Antoine Street Holdings Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council

Issues

1. The Council contends that there are essentially five reasons why the developed application should be refused, namely: 1. the acceptability of the potential acoustic impacts arising from the use of the outdoor play areas for the adjoining residential land uses is a primary concern. And, the Council invites me to consider this issue in the context of its Development Control Plan, in particular: 1. whether the applicant has demonstrated "optimal design" before being permitted to utilise mitigation measures; 2. if optimal design is demonstrated or not required, whether the acoustic treatments and outcome are acceptable; 1. internal arrangements and quality of the centre for the children, in particular, the appropriateness of the daily schedule in the revised Plan of Management (POM), having regard to: 1. whether the time segments allow sufficient uninterrupted play; 2. risk of cross infection; 3. adequacy of staffing and supervision purposes; 4. quality of the simulated spaces for relevant age groups; 5. quality of the outdoor play spaces for relevant age groups e.g. landscaping and encounters with natural elements, play options; not physically connected and therefore size compromised; 6. adequacy of total time allocated for outdoor play; 7. acceptability of ventilation; 1. visual impact of proposed acoustic walls (framed glass); 2. adequacy and acceptability of the proposed landscaping; 3. adequacy and acceptability of the proposed onsite detention (OSD) system; 1. suitability of OSD subfloor of a sensitive use; 2. impact of odours and fumes from ventilation.

The evidence

1. The site is located on the southern side of Antoine Street between Nowill and Sylvia Streets. It has an area of 408.52m2 with a frontage to Antoine Street in the order of 12.2m. There is a public road reserve forming part of Antoine Street, adjacent to the site and the adjoining property at 70 Antoine Street, Rydalmere.
2. The intention is to use the public road reserve as the pickup and drop area for the childcare. Two staff parking spaces are provided in the underground car park below the building, otherwise the parking is on the street.
3. The site is located within an established residential area within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (LEP). To the west of the site is a mixed use premises at 70 Antoine Street also zoned B1 and to the east and south of the site are single storey dwelling houses within the R2 Low Density zone.
4. The aerial photograph below gives some context to the site - it is marked with a red arrow:
5. The development satisfies the definition of a centre-based childcare centre under the LEP and is a permissible use with consent.
6. It is accepted that the development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the B1 Neighbourhood zoning because it falls within the range of small scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of the people who live in the surrounding neighbourhood.
7. However, the Council contends on the evidence of Mr McDonald that the proposal does not meet the relevant aims of the LEP, in particular, cl 1.2(2)(h) because it fails to enhance the amenity and characteristics of established residential areas. Rather, the Council believes that the development will detract from the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area and the approved units above.
8. At par [11] of the planners' joint report (Exhibit 4), Mr McDonald lists the measures mandated by the POM necessary to ameliorate the amenity impacts on the residential apartments within the property, namely:

• restricting the use of the external play areas to a maximum of 2 hours per day and with a limit of 8 children in each of the side and rear play areas at any one time;
• during the 2 hour period, requiring the units above the centre to have all windows and doors to the balcony closed to achieve an adopted noise criteria;
• requiring the units to have mechanical ventilation;
• requiring the units to have special acoustic glazing;
• requiring potential residents to be warned in writing before purchase of the potential for noise impacts from the childcare use in the building;
• outside the specified 2 hours of external play time, restricting the use of the indoor areas of the centre by having the windows and doors closed or part closed (recommendation xv, item c) of Dr Tonin's report, 4 December 2018, p24).

