2. The Break O'Day Council is directed to issue a permit for DA 2024/00245 according with these orders within 14 days.

3. Any application for an order for costs in the appeal is to be made in writing with supporting submissions within 21 days. If no application is so filed each party is to bear their own costs.

Resource and planning - Planning appeal - Telecommunications tower - Building height - visual amenity - Whether cl C5.6.1A2 of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme is inconsistent with and prevails over cl 26.4.1A1

Clarence City Council v Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal [2018] TASSC 41;

Refrigerated Express Lines (A/asia) Pty Ltd v Australian Meat & Livestock Corporation (No 2) [1980] FCA 38; (1980) 44 FLR 455;

Tabart v Central Coast Council [2024] TASCAT 178; Marching Ants (Tas) Pty Ltd v Launceston City Council & Ors [2021] TASRMPAT;

No Turbine Action Group Inc v Central Highlands Council [2025] TASCAT 162;

Mt Wellington Cableway Company Pty Ltd v Hobart City Council & Ors [2022] TASCAT 128;

Meander Valley Council v Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal [2013] TASSC 42 [10]

1. The appellant has appealed a decision by the Break O'Day Council to refuse a permit for a telecommunications tower proposed to be developed in the town of St Helens.

1. The proposal is for the installation of a 25m monopole telecommunications tower. The tower would include a headframe at 25m, on which would be installed 9 panel antennas. The overall height of the proposal would be 26.3m. The proposal includes an outdoor equipment shelter installed on concrete piers adjacent to the base of the monopole and some associated works.
2. The site for the proposal is in the town centre of St Helens and has a total area of 607m². An existing Telstra telecommunications exchange building is located on the site.
3. The site falls within the Tasmanian Planning Scheme - Break O'Day (the Scheme).
4. The site, together with parts of the adjoining road reserves, is zoned Utilities under cl 26.0 of the Scheme. The zoning reflects the historical use of the site by Telstra. The land to the north, east and south of the site is zoned General Business under cl 15 of the Scheme. The land to the west of the site is zoned General Residential under cl 8.

1. The grounds of appeal are extensive, but the appeal proceeded as a response to the Council's grounds of refusal, which were that the proposal would not comply with either of:

(a) the performance criterion P1(b) of cl 26.4.1 of the Scheme; or

(b) the performance criterion P1.1 of cl C5.6.1 of the Scheme.

1. Clause 26.4.1 regulates building height and provides:

(b) minimises adverse impacts on adjoining properties and the visual character of the area.

(b) 15m if for a structure, such as a tower, pole or similar.

(a) be necessary for the operation of the use and not cause unreasonable impact on adjoining properties, having regard to:

(ii) separation from existing buildings on adjoining properties; and

(iii) any buffers created by natural or other features; and

(b) not unreasonably impact on the visual character of the area, having regard to:

(iii) visibility from adjoining roads and public open space.

1. It was common ground that the proposal would not satisfy the acceptable solution A1 of cl 26.4.1. The appellant's primary position was that cl 26.4.1 does not apply to the proposal, but its secondary position was that if it did then the proposal would satisfy P1.

1. Clause C5.6.1 is within the Telecommunications Code (the Code) in the Scheme and deals with visual amenity. It provides:

That facilities do not cause an unreasonable loss of visual amenity.

Facilities located within existing utility corridors or on sites with existing facilities, must not cause an unreasonable loss of visual amenity, having regard to:

(ii) conceal facilities within the surrounding natural or built environment;

(c) the need to minimise clearing of vegetation; and

(d) functional and safety requirements to establish, operate and maintain facilities.

1. As cl C5.6.1 contains no acceptable solution the proposal must comply with the performance criterion P1.1.

Does the proposal fall for assessment against cl 26.4.1 A1

1. The appellant contended that cl 26.4.1 A1 is inconsistent with the acceptable solution in cl C5.6.1 A2, in the Code, which relevantly provides in A2(a) that:

Building height of freestanding towers must not be more than ... 30m in the ... Utilities Zone.

