1 This case concerns certain religious activities carried on by the applicants (Reginald Alphonso and Pyrenne Alphonso) in relation to their home at 88 Toirram Crescent, Cranbourne. They have apparently resided there since before January 1992. In that year an aunt of Mrs. Alphonso visited the family. Prior to that visit, I am informed, the aunt attended a novena to the Infant Jesus of Prague at the Holy Rosary Church, Slave Island, Colombo in Sri Lanka. A novena is a Roman Catholic service of prayer, commonly conducted on nine consecutive days.

2 The Infant Jesus of Prague is a small statue, apparently made of wax and richly dressed which represents Jesus as a child. The figure, as represented to me, is dressed in a rich crimson cloak or robe richly embroided with gold coloured thread and with a lace collar and lace cuffs. The figure has golden hair and holds a golden coloured orb in the left hand. An overly large eastern style golden coloured crown decorated with coloured stones sits high on the head. The crown is not worn down on the brow of the head. Its circumference is too large for the head of the statue.

3 The aunt brought a replica of the statue to Australia and gave it as a gift to Mrs. Alphonso. Mrs. Alphonso has a shrine in a corner of the living room of her house. Several items of religious statuary stand on parts of the shrine, including the replica of the Prague statue.

4 Mrs. Alphonso is a practising Roman Catholic. After receiving the gift she and others took to conducting religious prayer services before the shrine and thus before the statue of the infant Jesus. She believes that such services conducted in relation to the original Infant Jesus of Prague occasion favourable miracles, and that similar prayer services in relation to her replica also occasion miracles.

5 These services became a regular event on Friday evenings from 8 pm to 9.15 pm. Numbers attending the services increased over time until as many as 60 people were in attendance. These people were, in the main, friends and acquaintances of Mrs. Alphonso, or perhaps members of the congregation with a church she attends. The continuing conduct of the services became known, apparently particularly to people of the Roman Catholic denomination of a Sri Lankan background. They became informed by word of mouth. Sometimes a friend known to Mrs. Alphonso would bring a friend, not necessarily known to Mrs. Alphonso, along to a service.

6 I have been given a copy of a publication referred to as the "novena" used at the services. It is an order of service containing various prayers, responses, hymns and litany. It makes provision for participation by a priest. I did not realise, until perusing the document after the hearing, that a priest might be involved. No reference was made in the course of the hearing, or in the other materials tendered, to the participation of a priest or as to the attitude of any priest to the religious practices being carried out at the Alphonso home. I do not know whether a priest usually, or ever, participated.

7 The conduct of these services went on for approximately 12 years until complaints were made to the responsible authority. Some people walked to the services, including a next door neighbour of Mrs. Alphonso, but others came from further a field, either by public transport or by motor car. One participant was said to live in St. Albans.

8 The responsible authority took the view that these activities amounted to the house property being used as a place of assembly, or perhaps more specifically, as a place of worship. A place of assembly or worship in a residential zone requires planning permission. The responsible authority required a cessation of the services, and this requirement was complied with. The evidence indicates that they have not been resumed to date.

9 The initial response of the applicants was to apply to the responsible authority for a planning permit to use their land as a place of assembly for the purposes of allowing such services to be resumed. This application, or information supporting it, indicated an estimated 30 - 35 persons would attend. It also contemplated 8 car parking spaces being provided on site with 2 to the rear of the house, 4 down the driveway leading to those 2, and a further 2 on the lawn in the front garden.

10 Notice of the application was given and 3 objections were received. Subsequently, the responsible authority determined to refuse to grant a permit and issued a Notice of Refusal containing the 3 grounds of refusal it had adopted.

11 The applicants did not apply to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. Instead they consulted a solicitor and town planner named Bill Kosky. He wrote to the responsible authority on 12 September 2005. This letter gave some history of the circumstances and advised that the applicants did not intend to appeal to this Tribunal in relation to the refusal. It contained Mr. Kosky's opinion that the application for a permit was ill-advised. The letter went on to say:

As a result of such review, and the advice I have given to them, my clients intend recommencing their home prayer meetings at their home commencing on 15 September 2005 on a scaled-down level that would include the following arrangements:

•

Attendance at home prayer meetings associated with the statue of the "Infant Jesus of Prague" located in the lounge room of my clients home would be limited to no more than 25 invited guests.