1. These acoustic management measures - introduced to ensure that the development does not "detract from the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area", are in addition to the acoustic fencing also required by the acoustic experts and included in the current version of the plans (Exhibit L). That is, separate to the expected boundary fence of 1.8m around the perimeter of the site, the proposal also includes a narrow strip of landscaping forward of a glass-framed acoustic screen at a height of 2.8 m on the southern boundary with lower portions of the wall openable to allow ventilation and access into the planting space. Inside this double fencing is the 45.5m2 lower outdoor children's play area which is accessed from the podium on the eastern boundary by some stairs and a chair lift.
2. So, effectively you have an adjoining residential property, the boundary fence at 1.8m, the approximately 1m wide planting bed and then the transparent acoustic glass screen at a height of 2.8m on the southern boundary.
3. On the eastern boundary proximate to the outdoor play area on the elevated podium (adjoining the neighbouring dwelling) is the same 1.8 perimeter fence, some planting, lattice structures and a 2.4m transparent acoustic glass wall.
4. Because of the timing of the lodgement of this DA, the State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 (SEPP) and Childcare Planning Guidelines for childcare centres do not apply to this application. The savings provision in Sch 5 cl 1(1) is engaged. Although, by dint of Sch 5, cl 1(2), Part 4 of the Childcare Planning Guidelines must be taken into consideration.
5. In all other respects, the relevant Policy is the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 (DCP). Also relevant, and called up by the DCP are the Education and Care Services National Regulations which specify minimum indoor play areas and outdoor play areas and the Children (Education and Care services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012.
6. The eastern podium where some of the children will engage in outdoor play has an area of 70m2 and the southern lower outdoor play area (in the communal open space for the approved units) as stated already has an area of 45.5m2. These areas accomodate the numerical requirements set out Part 5.2.3.3 of the DCP - and provide an area of 7m2 per child for outdoor play and 3.25m2 for internal play. Although, it is agreed that numerical compliance is dependant upon strict adherence to the scheduled uses for each area prescribed by the revised POM.

Consideration

1. Against this background, I will now address the determinative issues in the proceedings.

Acoustic impacts

1. Putting aside the debate as to whether the applicant has demonstrated "optimal design" and is thereby entitled to utilise the noise mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.2.3.5 of the DCP - Design Principles and Controls, it is the fact that the applicant has attempted to design the centre to minimise noise transmission to the neighbouring residential properties. However, the opportunity to reduce those impacts is, in this case, constrained by the fact that the applicant is trying to "retro fit" a new childcare use into an existing built form. In those circumstances, there are limited opportunities to maximise the separation of buildings and outdoor play spaces. Dr Tonin acknowledged this when he said it is simply not feasible to design features to position external areas to act as a noise barrier because the building shape cannot be changed. Nor is it possible to separate the active outdoor play areas from the façade of any neighbouring premises, as the outdoor play areas, in this case, are directing adjoining residential dwellings to the south and east and above (Units 1, 4 and 6).
2. With these constraints in mind the issue then becomes one of satisfactory mitigation of impacts. Accepting that the design and layout of the centre do not achieve the acoustic criteria specified in Table A10.1 in Appendix A10 of the DCP (Background + 5db), the applicant relies on the "acceptable acoustic solutions" set out in the DCP to mitigate noise impacts. Measures, such as a noise barrier fence - albeit exceeding the 2m height in the DCP on the basis that this is acceptable because this is a sloping site, absorptive surfaces/materials in play areas, mechanical ventilation and fixed windows at the centre and acousticly treated windows at the adjoining residential receptors to minimise noise. The applicant also relies on measures which are explicitly discouraged by the DCP (as stated at [17]) for example; restricting numbers of children in play areas, restricting time periods outside and times of day - staging outdoor activities to reduce numbers (8 children on the podium and 8 children in the rear yard).
3. The Council contends on the expert evidence of Mr Hayden and Mr McDonald and Ms Shepard that the methods incorporated into the proposal to mitigate unacceptable acoustic impacts are unsatisfactory. Furthermore, they demonstrate that this design fails to meet objective 1 in Section 5.2.3.5 - Acoustic and Visual Privacy of the DCP and that the development is unsuitable for this site. For example, these experts are critical of the reliance on noise barrier walls around the eastern and southern boundaries in excess of 2m and up to a height of 2.8m in order to manage noise emissions to the adjoining dwellings on the basis that they will be contrary to the DCP and will be visually oppressive in the existing low density residential environment.
4. Turning now to the apartments above the centre, I understand that the noise levels on the balconies - the private open spaces to some of the apartments within the same residential building will not meet the noise criteria for residential development. They can achieve background plus 10db but not background plus 5db.
5. To address this impact on the residential uses in the same building, the Rezo Tonin and Associates report recommends: "a clear warning shall be included in the sale or lease contracts of units 1, 3, 4, and 6 stating that there a childcare centre in the building and occupants maybe affected by the sound of children when they are in the outdoor play areas."
6. While Dr Tonin clearly acknowledges that the noise impacts on the balconies are non-compliant, he argues that this situation is acceptable from an acoustic amenity perspective because the residents can go inside and close the windows and turn the air conditioning on to avoid it. Mr Harding's response is "don't worry; people are likely to be at work during the day when the exceedances occurs" (2nd planning joint report, 28 March 2019, par [16]). The Council submits that this view overlooks shift works and stay at home mums and dads and in any event is not an acceptable or appropriate response. Based on my observations at the site view, I accept that the locality is a quiet low density residential neighbourhood. There are no proximate noisy main roads. Mr Harding's suggestion that because people live on main roads that the residents in the building should accept the acoustic impacts simply does not apply in this case (2nd planning joint report, 28 March 2019, par [13]).
7. According to Dr Tonin acoustic compliance for the neighbouring properties (including Units 1, 4, 5 and 6 within the building) is only achieved by keeping the children inside the centre and the windows and doors of the centre closed. However, the application does not mandate this restriction it envisages the windows and doors to be at least partly open at times. At those times Dr Tonin accepts that the acoustic measurements recorded against the DCP criteria suggest that the noise exceedances would be considerable (2nd planning joint report).
8. The evidence is that noisy activities - of the same level as outdoor activities, will occur indoors within the multi-purpose play room during group singing and music/movement sessions as part of the childcare programme at the centre. If the windows or doors happen to be open at that time, then there will be unacceptable noise impacts, for example, at the recently approved redevelopment of the adjoining site at No. 70 Antoine Street. These impacts, on previous development consents, according to the Council are a relevant consideration under s 39(4) Land and Environment Court Act 1979.
9. As acknowledged by Dr Tonin, when assessed against the DCP criteria, these impacts are not proposed to be mitigated and the Council's submission is that this gives further support to a refusal of the proposal: MLC Properties v Camden Council (1997) 96 LGERA 52; [1979] NSWLEC 130 at [58]-[59]; Abrams v The Council of the City of Sydney (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 85 at [35]-[36].

