over the exclusion of parts of her submission and an expert report in a planning proceeding about a proposed two-storey house next to her property. That court did not approve the house: the State Administrative Tribunal later overturned the City of Nedlands’ refusal and granted development approval subject to conditions.
What the two decisions were about
The dispute involved a proposed two-storey single house at 37C Kinninmont Avenue, Nedlands. Annabelle and Stephen Purser applied to the City of Nedlands for development approval. After the City refused the application, they sought a review in the State Administrative Tribunal. Fiona Argyle, who owned a neighbouring property, asked to intervene.
The tribunal did not admit Argyle as an intervening party, but it allowed her to submit concerns. It excluded parts of her submission, including an expert report, from the material considered in the proceeding. Argyle then sought judicial review in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
| Proceeding | Question decided | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court judicial review | Whether the tribunal had wrongly excluded parts of Argyle’s submission and her expert report. | Application dismissed; no order as to costs. |
| State Administrative Tribunal planning review | Whether the City of Nedlands’ refusal of the Purser development application should stand. | Refusal set aside; development approval granted subject to conditions. |
The Supreme Court judgment, Argyle v State Administrative Tribunal [2022] WASC 317, was delivered on 14 September 2022. Justice Smith dismissed Argyle’s application. The court was addressing the tribunal’s handling of participation and evidence, not deciding whether the proposed house should be built.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Why the tribunal approved the house
In Purser and City of Nedlands [2022] WASAT 87, delivered on 23 September 2022, the tribunal found the proposal conformed to the applicable R-Codes and was acceptable against the residential-zone objectives and relevant planning considerations.
The tribunal considered the site in its planning context, describing it as a transition between emerging built form near Stirling Highway and established residential areas. Tribunal member Rochelle Lavery wrote: “The proposed development is a reasonable response having regard to its size, the characteristics of the subject land and its planning context.”
Rank #2
Approval conditions affecting construction and design
The tribunal’s approval was conditional, rather than an unrestricted permission. Conditions included:
- Managing stormwater onsite.
- Landscaping the site.
- Screening the southern elevation of the balcony.
- Keeping works within the lot boundary.
These conditions formed part of the planning approval. The published decisions cited here do not establish whether the approval was later varied or whether the home’s current occupancy has changed.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →What later reporting said
PerthNow reported on 14 July 2025 that Argyle sold her 1,012-square-metre Kinninmont Avenue property for $2.9 million. The report also said she told House That!, “They destroyed our privacy,” and reported her explanation that her family did not want to live with the neighbouring home looking into her children’s bedrooms. Those privacy statements are Argyle’s reported views, not findings made by either court or the tribunal.
The same 2025 report put Argyle’s legal fees for the failed challenge at $90,000 and reported a $30,000 council legal bill. These are figures reported later by PerthNow, not amounts stated in the Supreme Court judgment. The judgment’s formal outcome was that no order as to costs was made in the judicial-review proceeding.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