•

The prayer meeting that previously took place between 8 pm and 9:15 pm on Fridays will be rescheduled to between 7 pm and 8:15 pm.

•

My clients will divert some of those wishing to attend the Friday evening meeting to a prayer meeting of similar duration to be held during a weekday (not evening), again limited to 25 invited guests.

•

Our client will establish parking arrangements that ensure that no visitors to these prayer meetings park in Toirram Crescent or other surrounding streets. (In particular Miller Court). It is intended that all guests' cars will be parked on site. You should note that the prayer meetings guests would arrive and leave at the same time, and that my clients' house has an existing long and wide driveway on its eastern boundary which can accommodate more than 8 cars.

•

As far as our clients understand it, noise has never been any issue. However, my clients would continue to ensure that no significant noise carries beyond its boundaries.

It is intended to continue to review these arrangements, and modify them as may be necessary from time to time to maintain a low level of activity consistent with the residential use of the dwelling.

I would be pleased to discuss this matter with you prior to these activities recommending, and to take up any issue you may raise with my clients. I would also be pleased to arrange for an inspection of the activity as it is conducted from time to time, and to discuss (and take up with my clients) any ongoing issues/concerns your Council may have.

As advised, my opinion is that provided the home prayer meetings are conducted on the level and scale proposed, then they are not inconsistent with the use of my clients house as a dwelling. I concede that a very intense use of the site for such activities without an appropriate planning permit would be a breach of the planning scheme, and that a grey area exists in the middle ground between the proposed low scale level of activity and an intense use that would clearly require planning permission.

As advised, if Council considered the proposed low scale use of my clients' dwelling for prayers, as outlined, constitutes use as a "Place of Assembly" then I suggest the appropriate way to resolve this issue would be to seek a declaration from VCAT.

12 This letter indicates an intention to operate on a modified and reduced basis (or as Mr. Kosky called it, "scaled-down") as compared with the previous activities. Mr. Kosky has given advice that at a sufficiently reduced level such activities could and should be regarded as ancillary aspects of the residential use of the Alphonso home, rather than as a separate use for planning purposes as a place of worship. He is certainly right. I think it is also apparent that, if the responsible authority considered the parameters specified in the letter indicated something that would still not qualify as an ancillary use as distinct from a separate use as a place of worship, then the applicants be amenable to considering further reduction, if necessary, to come within the ancillary activity concept.

13 The response of the responsible authority, represented by a letter of David Hydon, Team Leader - Statutory Planning dated 13 October 2005 was, in my opinion, less than appropriate and less than helpful. Its terms, omitting formalities, are as follows:

I refer to the above matter and to your letters of 12 and 13 September 2005 and advise that officers are of the view that the revised functions as detailed in your first letter would still constitute a place of assembly as defined in the Casey Planning Scheme and that such a use would require a permit.

In light of this view, I advise that the use not recommence until a new application is lodged seeking a permit for the revised operations. The new proposal can then be considered and if a permit were to issue, the use can then recommence under such authority. If Council resolved to refuse any new application, an opportunity to appeal to VCAT would exist.

I strongly advise that your client not recommence the use until such time as a permit issues for the use or VCAT declares that the activity does not require a permit.

The issues central to Council's consideration would be generally as set out in the report to Planning Committee of 12 July 2005.

14 I am aware of Mr. Kosky's letter of 12 September 2005, but not that of the following day. In any event, this response ignores Mr. Kosky's assertion, a correct one in my view, that at least some reduced form of prayer meeting would be an ancillary part of the residential use of the property not requiring planning permission. I do not regard the rather boldly asserted view of the officers as a very adequate response. The real point of Mr. Kosky's letter was simply ignored. I think it deserved more careful and better informed consideration, and perhaps further consultation to see if agreement might be reached as to what level of activity might not exceed the concept of an ancillary part of residential use.

15 It is in these circumstances then that the applicants have applied to this Tribunal under s.149A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (PE Act) for declaration in the following terms:

The use of the dwelling at 88 Toirram Crescent, Casey 3977 by the Applicants to host gatherings of up to 25 people on a Friday night and one week day for a period not exceeding 2 hours does not require a permit pursuant to the Casey Planning Scheme.