Finding

1. Based on the evidence as summarised, it is my considered opinion that the management measures adopted by the applicant unacceptably compromises the amenity of the residential units and dwellings adjoining and the useability of the centre. Plainly stated, it is my view, on the evidence, that the two uses are simply incompatible on this site. The acoustic treatments which the applicant proposes in order to address acoustic impacts are an unacceptable response as they impose unreasonable burdens on the sensitive receptors: Stockland Developments Pty Ltd v Wollongong Council (2004) 139 LGERA 374; [2004] NSWLEC 470 at [6].
2. As the Council submits, it is the acoustic impacts which are the driver of the POM including, most relevantly, the daily schedule set out therein. The POM is offered as a condition and therefore must be assumed to set out the daily programme. The result will necessitate unacceptable childcare services - particularly the very limited and separated outdoor play time. I accept Ms Shepard's assessment that the daily schedule set out in the POM, as demonstrated in the diagrammatic representation, demonstrates fundamental defects with the proposal. For example, although the childcare centre, in an overall or combined sense, meets the minimum numerical standards, the daily programmes confine the children in a way which I accept as Ms Shepard believes, adversely affects their amenity and experiences.
3. Upon arrival between 8am and 8.30 am, there will be 16 children contained in IPA2 and the child area ratio will be 1.8m2 per child. This is the drop off time and as Ms Shepard told the Court, this is an unacceptable space per child given the DCP control requires an area of 3.25m2 per child. Between 9am and 9.30am, 8 children are sent to OPA2 and the child area ratio is 5.625m2 per child. This area falls short of the standard being 7m2 per child and is severed from OPA1. Therefore, although in an overall sense the areas meet the minimum child/area ratio, I accept that this fact is meaningless.
4. The area is, as Ms Shepard said, grossly deficient of space and some children may be in the centre for up to 11 hours per day. Between 3pm and 3.30pm, up to 16 children may be located in IPA2. The child ratio/area is again 1.8m2 per child.
5. To my mind, the above restrictions of movement of the children from arrival and throughout the day in order to achieve some acoustic amenity for the adjoining residents demonstrates the incompatibility of the childcare use in this building on this site. The quality of the areas is inadequate for the reasons outlined by Ms Shepard in her written and oral evidence not the least being the creation of 3 silos (2nd joint planning report, pars [20], [31] and [47]). While I accept that the rotation of children of itself is not an issue however, it must be suitable rotation. I accept Ms Shepard's criticism of the proposed programme, based on her experience with these matters, and accept that the timetable does not allow for long enough periods of uninterrupted play (2nd joint planning report, par [25]). Furthermore, the evidence suggests that the outdoor spaces are of limited utility. I am not satisfied on the evidence that they cater for a variety of experiences outlined in Section 5.2.3.7 of the DCP for the reason articulated by Ms Shepard. Furthermore, I accept the criticism of the landscaping in the rear area which is constrained and in my assessment tokenistic and its viability questionable based on the Council's arboreal evidence.
6. For those reasons, I accept that the acoustic issues raised by this amended application alone demonstrate that the site is not suitable for the proposed use: s 4.15(1)(c).

