Ayache v Bayside Council

The proposal

1. The development proposal now involves demolition of existing structures and construction of a 6 storey mixed use development containing two levels of basement parking, three commercial tenancies and 18 apartments. Part of the residential component of the building would be affordable housing pursuant to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP ARH).

Background

1. The site is located in an area that was the subject of a recent Planning Proposal that amended the zoning of land from R2 Low Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use and increased the maximum building height and floor space ratios that applied to the land. The amendment made to the plan, Amendment 18 took effect on 4 May 2018 and applied to land bounded by Kingsland Road South, Abercorn Street and Stoney Creek Road, Bexley.

The issues

1. The contentions in the case are the appropriateness of the design of the proposed building; streetscape, setbacks, bulk and scale; separation of commercial and residential uses; apartment amenity; impact on adjoining properties; site isolation; impact on future development pattern and inadequacy of information.

The planning controls

1. The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use pursuant to the provisions of Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011 (LEP). The aims of the B4 zone are: • To provide a mixture of compatible land uses. • To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.
2. Clause 4.3 of the LEP applies to Height of Buildings. The maximum permissible building height on the site is 16m as identified on the Height of Buildings map. However, pursuant to the provisions of clause 4.3 (2A)(j), the height of a building may exceed the maximum height shown for the land on a lot having an area of at least 800m2. As the site is 812m2 the provisions of that clause allow a building height of 19m.
3. Similar provisions apply to the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard in clause 4.4(2)(C). A maximum FSR of 2:1 applies in the B4 zone unless the site has an area of at least 800m2 where the floor space ratio for a building may exceed the maximum floor space ratio allowed by up to 0.5:1. This would allow a FSR of up to 2.5:1 on the site as it has an area in excess of 800m2.
4. Clause 4.6(8) is in the following form: 4.6 Exceptions to development standards … (8) This clause does not allow development consent to be granted for development that would contravene any of the following - (a) a development standard for complying development, (b) a development standard that arises, under the regulations under the Act, in connection with a commitment set out in a BASIX certificate for a building to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies or for the land on which such a building is situated, (c) clause 5.4, (ca) clause 4.3 (2A), 4.4 (2A), (2B), (2C) or (2D), unless it is for a demonstrable public benefit, such as the provision of pedestrian links, (cb) clause 4.3A, (cc) clause 7.1 or 7.2.
5. The effect of that clause is that, in the event that the development exceeds either the maximum FSR of height of building or both, development consent cannot be granted and the discretion under clause 4.6(2) to vary those development standards does not apply.
6. Other relevant clauses in the LEP are 6.1 Acid Sulfate soils, 6.2 Earthworks, 6.5 Airspace operations and 6.7 Stormwater however, no contentions are raised with regard to these provisions.
7. The application was made under the provisions of SEPP ARH specifically under Division 1 as In-fill affordable housing. Clause 13(2) of that policy provides for additional floor space under certain circumstances and the applicant proposes to utilise the provisions of subclause 13(2)(a)(ii) which is in the following form: 13 Floor Space Ratios … The maximum floor space ratio for the development to which this clause applies is the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land on which the development is to occur, plus - … (ii) Y:1 - if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing is less than 50 per cent, where - AH is the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing. Y = AH ÷ 100 …
8. The issue of floor space is discussed later in the Judgment.
9. Clause 14 of SEPP ARH details standards that cannot be used to refuse consent and clause 15 establishes design requirements that the consent authority must have regard to when considering whether to grant consent. In this case, the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) have to be taken into consideration. Clause 16A also requires that consent is not to be granted unless the consent authority has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area. Clause 17 of SEPP ARH requires that a condition must be imposed to the effect that, for 10 years all dwelling proposed to be used for the purposes of affordable housing will be used for that purpose and the accommodation is managed by a registered community housing provider. This matter is also discussed further in the Judgment under the considerations of FSR.
10. As SEPP 65 is a policy which must be considered, the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) must also be taken into consideration in determination of the application.
11. Rockdale Development Control Plan 2011 (DCP) applies to the site and in particular, the provisions of Part 4 General Principles for Development and Part 5 Building Types.