Basis of Declaration Application - Prayer Meeting Ancillary

16 This declaration is sought on the basis that the prayer meeting activity is, or can be reduced if necessary to become, an ancillary activity associated with the residential use of the house as a dwelling. Such ancillary activities are not regarded, in planning terms, as a separate use of the land for which planning permission might be required. In this case, the proposition is that the prayer meeting activity does not amount to a second and separate use of the land as a place of worship requiring planning permission.

17 It is quite clear that such ancillary activities are correctly regarded as part of the use of the land. For example, in relation to the residential use of a dwelling the people living there might indulge in a variety of hobbies, interests or past-times as part of their living in the house. Such activities may, or may not be essential to the use of the place as a dwelling. Cooking, eating, washing and sleeping would normally be regarded as essential elements. On the other hand, the keeping of a few pet rabbits, the playing of social tennis on a domestic tennis court, or swimming in a domestic swimming pool, or cultivating a vegetable garden or a flower garden or entertaining friends for afternoon tea (regularly or irregularly) or holding a party (regularly or irregularly) or having a book club discussion (regularly or irregularly) or, for that matter, a Bible study or prayer meeting are all activities that would quite commonly and quite properly be regarded as ancillary to and thus part of the domestic use of a house as a dwelling.

18 Of course, it is possible for something to start out as a hobby or past-time that is ancillary to the use of the place as a dwelling and for it to subsequently grow in various ways so as to evolve into something that exceeds the concept of an ancillary activity so as to become a separate use of the land for which planning permission may, if the planning scheme says so, require a permit. If the social playing of tennis on a domestic tennis court evolved to become commercial tennis coaching, a point might be reached where it had changed to a second and separate use. If the vegetable garden became a commercial market garden, or the hobby of restoring of vintage cars became a panel beating business, or the keeping of a few chooks grew into a commercial poultry farm, then a second and separate use would have evolved.

19 An illustration of this sort of evolution was discussed in the course of the hearing. In years gone by the main and almost exclusive use of petrol stations was to sell petrol and oil to motorists. Such a use would clearly be a petrol station however, a little bit of ancillary retailing, particularly if associated with motoring, might properly be regarded as part of the petrol station. Thus the sale of road maps, sunglasses, barley sugar to ward off travel sickness or boredom in juvenile passengers, spare fan belts and the like might be ancillary. However, if this retailing grew into a full scale convenience shop selling multiple lines in groceries, magazines, hardware and other forms of merchandise a situation can arise where there are two uses namely petrol station and convenience shop. There can be two uses on the one premises. It is common now for a new business to be set up that contains a petrol station and a convenience shop where both uses must comply with the planning scheme. It does not matter whether they were set up together when a green field site was developed, or whether one started 50 years ago and the other evolved over time, where there are two uses they must both comply with the planning scheme.

20 There can be a situation where there is clearly one use or the other, but there can also be situations where there are clearly the two uses. There can also be difficult questions of fact and degree in discerning when there has come to be such an amount and style of retailing as to become a shop as well as a petrol station. In the hazey area near the line honest opinions might vary as to how a particular example should be categorised. Nevertheless, a situation sometimes arises where such a categorisation has to be determined upon. In such a case there may be a variety of considerations brought into account and attributed varying degrees of weight according to circumstances. It is, of course, more practical to do this in relation to a concrete example. It can be quite difficult, if not impossible, to do it in relation to a hypothetical theoretical possibility.

21 Mr. Walker, in his submissions that he made on behalf of the responsible authority, argued that there are two types of ancillary activities. He said that his dichotomy was based on a decision of the Tribunal in Pacific Seven Pty Ltd v. Knox City Council (1993) 11 AATR 325 at 329. That decision purported to draw upon the analysis and illustrations contained in the reasons of my decision in Mollica v. Shire of Bulla (1992) 9 AATR 157 at 161-163. I still adhere to the views I expressed in that case but I did not find Mr. Walker's dichotomy helpful.

Need Ancillary Activity be "quite different" but "a necessary adjunct?"

22 The first category in this dichotomy was to say that the ancillary activity has to be quite different from the activities constituting the primary use but must be "a necessary adjunct of the primary use".

23 I do not think it is to the point as to whether the ancillary activities are "quite different" from the activity constituting the primary use. They are, after all, part of the activities constituting the primary use. In any event, I cannot see that it assists the analysis as to whether the ancillary activities in question are similar to or quite distinct from other activities constituting the primary use.