OSD system contention

1. The childcare centre was originally proposed over the existing OSD subfloor system in the front commercial unit. The Council complained about this and the applicant was given leave to amend its design and reconfigure the area. The amended plans (Exhibit L) now shows the childcare pulled back from the OSD subfloor system behind a 1.2m translucent wall and a white glass balustrade at the street elevation. A fire door is incorporated in the wall but will remain closed except when it is used for emergency exits only.
2. The original childcare 0-2 year old room is now described as a multi-purpose room for active and passive activities for children from 3-5 years and according to the POM, up to 16 children may occupy this area at various times of the day. Assuming the glazing and acoustic seals are in place (in accord with the recommendations of the acoustics experts), it is accepted that the internal noise level generated by children from this area will be inaudible at any residential location including the subject building and the residences in the proposed mixed use building at No. 70 Antoine Street. In short, the noise emissions resulting will achieve compliance with the applicable DCP criteria - (background plus 5 dB) noise criteria (Exhibit 15).
3. In that regard, it is fair to say that the repositioning of the playroom away from the OSD grates/vents together with a requirement for a positive covenant for maintenance and repairs over the OSD facility to ensure regular maintenance goes some way to addressing the concerns expressed by the Council engineer, Mr Gavel, about an OSD facility within the subfloor of a habitable area and sensitive use However, it does not displace his ultimate position that without proper maintenance, there is the potential exposure of rodents/insects and mould/mildew to the children who occupy this area for up to 2.5 hours per day (Exhibit 14 and Tcpt, 14 March 2019, pp 31 (5-50), 32 (5-50)). Furthermore, he does not accept that the replacement of the bi-fold windows with a fixed partitioned wall will necessarily prevent noxious gas and odours from entering from the access grates. In Court, Mr Gravel said that it is the Council's position that the placement of an OSD facility within the subfloor of the habitable area of a childcare centre is deemed as "high risk". He did not accept that the example provided of a previous approval of an OSD within the subfloor of a childcare centre at 47 Dorothy Street, Wentworthville was a valid example or representative of the Council's policy for the appropriate location for a highly sensitive use such as a childcare centre. He said it was not best practice and should not be allowed.
4. Mr El Kouberci for the applicant disagreed. He believes with regular maintenance to avoid silt, rubbish, rodents and insects - as required by the positive covenant, that the location of the OSD under the subfloor of a childcare centre is acceptable. He referred the Court to the Council's recent approval of this consent at Dorothy Street in 2018 as demonstrating the suitability of the location. He also disagreed with Mr Gravel about the emission of odour from the access grates. He told the Court that odours would be unlikely because the rainwater being drained into the OSD will be almost entirely from the roofed areas and thereby clean water. And, with respect to the concern about moisture seeping through the 300mm deep concrete roof slab of an OSD tank into the play area again he said that this was highly unlikely given that the proposed tank is ventilated and only acts as a retention tank for rainwater in major storm events. In cases of frequent and minor storms, the inundation of the OSD system will be limited to the control pit whilst the extended detention will remain dry (Exhibit 14).