2. The proposal has a height of less than 30m and so satisfies A2 of cl C5.6.1. The appellant argued that cl C5.6.1 A2 prevails over cl 26.4.1 A1, and that the proposal therefore does not fall for assessment under cl 26.4.1 A1.
3. Clause 5.5 of the Scheme deals with the operation of codes:

5.5 Operation of Codes > > 5.5.1 The codes identify areas of land or planning issues which require compliance with additional provisions. > > 5.5.2 Codes set out provisions for: (a) particular types of use or development that may apply to land in one or more zones; and (b) matters that affect land that are not appropriately described by zone boundaries. > > 5.5.3 Where there is an inconsistency between a provision in a code and a provision in a zone, the code provision prevails. > > 5.5.4 An inconsistency between a provision of a code and a provision of a zone does not exist if a code requires compliance with standards additional to those that apply within a zone. > > 5.5.5 The requirements and structure for code overlay maps and lists in the Local Provisions Schedules are set out in clause LP1.0 and Appendix A

4. Clause 5.5.3 expressly provides that where there is an inconsistency between a provision in a code and a provision in a zone the code provision prevails. The appellant contends that there is such an inconsistency between cl C5.6.1 A2 in the Code and cl 26.4.1 A1 in the Utilities Zone.
5. Clause 26.4.1 regulates building height generally. The acceptable solution A1(b) provides a maximum height of "15m if for a structure, such as a tower, pole or similar". 'Tower' is not defined for the purposes of A1(b).
6. In respect to the Code, cl C5.3.1 defines 'tower' as:

Means a tower, pole, mast or similar structure used to supply a carriage service by means of telecommunication.

7. The proposal falls within the definition of tower in cl C5.3.1. What is a tower for the purposes of the Code is narrower than what may be a tower as a structure for the purposes of cl 26.4.1 A1(b). A tower within cl C5.6.1 A2 must be a structure used for telecommunications and all towers falling within A2 must be telecommunication towers. However, while a telecommunications tower will be a tower for the purposes of cl 26.4.1 A1(b), not all towers falling within A1(b) will be telecommunications towers.
8. The appellant contends that there is an inconsistency between the two standards as they both provide acceptable solutions for the height of a tower, but the acceptable solutions provide for different heights. Clause C5.6.1 A2 provides an acceptable height for a freestanding telecommunications tower, but if it is applicable cl 26.4.1 A1 provides a different acceptable height for the tower. The two standards are inconsistent in that the proposal will satisfy one standard in respect to height, but not satisfy the other.
9. The Council points to cl 5.5.4 which provides that an inconsistency does not exist if a code requires compliance with standards additional to those that apply within a zone. In this context additional must mean that the code provision adds something extra or supplementary or more stringent, not simply a separate test. A comparison between the acceptable solutions shows that the acceptable solution in the code does not add anything extra or supplementary or more stringent. If a tower satisfies the acceptable solution for height of not more than 15m in cl 26.4.1 A1 it will also necessarily satisfy the acceptable solution of not more than 30m in cl C5.6.1 A2(a).
10. The Scheme is a performance based planning scheme that distils planning objectives and principles into standards defined by acceptable solutions and performance criteria: Clarence City Council v Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal [2018] TASSC 41 at [56].
11. Generally, acceptable solutions are quantitative standards, which if not met usually have associated performance criteria which involve qualitative assessment. The performance criteria in cl 26.4.1 P1 and cl C5.6.1 P2 both deal with visual impact, but by reference to different areas and with some different matters to be had regard to. It may be that in considering the performance criteria the Code adds additional standards, however that comparison is not invoked in this case as the performance criterion in the Code is not triggered by the proposal, which meets the acceptable solution in cl C5.6.1 A2(a).
12. The application of cl 5.5.3 and the narrower and more specific application of cl C5.6.1 A2(a) to the height of telecommunication towers compared to structures generally in cl 26.4.1 A1 indicate that the Scheme does not intend that a telecommunications tower is to be governed by overlapping and conflicting standards regulating height and that the specific provision in the Code should prevail: for an example of a modern application of the principal that where there as a conflict between a general provision and a more specific provision the specific prevails see Refrigerated Express Lines (A/asia) Pty Ltd v Australian Meat & Livestock Corporation (No 2) [1980] FCA 38; (1980) 44 FLR 455 at 467-468.
13. The Council points to the Tribunal's decision in Tabart v Central Coast Council [2024] TASCAT 178 where an application for retrospective approval of communication towers was assessed against both of the equivalent standards to cl 26.4.1 and cl C5.6.1 in the Inner Residential Zone of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme. The issue of inconsistency was not raised by any party in that case and so was not argued or considered by the Tribunal. Accordingly, it is not authority to the contrary of the conclusion we have reached.
14. We are therefore satisfied that the proposal meets the acceptable standard in cl C5.6.1 A2(a) in respect to building height and that it does not fall to be assessed against the standard in cl 26.4.1 A1.
15. Notwithstanding that conclusion, in the event that we are wrong in respect to the law we will proceed with an assessment of the proposal against cl 26.4.1 P1.