24 Furthermore, I do not think it is correct to say that the activities in question have to be "a necessary adjunct". It is enough that they be an adjunct of the use. They need not be essential. For example, where a house has a domestic swimming pool or a domestic tennis court the social use of those facilities by inhabitants of the house or the friends or relations is clearly an adjunct and an ancillary part of their use of the house as a dwelling. However, they are not a necessary adjunct. A house without a tennis court is still a house. It still has the essential elements of a house. The omission of a tennis court does not make it other than a house. The tennis court is an unnecessary adjunct to a house, but an adjunct nevertheless. A house with a tennis court is not more or less a house, and the use of it as a dwelling is not more or less use as a dwelling because there happens to be a tennis court. An optional extra is not essential to that use as a cooking and eating and washing and sleeping are.

Do Ancillary Activities have to "grow out of" the Primary Use?

25 The second leg of Mr. Walker's dichotomy is to say that the ancillary activities must grow out of or develop from the primary use and are intended to enhance it. I do not think that this adds any useful understanding to the concept or its application in particular cases. Clearly the ancillary activities must be related to the domestic use of the house as a dwelling, but that is already contained in the concept of it being ancillary to that use. The notion of growth of ancillary activities can cause confusion where it develops to the extent of becoming a separate use, as distinct from the use of the place as a dwelling. I have already discussed that.

Planning Merit Considerations not Relevant to Ascertaining whether Activity is Ancillary

26 In the presentation of his submissions on behalf of the responsible authority Mr. Walker referred to a number of other matters which, so far as I can see, are not to the point. It may be that the thinking in the camp of the responsible authority has been coloured by the exercise that arose in considering whether a permit should be granted for a place of assembly or a place of worship. It must be remembered that there was no review brought to this Tribunal against the decision of the responsible authority to refuse to grant such a permit. If such a review had been applied for, it would be relevant in that proceeding to consider the planning merits of the proposal and to do so, for example, in the light of relevant policies and in relation to potential affects on the amenity of the locality and neighbouring properties.

27 However, the exercise in this case is directed towards working out whether the particular activities of conducting prayer meetings are to be regarded as an ancillary part of the use of the house as a dwelling. Considerations of policy and amenity, which certainly would be relevant to a permit application, are beside the point in the present case. There are questions of fact, perhaps including questions of fact and degree, and there is the application of the law, but there is not a discretion as to planning merits based on policy or amenity. If the proposed prayer meeting activity is an ancillary part of the use of the house as a dwelling, that is determined on a correct analysis of the facts and law involved, and does not turn on questions of policy or the purposes of a Residential 1 zone or potential amenity affects such as noise, parking and traffic.

28 There can well be aspects of the use of land as a dwelling which have adverse amenity affects or which are contrary to planning policy. The limitations that apply to a proposal for two dwellings on a piece of land do not apply to a detached house. A detached house might be large and bulky and out of character with the neighbourhood, it might overlook and overshadow and be detrimental to neighbouring properties and the immediate area in various ways, but there is no planning control and no need for a permit to erect such a structure or to use it as a dwelling.

29 Of course, particular householders or their families might use their land in a way that constitutes a nuisance because of the omission of noise, the smells or the appearance of the property or in other ways. However, the law of nuisance, whether private nuisance or public nuisance, and whether common law or statutory, is something apart from the planning laws and has to be pursued in court, and not by means of permits or proceedings at this Tribunal.

30 When the responsible authority was considering an application for a permit for a place of assembly it apparently considered such things as the parking of cars on the front lawn, the parking of up to 8 cars on the land, whether, with that number of cars, cars could be turned around to drive out in a forward direction off the property and whether there would be parking in nearby streets. Those considerations were, no doubt, to the point in assessing the permit application. They are beside the point in relation to an as of right use of the land as a dwelling. That is so whether or not that as of right use happens to include prayer meetings or other ancillary activities. It might be ugly or unfortunate if people park on their front lawns or park on the curtilage of their houses, but there is nothing to prevent, unless it be the law of nuisance. Furthermore, there is nothing untoward about visitors to a property parking in the street, whether they are there for a party or a games night or a book club meeting or a prayer meeting.