Finding

1. The OSD has already been approved and built. The applicant is seeking to retro fit the proposed childcare centre into an existing built environment.
2. The Council's Stormwater Disposal Policy (Exhibit 3) allows for onsite detention for childcare centres and it sets out objectives and principles to inform the selection of the appropriate location and determine whether a site can realise the proposed development potential. In that regard, the Policy aims for the OSD design and the method of discharge to be appropriate to the site and its surroundings and consistent with the Council design requirements. The result being "an urban environment with a high standard of residential amenity and safety". For example, the stormwater management must maintain an appropriate level of safety for persons and property.
3. In this case, Mr Gavel's evidence is that locating the OSD tank in the subfloor of the play area of a child centre falls short of best practice. It is also at odds with the Council's DCP which seeks to promote excellence and best practice in the location and physical design of childcare centre (Exhibit 2, 146 - overall objective 0.1).
4. Accepting that stormwater management is a fundamental component of development which must be considered as early as possible by the proponent in the evolution of projects, one can appreciate Mr Gravel's assessment that the retro fit of the existing OSD in this case is problematic. I accept his expert view based on years of experience that this particular development does not exhibit best practice by locating the OSD beneath the childcare centre.
5. In fact, both engineering experts agreed that regular maintenance is necessary to ensure the OSD facility underneath the childcare will function without odour and unwanted rodents and insects. To that end, they each recommend that I impose a positive covenant to ensure this occurs. And, while Mr El Kouberci was confident that the covenant was the answer, Mr Gable expressed reservations. He said, based on his experience that the imposition of a covenant for maintenance of the OSD system has proved problematic and difficult for the Council to police. With the passage of time and the exchange of ownership, he said that these covenants have diminished understanding and value.
6. Given that we are dealing with a sensitive use which I understand from Mr Gable is deemed "high risk" by the Council, I do not accept that the retro fit of this existing commercial space for up to 16 children 2.5 hours per day over the existing OSD is appropriate. Mr Gable's evidence is that the location of the OSD system within the subfloor of a childcare centre places immediate impact of these issues on the vulnerable children occupying and playing within this space. I accept his expert assessment that the concept of providing and more importantly ensuring regular inspections and maintenance are carried out to the OSD system to ensure the issues raised are addressed are proven to be ineffective. I accept his expert view that the covenant has proved not to create an effective maintenance and repair regime but rather a mechanism after failure for identifying and allocating responsibility.
7. And, while I must assume compliance with the maintenance conditions of a consent, that does not displace the requirement to assess the reasonableness of a mitigation measure offered in any particular case based on the evidence. In that regard, I find no comfort in the fact that Council has approved the Dorothy Street childcare centre or any other childcare with a covenant for maintenance of an OSD. I must assess this application on the evidence today under s 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and decide whether I am satisfied that this childcare centre is placed in an appropriate location whereby the effects of odours and gasses, rodents and insects and mould and mildew are not an immediate and direct result of the terms of the consent.
8. While I accept that the engineering evidence at times was contradictory in the sense that the Council's engineer accepted at one point that the odour and vermin could be controlled by design and appropriate conditions, his final position in Court was that the location of the OSD under this sensitive use was unacceptable. I accept his view on this matter and do not believe it is appropriate to locate this existing OSD system underneath the subfloor of a highly sensitive childcare centre area due to the underlying potential risks and health factors identified by both experts. The applicant relies heavily on the need to impose a positive covenant in order to ensure the ongoing maintenance and the proper functioning of the OSD tank. In the same way that the imposition of restrictive covenants on development consents is inappropriate (Lenland Property Developments Pty Limited v Council of the City of Sydney [2013] NSWLEC 1060 at [17]-[18]), so too is the imposition of a (positive) covenant in this case based on my assessment of both parties evidence. To my thinking it demonstrates that the circumstances are unusual by the need for a covenant and the more appropriate response as the Council submits is to acknowledge the inappropriateness of the location of the OSD.

Internal arrangements and quality of the Centre

1. Because the reconfiguration of the internal area of the centre has reduced the area over the whole of the site, the applicant has reduced the maximum number of children from 20 to 16 and excluded 0-3 year olds. This reduction in numbers is said to avoid debate about compliance with the requisite play area per child.
2. While this change may have avoided that issue it required a further acoustic assessment of noise impacts from the use of this area as a multi-purpose playroom for the adjoining use at No 70. In that regard, Dr Tonin and Mr Haydon analysed the replacement of the bi-fold windows with a solid glass frontage incorporating an emergency door in this front multi-purpose room for passive and active play and found it to be compliant subject to certain stringent restrictions (Exhibit 14).
3. In order to address acoustic impacts for the adjoining residential uses during the scheduled 2 hours of outdoor playtime, the applicant has again followed the recommendations of its acoustic expert, Dr Tonin and incorporated a 2.4m acoustic glass screen along on the eastern boundary and another 2.8m high acoustic screen on the southern boundary in front of a 1m wide landscape strip forward of a 1.8 perimeter boundary fence.
4. Additionally, the proposal will also provide acoustic window treatment and air conditioning to the most affected residential units above the centre. Furthermore, a revised plan of management has been proposed as a condition of consent which mandates a daily schedule for movement of children to meet child/area ratios and playtime and agreed acoustic noise constraints. A platform lift has been incorporated into the stairs area to address disability access to the rear lower outdoor play area and a ramp is now provided at the street frontage entry.
5. These changes, whilst necessary, do not overcome the Council's primary concern that this site is simply not suitable for the proposed use. It is not a preferred location for a childcare centre - as discussed in Part 5.2 of the DCP. And, because "optimal design" is not demonstrated or achieved in accord with the DCP provisions, the Council maintains that the mitigation measures discussed in the DCP - and now proposed in the amended application to address the unacceptable acoustic impacts, are simply unavailable. That is, the unacceptable noise impacts cannot be treated and minimised by keeping the children inside (except for a short period of 2 hours each day). Nor is it appropriate or reasonable to rely on air conditioners and noise attenuated glazing to overcome unacceptable acoustic impacts. The Council believes that the noise impacts in this instance should be addressed at the noise source not the noise receptor. The Council also believes that the acoustic walls required to ameliorate the noise impacts of outdoor play areas fail a planning merit assessment and the acoustic impacts and constraints of the site more generally compromise the quality of the childcare offered by the proposal and demonstrate that the proposed use is not suitable for the site.

Finding

1. On balance, I am not satisfied as required by s 4.15(1)(c) of the EPA Act that the site is suitable for this development.
2. In this case, the evidence supports a finding that the noise impacts dictate compromised childcare facilities and services at odds with the Council's planning controls.
3. I accept the expert evidence about the oppressive nature of the proposed acoustic walls. Not only will these acoustic walls be out of character in the residental area adjoining the site but in my assessment they will read as a jarring feature in that landscape. Although described as clear/transparent acoustic walls up to a height of 2.8m, located inside a 1.8m boundary fence, on a relatively small site, I believe that they will be highly visible as I am not convinced that the proposed landscaping on the lattice or in the narrow garden bed at the rear boundary will grow to satisfactorily soften these uncharacteristic elements. In that regard, the rear garden bed is very narrow and the Council's landscape expert believes the proposed species of plants will not grow particularly well, if at all, given the restricted width of the area between the fence and acoustic wall, the level of ventilation and the awkward access arrangement for maintenance through an opening in the acoustic wall. I understand that the children will be encouraged to explore this area and use the bike track during outdoor play and I do not believe that these acoustic walls towering over them whilst at play area will be a visually attractive feature of the environment.
4. The rear yard may be sufficient in area to comply with a checklist of numerical controls but, in my assessment, its configuration below a looming glass acoustic wall falls well short of an acceptable outdoor play area for 8 children for up to 2 hours per day for the reasons outlined by Ms Shepard in her oral and written evidence.
5. Without needing to repeat the evidence, as summarised, I am not convinced that the proposal is suitable for this site on several bases and therefore the development consent must be refused and the appeal dismissed .

Orders

1. Accordingly, the Court orders that: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The exhibits are returned except for Exhibits 1 and L.

Amendments 17 July 2019 - Correction to typographical error at [41]. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 17 July 2019