The evidence

1. Expert evidence was heard from: Applicant Council Building certifiers Mr M Tatian Mr P Cox Town Planners Mr A Betros Ms K Gordon Urban Design Mr G Bonus Ms G Morrish

Building Code of Australia

1. The Council contended that the development as proposed did not satisfactorily consider egress from the building and, that if this issue was not resolved at the development application stage, a certifier may be required to make substantial and significant changes to the building that would impact on the ground floor layout, streetscape and design of the building.
2. Mr Tatian confirmed that the proposal did not comply with the Deemed to Satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and prepared plans that detailed a Performance Solution which he says meets the objectives of the controls. The controls relate to egress from the basement and ground floor levels of the building and to garbage areas. The plans accompany his expert report, Exhibit C.
3. Mr Tatian says that whilst a full hydraulic assessment of the water supply in the area and design was required he was certain that, because other aspects of the building design required the building must be sprinklered, the provision of airlocks within both basement levels and the ground floor corridor would satisfactorily address the requirements of Parts D1.2 and DP4 and D1.7 and DP5 and EP2.2 of the BCA. He says specific details of design for the building and services from the Performance Solution for the Deemed to Satisfy departures would be detailed after a comprehensive fire engineering assessment is completed. The Performance Solution will be developed as part of the on-going design and development process.
4. Mr Cox was not satisfied and considered that a more detailed design would be required to allow proper assessment of the matter however he did confirm that the BCA did contemplate use of airlocks in particular circumstances to address these provisions. He says that because it is a prescribed condition of consent 'that work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia', the current plans should not be approved and further design should occur so that significant modifications are not made to the design of the building to make it safe.