31 The past practice, now discontinued of having prayer meetings of 35 people or up to 60 is also rather beside the point. That is beside the point because it is not what is proposed now. The current proposed facts are relevant, not the past practice that has been abandoned. It may be difficult to be clear about all the parameters of what is now proposed, but one thing that is specified is, for example, not more than 25 invited persons. It seemed to me that some of the emphasis, and some of the cross-examination, was directed to past practice, rather than more relevant present proposal.

Prayer Meetings Capable of being Ancillary to Dwelling by their Nature

32 Mr. Walker also suggested that a prayer meeting, by its nature, could not be an ancillary activity than part of the residential use of a house. He suggested that a party could be such an ancillary activity, even a regular party every week and exceeding 25 participants, but not, apparently, a prayer meeting. I can see no valid basis for such a distinction. Christians and other people who believe in religions commonly pray. Christians commonly offer a prayer before eating whereby thanks is given for the food. Many Christians read the Bible or pray privately, and families might pray together, read the Bible together or indulge in some form of devotion or worship activity together. They may also invite friends to take part or invite visitors who are there for other reasons to participate. It is very hard to see any valid distinction between a Bible study and a book club meeting discussing a secular book. In fact, I do not think that any valid distinction exists between the two. Bible studies will often commence or close with a prayer. Even at prayer meetings where the emphasis is on prayer rather than Bible study will not be distinct in any relevant way. If Mr. Walker was attempting to argue that there is a distinction, relevant to this categorisation, between a prayer meeting or Bible study on the one hand or a book club meeting or games night on the other, then he is mistaken.

"Common Perceptions" - Their Reliability and Relevance

33 He sought to support this argument by saying that the distinction is one recognised by "common perception". In my mind this argument did not advance his case. There are various difficulties about attempting to rely on "common perception". The first difficulty is knowing what is commonly perceived. Mr. Walker apparently conceives a distinction between an ancillary activity of a Bible study or prayer variety and other more secular hobbies, past times, interests and such ancillary activities. It is not a distinction that I perceive at all. The alleged existence of such a common perception may be no more than someone's prejudice or limited experience or limited range of social contacts.

34 Furthermore, there may be more than one common perception of abroad in relation to a particular question and they may not be wholly or partly compatible.

35 In any event, something might be commonly perceived but quite mistaken or misguided. I think Mr. Walker's perception is misguided, firstly as to what he perceives on this point, and secondly, as to whether it was "common". Whether it is common or not, I am satisfied that it is mistaken and misguided.

True Classification not to be Judged on whether it Arms Responsible Authority with Controls

36 Mr. Walker also argued against acceptance of the prayer meeting activity as ancillary to the residential use of the property because this would mean that the responsible authority had no control over activities like car parking in the street or on the front lawn or on the property or in relation to noise and the like. I have already discussed these matters to some extent. If a correct analysis means that the activities are part of the residential use then it may be unfortunate that the sort of controls that might have been imposed in permit conditions are not available, but it is nevertheless that legal situation. The responsible authority cannot validly argue that, having rejected a permit application pursuant to which it could have imposed conditions of that sort, that the current analysis should necessarily be determined so as to give it those powers. I should not be diverted from a correct analysis because the responsible authority would like to have such control. Thus there will only be limitation if the activities that otherwise require planning permission or otherwise would be a breach of planning laws or would, in some way, be a breach of other laws such as the law of nuisance.

37 Mr. Walker, in urging his client's view of the application for a declaration, asked me to make a converse declaration to the one sought by the applicants. He wanted me to make a declaration that the circumstances we recited in the proposed declaration do require a planning permit. No application has been made for a declaration in those terms.

38 I recognise that the parties on either side of this case are seeking guidance, and would like to have a nice firm line drawn, even if it should be one against their case, so that they know where they stand. That does not necessarily mean that a declaration can or should be made.

39 However, I think that the responsible authority should apply for a declaration if it desires one. The Tribunal will only make one of the sort that Mr. Walker sought if the Tribunal considers it necessary or desirable to do so.

40 I do not think it necessary or desirable in this case. Indeed, I am not at all satisfied that there would be a proper basis for making a declaration of the variety sought by the responsible authority. The various bases upon which that this converse declaration was sought all failed.

41 In fact, it is my pronounced view that activities of the sort and scale proposed here should properly be regarded as ancillary to the use of the house as a dwelling.