1. The performance criterion in cl 26.4.1 P1 contains two parts, (a) and (b).
2. P1(a) was not in issue on the appeal.
3. P1(b) requires that the proposal not unreasonably impact on the visual character of the area having regard to:

(i) the topography of the site:

(ii) any existing vegetation; and

(iii) visibility from adjoining roads and public open space.

1. In respect to what might amount to 'unreasonable impact', in Marching Ants (Tas) Pty Ltd v Launceston City Council & Ors [2021] TASRMPAT 1 at [25] the former Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal considered that the ordinary meaning of impact was "to have a marked effect on, which suggests a conspicuous effect".
2. The use of 'unreasonably' to qualify 'impact' contemplates that some degree of impact on visual character will be acceptable and permissible. In No Turbine Action Group Inc v Central Highlands Council [2025] TASCAT 162 at [34] the Tribunal said:

The use of the adjective 'unreasonable' indicates that P1 contemplates that a reasonable degree of impact is to be tolerated. Unreasonableness is to be determined objectively and is a question of impression and degree and is to be assessed by reference to the particular circumstances of a given case: Tucker v State of Victoria [No 2] [2021] VSCA 182 [32]. The standard of reasonableness is to be determined by interpretation of the Scheme applying the ordinary approach to construction: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18 [67]. As noted in respect to the approach to 'necessary', the zone purpose statements will provide context for the assessment, as will the objective of cl 20.4.1, which includes to provide for a building height that "minimises adverse impacts on adjoining properties".

3. As observed by the Tribunal, the zone purpose statements and objectives of the standard will provide context for the assessment of what might be unreasonable impact. The zone purpose of the Utilities Zone is set out in cl 26.1:

26.1 Zone Purpose > > The purpose of the Utilities Zone is: > > 26.1.1 To provide land for major utilities installations and corridors. > > 26.1.2 To provide for other compatible uses where they do not adversely impact on the utility.

4. The zone purpose on its face gives primacy to the operation of utilities, but needs to be considered in the context that it is not unusual, as in this case, for land zoned Utilities to be relatively small and discrete areas within a broader area which is differently zoned. The objective in cl 26.4.1 essentially reflects the standard, which adds little by way of assistance as to what might be an unreasonable impact.
5. The nature and extent of impact to be assessed under cl 26.4.1 P1 is that which is derived from building height.
6. 'Visual character' is not defined in the scheme. The Council referred the Tribunal to the decision in Mt Wellington Cableway Company Pty Ltd v Hobart City Council & Ors [2022] TASCAT 128 at [272]. In considering the undefined term 'visual character' in the Wellington Park Management Plan the Tribunal said that based on the assessments of the experts in that case "it might be regarded as the overall impression created by the scale and combination of visual aspects and features in the landscape".
7. The impact is to be considered having regard to the visual character of the area. The Scheme does not define the extent of the area to be considered. The Council called evidence from an expert planner, Ms Deb Szekely. In considering the area for the purposes of the assessment Ms Szekely had regard to the area around the site in which the proposal would be expected to be visible in terms of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and where that visibility would have a measure of impact. She considered that the relevant area identified by her is highly influenced by land use, both in terms of the local community and visitors, and access routes providing vehicular and pedestrian movements.
8. The appellant also led evidence from a planning expert, Mr Frazer Read. Mr Read did not expressly set out his approach to identification of the surrounding area, as he did not consider that there was an identifiable boundary, but he considered that land within a radius of 200m provided an appropriate and practical extent for the assessment, and his assessment area was essentially consistent with that of Ms Szekely.
9. Ms Szekely summarised the visual area as one of low-rise buildings of various design with associated infrastructure, such as power lines, at a height normally experienced in a township. There is a degree of variation in terms of building design, but conformity in terms of a broad view of building height, bulk and form. Ms Szekely considered that the visual character of the area in the vicinity of the site is best described as mixed commercial, catering to the needs of the business community and its customers and to the residential and visitor community of St Helens. She considered that the visual character quickly transitions to one expected of a residential area. She considered the visual character to be quite diverse in terms of infrastructure, building type and landscaping. She considered that the low-rise building characteristics of the area are a noticeable common feature, with St Helens having only a few tall buildings with no structure exceeding two-storeys. She said that, in terms of visual character this provided an aspect of uniformity and commonality in terms of building height and bulk, and in how that presented visually against the skyline. That visual character is informed by the grid street pattern in the area, such that the visual character is fairly orderly and uniform with shop frontages presenting to the street in pedestrian corridors. Ms Szekely considered that the height of the proposal would provide an extreme and intrusive contrast to the flat topography and broadly uniform low-rise building structure.
10. Mr Read described the visual character of the area surrounding the site as mixed with a clear distinction between the commercial utility-focussed uses to the east, north and south and the residential character to the west. To the west the character transitions to a residential zone comprising predominantly single storey detached dwellings with traditional setbacks and garden frontages. He considered that the area is visually and functionally separated from the site by a street and intervening footpath and verge, including power poles, street trees and fencing. Mr Read observed that the site and surrounding landform are generally flat such that there is no natural screening or elevated relief to obscure views of the proposal, but said that it would not be visually prominent in the landscape, as it would not be situated on or near a ridge line, escarpment or elevated point that would place the structure against the skyline or disrupt key view-lines. He said that the site is not located within or adjacent to view corridors towards the coast. He considered that it would be read as part of the existing built form of the town rather than as an intrusive element in a sensitive natural or scenic landscape. Mr Read observed that the proposal would be visible from locations in the nearby streets, particularly those close to the site, but that those views would occur in the context of an urbanised streetscape that includes commercial buildings, carparks, street lighting, power poles and the existing Telstra exchange infrastructure. He considered that the slim, vertical form and dull grey finish of the tower would reduce its visual prominence by minimising contrast with the sky and surrounding built elements.
11. Mr Christopher Goss, an expert in visual impact assessment, was called by the Council to provide photomontages and an assessment of visual impact. Mr Goss applied a quite complex method of assessment. In respect to the magnitude of change, reflecting the extent and impact of an alteration on the landscape, he found that the effect of the proposal would be, at worst, moderate from three key observation points that he identified. His evidence explained that 'moderate' in this context indicated a noticeable alteration of the landscape character which is visible and affects a moderate area, is likely to be noticed by many viewers and which may be for the medium term or reversible. He undertook a quantitative evaluation from the key observation points and found that the visual compatibility of the proposed built form was satisfactory. He then undertook a qualitative evaluation and concluded that despite that quantitative compliance the proposal would have an unreasonable impact on the visual character of St Helens. In this regard his consideration included the relatively flat topography of the township, the siting of the proposal, with no significant existing local vertical elements, and the design of the proposal, particularly the headframe of the proposed tower.
12. Mr Hayden Burge, a visual impact expert, was called by the appellant. Mr Burge provided photomontages from three observation points, together with wireframe images. There was disagreement between the parties as to which experts' photomontages were more accurate. Mr Burge and Mr Goss both selected view points within about a radius of about 200m of the site, but the observation points used by each expert were different. The dispute as to accuracy related to fine points of methodology and presentation. We accept the photomontages of both Mr Goss and Mr Burge as reasonable visual representations of the proposal and useful in the assessment.
13. Mr Burge also undertook an assessment of visual impact. His approach was simpler than the formulaic assessment by Mr Goss. Mr Burge assessed the proposal having regard to physical change, permanency of change, visibility, distance, duration of view, landscape character and sensitivity, and viewer numbers. He had regard to the low-lying topography of the site, the location of the proposed tower, surrounding areas of public open space, views from the surrounding road network and from local business. He had regard to light poles, power poles and flag poles within the area. He concluded that the siting and design of the proposal would contribute to a visual impact, but that it would not result in an unreasonable loss of visual amenity. He considered that the proposed height of the tower would not have an unreasonable impact on the visual character of the area.
14. Using the photomontages prepared by both Mr Burge and Mr Goss, we are satisfied that it is possible to discern from them the relevant impacts of the proposal. We prefer Mr Burge's evidence as to impact. His opinion was based on a series of visual character considerations and his assessment was straight forward and direct, explaining his conclusion that the area is not visually sensitive to change. Mr Goss limited his assessment to viewpoints only to the north of the site and his quantitative and qualitative assessment was unnecessarily complicated. He purported to rely on authorities that were inaccurate or irrelevant. He also included reference to material which was outside the scope of his expertise, such as evidence going on neurological responses to visual characteristics, that was excluded on the basis that he was not an expert in those matters. He also included material which was of uncertain relevance, for example reference to a manual for forest landscape management. At a cursory glance those matters provided a gloss of scientific technique that was not born out by closer analysis.
15. The descriptions of the existing visual character given by Ms Szekely, Mr Burge and Mr Read are generally consistent, describing a mixed character of commercial and residential development that has a broad low-rise uniformity of height in flat low-lying topography with limited vegetation and with any elevated natural features being in the distance.
16. Clause 26.4.1 P1(b) requires that we have regard to three matters in considering the test of impact on visual character:

(i) the topography of the site;

(ii) any existing vegetation; and

(iii) visibility from adjoining roads and public open space.

1. In respect to P1(b)(i), the topography is flat. As noted below, height is a necessary feature for the function of the proposed tower. The most scenic views in the area are toward the St Helens waterfront and Georges Bay. The tower would not have a significant effect on those scenic views. As Mr Burge explained, the built form within the flat topography will confine views of the proposal to close range. Longer views would be afforded along roadways or across surface car parks, but those views would be through, or include, the existing higher elements of powerlines and poles along the road edges.
2. In respect to P1(b)(ii), existing vegetation is limited in the area, which is largely paved. There is a row of mature trees along the southern boundary of the site, which will provide some screening of the lower part of the tower from the adjoining property. Mr Read identified vegetation within the street verge and trees in an adjacent street that he said would soften views of the lower part of the tower from public vantage points. None of that vegetation will be disturbed by the proposal.
3. The consideration in respect to P1(b)(iii) is in respect to adjoining roads. 'Adjoining' is defined in table 3.1 of the Scheme as "means next to, or having a common boundary with". Public open space is defined in the table as "means land for public recreation or public gardens or for similar purposes".
4. The relevant roads were agreed by Ms Szekely and Mr Read as being Bowen Street and Quail Street. Mr Read considered that the adjective 'adjoining' qualified both roads and public open space, and observed that here was no adjoining public open space. The logic advanced by the appellant as to this is that it would make no sense for 'adjoining' to qualify roads but leave public open space at large. The counter argument is that the ambit for consideration is limited by the standard to the relevant area, and that people might linger in areas of public open space and so experience a greater effect on visual character than they might in travelling on a road. It is not necessary to determine this point, given our conclusion on taking a conservative approach and having regard to the most significant area of non-adjoining public open space described in the evidence, being Portland Memorial Park, is that the standard is satisfied. Portland Memorial Park is approximately 75m south-east of the site. Ms Szekely also identified the Georges Bay Foreshore as a relevant area of public open space, but it is quite distant from the site. Views experienced by pedestrian and road traffic would be of short duration. From Portland Memorial Park the base of the proposed tower would be screened by existing buildings. The upper part of the tower would be visible from the park, but it will be seen in the context of the surrounding built form and existing light poles in the area and flag poles in the Park.
5. Although the tower will be visually prominent in some views due to its height and limited capacity for visual absorption, we do not consider the impact is unreasonable in all the circumstances. The setting is not visually sensitive to change, the landscape is highly modified, and the tower's height will be mitigated by the existing pole and wire infrastructure and by the hills surrounding St Helens as a background visual feature.

1. The test in P1.1 of cl C5.6.1 differs from that in cl 26.4.1 P1 in that it considers whether there is an unreasonable loss of visual amenity rather than an unreasonable impact on the visual character of the area.
2. Amenity is defined in table 3.1 of the Scheme as:

Means, in relation to a locality, place or building, any quality, condition or factor that makes or contributes to the making of the locality, place or building harmonious, pleasant or enjoyable".

3. 'Visual amenity' is not separately defined. The Council submitted that the relevant consideration is in respect to factors of amenity that can be appreciated visually. Mr Read described visual amenity as including those qualities of the site and surrounds that relate specifically to visual form, scale, spatial composition, contrast, and the character of landscape or built features, as perceived from both public and private vantage points. We would add that those qualities are relevant insofar as they make or contribute to making the locality or place harmonious, pleasant or enjoyable.
4. The standard does not identify the relevant area within which visual amenity is to be considered. Ms Szekely and Mr Read did not identify areas different to those used by them for the assessment of visual character.
5. In respect to existing visual amenity Ms Szekely observed that the surrounding area is a mix of commercial, urbanised and residential use with associated infrastructure including roads, footpaths, carparks and electrical and lighting infrastructure and mixed types of buildings ranging from single-storey to double-storey. She noted that the site is close to the commercial hub of St Helens where the active frontages promote pedestrian experiences that are dependent on positive visual amenity. Ms Szekely extended her assessment beyond that which might be considered as visual amenity to matters or activities of broader amenity, such as weekend markets, live music venues, restaurants and cafes, and higher traffic intersections. While those matters may be relevant to the amenity of the area generally, it is not immediately apparent how they are elements of visual amenity.
6. Mr Read had regard to the appearance of the locality as a low-rise functional townscape with largely single-storey retail and service buildings, surface carparks and existing utility infrastructure, with limited landscaping and a visual environment defined more by hardstand, signage and utility elements than by vegetation or urban design features. He described the viewer experience as already influenced by vertical infrastructure such as poles, wires, lighting column and signage.
7. The matters that the standard requires that we have regard to focus on the site and the proposal rather than the broader considerations of topography and visibility from roads and public open space:

(ii) conceal facilities within the surrounding natural or built environment;

(c) the need to minimise clearing of vegetation; and

(d) functional and safety requirements to establish, operate and maintain facilities.

1. Having regard to the first of those matters, the telecommunications tower will be located in the southeastern corner of the site, setback from the road frontages and positioned behind the existing exchange building. The tower itself will be of a slim design finished in a neutral grey tone that will be visually recessive in the location. The area contains existing vertical structures such as power poles and street lighting.
2. In respect to best practice methods to reduce or conceal visual impact, the proposal will be co-located on the site of an existing telecommunications facility. The use of a monopole will minimise bulk and scale.
3. The proposal will not require any vegetation clearing or disturbance to vegetated areas.
4. In respect to functional and safety requirements, the appellant called evidence from Mr Ramesh Perera, an engineer employed by Telstra. Mr Perera's evidence was that the height and configuration of the tower is the minimum required to reasonably provide reliable telecommunication coverage and capacity to the St Helens area. Mr Perera's evidence was not contradicted by any other expert opinion. No issues in respect to safety requirements were raised.
5. We have had regard to these matters and to the matters discussed above in respect to the visual impact of the proposal. The existing visual amenity reflects the existing infrastructure and the developed commercial centre of St Helens. For the reasons outline above the proposal will not be unreasonably visually intrusive. We are satisfied that that the proposal will not cause an unreasonable loss of visual amenity.

1. The decision to refuse a permit should be set aside and replaced with a decision to grant a permit.
2. It is usual for conditions to be imposed on the grant of a planning permit. The decision in respect to the grant of a permit and the conditions to apply are components of a single process: Meander Valley Council v Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal [2013] TASSC 42 [10].
3. The Council provided draft conditions. The joint statement of agreed facts as between Mr Read and Ms Szekely addressed the conditions and they agreed that they are satisfactory although Mr Read expressed some concern relating to a landscaping condition, which was not advanced at the hearing. The appellant made no submissions that the conditions should be in any different terms to those prepared by the Council. On their face they appear reasonable and within power.
4. Accordingly:
   1. The decision of the Break O'Day Council to refuse a permit for development application DA 2024/00245 is set aside and substituted with a decision to grant a permit subject to the conditions of approval annexed to the Statement Between Planning Experts by Deb Szekely and Frazer Read dated 4 August 2025.
   2. The Break O'Day Council is directed to issue a permit for DA 2024/00245 according with these orders within 14 days.
   3. Any application for an order for costs in the appeal is to be made in writing with supporting submissions within 21 days. If no application is so filed each party is to bear their own costs.