Town Planning

1. At the commencement of their evidence, the planners had agreed that the proposed gross floor area of the proposed development was 2,214m2. On that basis, and pursuant to the provisions of clauses 4.4(2)(c) of the LEP and 13(2)(a)(ii) of SEPP ARH depending on the amount of affordable housing included in the development, a greater FSR is allowed, however, the gross floor area exceeded the maximum allowed under that policy. It is determined by the percentage of gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing when less than 50 percent. The applicant sought and was granted leave to amend the plans to include an additional unit as affordable housing to comply with these provisions and now the application includes 5 units as affordable housing, units 1, 2, 3, 7 and 15. It is common ground that those plans, Exhibit G comply with the permissible FSR under the terms of SEPP ARH. The proposed development has a gross floor area of 2,203m2 and a FSR of 2.713:1. If consent was granted, conditions reflecting the 10 year use of those units as affordable housing must be imposed.
2. In terms of building height, whilst not a specific contention in the case, the council did, in its Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions filed on 24 March 2020, include in contention 9, addressing inconsistent and insufficient documentation, at j and m, the issue of building height. At that time there was a focus on the height of the lift overrun and the ability to accommodate necessary services within the slabs and achieve the required floor to ceiling heights. The contention did address the inability to determine height of the lift overrun and hence the development and also required clarification of slab thicknesses and services. It was also a matter considered by the planning experts in their Joint Report, Exhibit 6.
3. It is unfortunate, that there was not a requirement for a further amended Statement of Facts and Contentions and supplementary joint expert reports to be filed when leave was granted on 19 May 2020 to the applicant to rely on the plans before the Court, the Revision K plans contained in Exhibit A. Accordingly, a number of issues arose during the hearing that may have been capable of resolution prior.
4. The applicant, on the second day of the hearing, sought leave to rely on further amended plans in an attempt to address this issue and a number of other areas that arose during the first day of the hearing. Those plans did more than clarify building height and because they amended the building layout, this required detailed assessment by the Council's experts. Accordingly, leave was not granted as this could not have occurred in the time allocated to the hearing and the issue of building height had been raised in the Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions.
5. Ms Gordon says the building height exceeds the 19m maximum in the north western corner of proposed unit 16. Mr Betros says this could be addressed through a condition of consent requiring reduction in floor to ceiling height within the kitchen/dining area of that unit and cutting back the awning above the balcony, thereby achieving good amenity despite not meeting the ADG's recommended floor to ceiling height. Ms Gordon says that would compromise the amenity of the unit. She also questions the ability to build the roof structure as shown on the plans and accommodate necessary services, roof drainage and provide a parapet, a structure not detailed on the plans before the Court.
6. The experts agree that the provision of three commercial suites on the ground floor has better addressed the Council's contention regarding suitability of uses. However, Ms Gordon says the plans do not provide an appropriate level of separation between the commercial and residential components of the building as required by an ADG principle and calls for separate access corridors, lobbies, waste areas and lifts for each use. She is also critical of the relationship of the balconies to the two rear commercial suites to the residential common open space at ground level.
7. Mr Betros says that due to the small commercial component, such separation is unnecessary, and it is a good aspect of the proposal to provide balconies to the commercial suites, siting proposed condition 48 which requires a sufficient landscaped buffer between the spaces. He says that due to the small size of the commercial areas, there is unlikely to be much commercial waste and that through the provision of a boom gate in the basement carpark, the residential parking spaces can be separated from the commercial and visitor parking spaces.
8. Both experts agree that, on the basis that No 11 Kingsland Road South would not be developed with the site and therefore become an "isolated site" as referred to in the DCP, a nil setback to that boundary is appropriate however, Ms Gordon did not think the treatment of the blank wall was appropriate, particularly if the dwelling house was to be retained on the site, as it would result in a serious streetscape issue. They also agree that the proposed 11m rear setback is acceptable in lieu of the 12m setback required under the DCP.
9. Further concerns were raised by Ms Gordon with regard to the treatment of the southern elevation and the "slot" or lightwell that is located on that side of the building. She says there is insufficient details to confirm that the proposed projecting brickwork will not encroach the adjoining site, that there are likely conflicts between the residential component of the proposed development and any redevelopment that will occur on the adjoining land in terms of amenity and to address this issue, rather than building to the boundary, setbacks from that boundary should be provided in accordance with the objectives of the ADG and the numerical controls in the DCP. Mr Betros says the setback is not required and the treatment of the elevation is appropriate.
10. The experts agreed that the proposal accords with the ADG design criteria for natural ventilation however Ms Gordon considers it does not meet the solar access provisions.
11. Other areas of concern to Ms Gordon were the proximity of the proposed rooftop terrace on the amenity of any future development that may occur on No 11 and any other development that may occur to the west of the site. Mr Betros says that the design in both regards is appropriate and acceptable.
12. There is no agreement of whether the street wall height of three and four storeys is appropriate having regard to the DCP which, is agreed, has contradictory element in relation to podium heights and side setbacks. They both agree the development should have a street wall character and podium determined from the existing and desired future character of the area and the DCP provisions. Mr Betros cites a diagram in the DCP which states the upper level may be setback with no numeric control regarding podium height and says the provision of a 4 storey street wall on the southern side with 3 storeys stepping down to the north achieves an appropriate transition down to the corner site then to the park and 2 storey dwelling across Abercorn Road to the north. It also provides an appropriate transition to the residential flat buildings across Kingsland Road South to the east which consist of 3 sheer storeys that are setback behind established vegetation. Because of the zoning, FSR and height controls that apply, he says the development would be consistent with the desired future character whilst also being compatible with the existing context.
13. Ms Gordon says her assessment of the streetscape and character of the area is a two storey "traditional" shoptop housing form with parapet and two storey commercial or retail form. Opposite the site in Kingsland Rd, within the R4 High Density Residential zone, the characteristic built form is three storeys, with a lower level of car parking and two levels of residential above. This development has front and side setbacks, in a landscaped setting. With the front setback and landscape setting, the residential flat buildings have a similar visual height in the streetscape as the two storey shoptop character/two storey commercial development. The visual character of the R2 Low Density Residential zoned land to the north and west of the B4 Mixed Use zoned land in Abercorn Street is one and two storey.
14. Based on the site's location within the Bexley Town Centre and at the boundary with the residential zones, the context of the existing development would, in Mr Gordon's opinion, suggest a maximum of a two storey street wall form of development on a nil setback consistent with the street wall height of the main component of the development on Forest Road. In addition, she says the DCP side setback controls should apply and as the building is more than three storeys, a minimum 4.5m side setback is required for the residential levels to ensure a high level of amenity however, may need to increase to 6m or 9m to comply with the separation provisions of the ADG.
15. In relation to the issue of site isolation, there is no agreement between the experts other than the wrong site area was used, a lesser area calculated. Ms Gordon says, that whilst plans have been prepared that demonstrate a form of development that could occur on No 11, these plans do not result in a suitable built form outcome and it is not clear how the land could be developed as proposed, particularly in terms of how vehicular access to the site would be obtained and what levels the ground floor commercial component and access to the proposed building would be established. If the site is not capable of redevelopment, she says this would have an unacceptable streetscape impact with the unarticulated six storey wall of the development being an unacceptable and highly visible element in the streetscape and from the adjoining residential area.
16. Mr Betros says that plan is just a concept and he has no doubt No 11 can be developed in a cohesive manner and would probably have two points of pedestrian access to the building to address level issues. Even if the maximum FSR cannot be achieved, the plans provide for a good outcome, noting that the proposal provides more than the extent of details that can be determined from a building envelope.

Urban Design

1. Both urban design experts agree that the current proposal would breach the building height development standard. Compliance with this standard is a precondition to any consent being granted.
2. In relation to the plans now before the Court there are a number of contentions that were resolved, however not all. The main areas that remain and are not agreed are the appropriate street wall height; setbacks; the appropriate response to character; treatment of the "slot" and arrangement of apartments around that space; adequacy of floor to floor height and the shared entrance to the building.
3. Ms Morrish says that to form an opinion of what is the character of the area, consideration of the existing and likely future context is required. She says the existing context on the same side of the road as the site comprises vacant land, the 2 storey hotel on the corner of Forest Rd and Kingsland Rd (within the Bexley Town Centre) and single storey dwelling houses. Beyond the intersection of Kingsland Rd with Abercom Street the character is partly multi dwelling housing with a two storey street scale, older 3 storey flat buildings and then changes to single storey dwellings in the R2 zone with the other side zoned part B4 and part R4. The character to the north is unlikely to change due to the age of the buildings and the planning controls, whereas the recent up zoning of the land to B4 is likely to change. However, the streetscape scale in this area including the town centre is quite likely to be generated by the existing shop top development character based on the requirements of the Mixed Use DCP controls.
4. The streetscape on Forest Road (which is the next corner to the south) has a strong predominant two storey (plus parapet) form. Development that occurs along this street would need to respond to that scale as the 'predominant parapet' based on the development setback controls in 5.3 Mixed Use in the DCP. The diagram that accompanies that clause requires development to be built to the street boundary with a zero setback but then requires that if there is a 'predominant parapet line' in the street, a setback from that line is required for upper levels to achieve a 'cohesive streetscape'. Based on this, Ms Morrish says it is reasonable to assume that redevelopment of the corner hotel site may have a 2 storey streetwall scale. This sort of scale would be an appropriate response to both the existing and future character of Kingsland Rd and Forest Rd. It is highly unlikely to adopt a 4 storey streetwall. It is also a reasonable response and compatible with the scale seen in the R2 zone to the north and the existing residential flat buildings in the R4 zone opposite (which are generally 3 storeys above the ground level). As the B4 zone anticipates commercial type floor to floor heights for the first two floors it would not be dissimilar to the older 3 storey apartment building.
5. Ms Morrish cites the Mixed Use and RFB DCP sections which require the residential portions of mixed use, shop top or residential type buildings to be setback 4.5m from side boundaries. She says no matter the typology or use mix, all buildings under the DCP appear to be intended to have their non-commercial floors inset a minimum of 4.5m to the side boundaries for this number of storeys. This approach will create a repeating rhythm along Stoney Creek Rd and Kingsland Rd of:

• Shop top and mixed uses - zero side setback for the lower 2 floors (if commercial) with setback upper floors 4.5m from the side boundaries; and
• Residential only - setback from the front and side boundaries providing the potential of a landscape setting with 4.5m side setbacks for the full height of the building; and
• All typologies create a model with separation and air space between buildings for all residential levels.

1. Ms Morrish says the proposal does not respond to the existing or likely future character other than through its nil setback for the first two floors and its rear setback. Instead, it seeks to use the nil setback of the Mixed Use DCP for most of the building and ignores the existing and likely street wall height or the eaves height of the hotel on the corner. It proposes a streetwall that is 4 storeys to the south reducing to 3 storeys to the north. The upper floors are setback from the front street boundary and podium but overall the form is not compatible with the sort of street scale that will develop under the DCP.
2. Above the street wall height, the proposed building totally ignores the side setback requirements to the south other than a slot, that appears to be constant across all typologies. To the north, the nil boundary rises to 4 storeys (which is considered reasonable given the isolated lot issue) but then does not setback to the 4.5m the DCP would normally seek. This form is not compatible with the existing or future character created by Council's controls.
3. Ms Morrish considered modelling undertaken by Mr Bonus and shown at 2.65 of the Joint Report, Exhibit 7. She says that if this form was to continue to the corner including the adjacent southern lots and replace the existing hotel, it would result in a continuous 6 storey wall of development with 4 storey streetwall and would give a far more dominant form to a street that is intended to be part of the transition out of the town centre. This in not appropriate or compatible in her opinion under SEPP ARH or with the character sought and anticipated by the DCP. A sketch that indicates her interpretation of what might occur based on Mr Bonus' diagram is provided at 2.68. A sketch of what is intended by the DCP as Ms Morrish interprets it is at 2.70. That sketch shows a 2 storey streetwall which she says responds to the existing character of Forest Rd and some of Stoney Creek Rd as well Kingsland Rd at the corner and further down the street. It allows for the commercial use suggested over time for both the ground and first floor levels if a shop top model is pursued and it shows the effect of the 4.5m side setbacks combined to deliver a 9m separation above the streetwall in the DCP. It also assumes that the taller setback form might wrap down to street level for the driveway entry to achieve an improved proportional relationship to the streetwall and overall heights.
4. Mr Bonus considers the design quality principles of SEPP 65, specifically 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 1 as most relevant to the contentions in the case.
5. He considers Principle 1 which deals with context and requires that any design response identifies the desirable elements of an area's existing or future character, and designs buildings to enhance these desirable elements and the identity of the area, including adjacent sites, streetscape and the surrounding neighbourhood.
6. Mr Bonus says the site is located within an area undergoing transition from modest single storey detached cottages to B4 Mixed Use, a denser and more urban form of development. In preparation of the plans, the design of the application was informed by an urban design study (UDS) undertaken by Mr Bonus' company, which provided an analysis of the natural and built features of the Bexley Town Centre, Forest Inn and the local precinct surrounding the site including existing land uses, land ownership, landscape, heritage and built form. The UDS considered the likely form of development that would follow as a result of this rezoning to B4 and proposed an urban design vision for the future context, likely built form and public domain of the precinct. He says the vision is founded on 11 principles and the design of the proposed development is based on this UDS and the ADG and as such satisfied SEPP 65 Principle 1: Context and neighbourhood character.

Conclusion and findings

1. At the conclusion of the hearing it was common ground that the building height of the proposal exceeds the maximum permitted under the provisions of clause 4.3(2A)(j) of the LEP. Accordingly, the provisions of clause 4.6(8)(ca) do not allow development consent to be granted for development that contravenes this development standard unless it is for a demonstrable public benefit. The applicant does not propose any such benefit as part of the application and accordingly the application must fail.
2. In relation to the merits issues of the application, I briefly address the contentions that remained.
3. Clause 16A of SEPP ARH requires consideration of whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the area. That character is determined after considering those aspects of the LEP, DCP, SEPP 65 and the ADG that guide that character.
4. As the site is in an area that has been the subject of a recent rezoning that character is informed by both the existing character and the desired future character (DFC). The DFC is informed by the relevant planning controls that apply to the site and in this case, it is the DCP in particular that informs that likely character in association with the development standards contained in the LEP.
5. In determining that character, I prefer the evidence of the Council's experts. That is because I agree that the existing character of the local area has a strong two storey with parapet built form and that form is consistent throughout the Bexley Town Centre. The DCP provision that best addresses this form is at clause 5.3, the Controls for Development Setbacks. These controls require front setbacks to define a coherent alignment to the public domain and accentuate street corners and, where there is a predominant parapet line in the street, a setback from this line may be required to achieve that cohesive streetscape. The diagrams in this section of the DCP do not take into account any slope in the land and it is apparent that there is a consistent slope along this section of Kingsland Road from the south down to the north. Other controls in the DCP do require consideration of topography.
6. It is the Forest Inn that informs the parapet line in Kingsland Road South and that building has a strong two storey streetwall. Unlike many of the buildings within the Bexley centre, it has a hipped roof rather than parapets and accordingly no parapet in this location and therefore it is the eaves of the building that determine the streetwall height. I do not accept the evidence of Mr Bonus that the parapet line should extend in a vertical plane to the north and then step down in the centre of the site as he suggests. Other controls in the DCP require consideration of the topography of the area and therefore, I accept the views of Ms Morrish that the parapet line would step down the street towards the site. The strong two storey element would continue along the street to Abercorn Street with the upper floors setback both from the street and side boundaries consistent with the sketch suggested by Ms Morrish at 2.70 of Exhibit 7.
7. The proposal is for a three and four storey streetwall and I do not consider that this would be compatible with the likely DFC envisaged by the Council's planning controls. There are no buildings with a four storey streetwall and therefore such scale of development would not be compatible with the existing character, particularly in this section of Kingsland Road South being at the zone interface. In addition, the lack of side boundary setbacks is another significant element that is contrary to the character that would evolve as sites are redeveloped and is evident from the only consent granted to date.
8. I place no weight on the UDS in determining the character of the area. Whilst the study may have had regard to the planning controls, it is not a document that has any relevance to this application and in fact, disregards many important considerations preferring economic rather than planning considerations.
9. Other unsatisfactory elements of the design of the proposal are the entrance foyer and shared access arrangements as detailed by the Council's experts, the "unfortunate" slot arrangement in the southern elevation of the building due to the poor amenity it provides to those units it services and likely adverse impacts that may arise when the adjoining site is redeveloped, and the expanse of blank walls to the side boundary without providing the setbacks required under the DCP for the upper level residential apartments.
10. The issue of floor to ceiling heights is another unsatisfactory element, particularly where the wet areas are located above habitable rooms. This would result in the need to increase the building height further than proposed in the plans before the Court.
11. The issue of site isolation is another factor that, whilst no longer relevant to my determination of the application due to the failure to meet the jurisdictional issue is a matter the parties asked me to consider. The Council did not put on any valuation evidence nor any evidence in regard to the negotiations that had taken place. Whilst I note the valuation used in these negotiations did predate the final rezoning of the land to B4, it did take into account that zoning. It did not however consider the bonus provisions of clauses 4.3 and 4.4 if the site was consolidated to achieve an area in excess of 800m2. I make no findings on that issue.
12. Having regard to the established principles in Karavellas v Sutherland Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 251 and Cornerstone Property Group Pty Ltd v Warringah Council (2004) 139 LGERA 245; [2004] NSWLEC 189, I am satisfied that the site could be developed in some form however it would be less than that allowed under the LEP and relies wholly on access to the site for vehicles being provided through the subject site. The applicant has failed to demonstrate how that is provided, however it is likely that a right-of-way would be required through the building. The streetscape issues raised by the Council's experts, whilst relevant in the design and assessment of a development application for that site, are not reasons to reject this application on the basis of failure to consolidate the lot into this site. I am satisfied that No 11 Kingsland Road would be capable of achieving a development of appropriate urban form with an acceptable level of amenity.
13. For the reasons outlined above, I find that despite the failure of the applicant to comply with the building height development standard, the proposal does not merit consent when considered against the Council's planning controls, SEPP ARH, SEPP 65 and the ADG.
14. The Orders of the Court are: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. Development application No. 2018/120 is refused consent. 3. The exhibits, other than Exhibits 3 and G are returned.

---

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: 13 July 2020