42 That said, I have had of another sort of reservation about this application. If the past activity was continuing in its original form, or in some modified form, and the responsible authority commenced enforcement proceedings on the basis that a permit for a place of worship was required, I would be dealing with a concrete fact situation. No doubt the defence would be that the activities complained of are ancillary to the use of the place as a dwelling. A fall back defence position might be that, if they are not within that concept, then they might be reduced to come within it. At any event, there would be a real fact situation to be assessed and it would be necessary to determine whether a contravention has been committed. That would, no doubt, have called for an assessment of the question of fact and degree that might be within the hazey area of uncertainty. It would nevertheless be my task to determine the question.

43 However, the matter has not arisen in that way, it has arisen as a somewhat more abstract and hypothetical proposition. The declaration is sought on the basis of three parameters, and on the basis that if these three parameters are satisfied then the proposition that no permit is required will be correct. These three parameters are that there would be up to 25 people per session and no more, perhaps including that they be invited persons; that there be up to two sessions per week with one on Friday evenings between 7 and 8:15 pm and that such sessions not exceed two hours duration.

44 In the course of the hearing some attention to what elements might be relevant to determining whether the prayer meeting activities should be assessed to be a place of worship rather than an ancillary of a dwelling. The list is not necessarily exhaustive, and the weight attributable to various considerations might vary one, and be contingent one upon another. Amongst the things discussed in this respect were numbers attending, a means by which people come to know of the meetings so as to wish to attend, the means of advertising or invitation (whether personal or general or something in between); the regularity, duration, intensity and consistency of meetings and whether any payment was involved. Mr. Walker also thought it relevant to consider whether the proportion of the land used including the driveway and parking and whether people come from close by or far a field. I have my doubts about the relevance of the latter two.

45 I have considered whether I can or should attempt to make the declaration in these circumstances. A declaration is an authoritative legal judgement stating the law in relation to the rights of a person or persons. The courts, and the Tribunal, are cautious or reluctant to make declarations of a theoretical or hypothetical, abstract, contingent or future nature. This present case might be thought to have some degree of the hypothetical or theoretical about the fact situation. The specification of the parameters has been adopted in an attempt to reduce the fact situation under consideration to one of sufficient certainty that a declaration can be made. I have come to the conclusion that I can make a declaration in this case in similar, but not identical, terms to the declaration sought. In doing so, I have added a parameter in relation to the advertising of prayer meetings and, in deference to the possibility of the existence of unconsidered contingencies, I have not expressed the declaration in absolute terms. Nevertheless, I think the declaration I propose to make should be of practical use to the parties and provide them with the guidance that they seek. The only caveat that I have reserved is in relation to the expression "not otherwise exceed the concept of ancillary activity". However, the conclusion that a permit is not required is on the basis of the facts advanced at the hearing, the submissions made and the limitations written into the terms of the declaration itself. The reservation can only arise from facts, circumstances or aspects not so far considered.

46 I should also say that the declaration is to the effect that the prayer meeting activity within certain limitations is ancillary and does not need a permit. It does not follow that some variation on the restrictions written into the declaration will necessarily mean that the activity ceases to be ancillary. For example, it could be very difficult to draw an absolute line as to the number of participants or the frequency or duration of meetings whereby the activity would cease to be ancillary and become a second and separate use. It is possible that such a line may have to be drawn more clearly at some future time, for example if the responsible authority considers that the activity has become a separate use and has sought an enforcement order. In the meantime, I am saying that prayer meetings within the limitations specified are within the limits of what is ancillary, without attempting to specify those limits and without saying that some exceeding of what is specified would necessarily be beyond those limits.

47 I therefore make a declaration in the following terms:

The conduct or hosting of prayer meetings by Reginald Alphonso and Pyrenne Alphonso at their home at 88 Toirram Crescent, Cranbourne, involving the participation of up to 25 people on a Friday night and on one other occasion per week during the day on a weekday where the duration of each such prayer meeting does not exceed 2 hours and where attendance is by personal invitation and not by a public advertisement and where such prayer meeting activities do not otherwise exceed the concept of ancillary activity being part of the Alphonsos' use of their home as a dwelling, does not require a planning permit under the Casey Planning Scheme.

_________________

RUSSELL BYARD

ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT