There was no evidence, in the present case, that the total area acquired was disproportionate to the nature of the business intended to be conducted. True, the demands of its business had not so far required that the appellant physically use the whole of that land. Though part of lot C1 had been fenced, this was for the purposes of security. Nothing in the evidence suggests that it was fenced off so as to segregate the balance from the business and its purposes. Nor, in my opinion, was the fencing off indicative of a conclusion by the appellant to place in reserve for future use the portion not then physically used for the stacking of timbers, its introduction into current use to be the result of a further decision on the part of the appellant. Further, by the relevant date, the fence no longer set the limit of the physical use of the lot. Timber had been stacked beyond the fence to a significant extent. The surveyor's plan referred to in the decretal order represents an attempt to fix the outer limits of the physical use of the lot at that time according to the evidence produced at the hearing of the suit. It did not represent or correspond to any subdivided boundary or any limit of ownership or occupation. It is clear, in my opinion, from this Court's decision in the case to which I have referred, that physical use is not an indispensable element in an existing use of land for the purposes of such a provision as cl. 30 of the Warringah Scheme. Land which is kept vacant for use as the needs of a business demand is not of necessity properly designated, in my opinion, as land not in existing use, but merely intended for future use. Much will depend on the extent of its integration with land in actual physical use and the nature of the business being conducted. The title boundaries of parcels will not be, of themselves, definitive. But, particularly in the case of suburban allotments, it will be a rare case, in my opinion, in which that part of an allotment not in actual physical use will not have the same existing use as the other part of the allotment used for the purposes of a business. But, of course, all the relevant facts need to be known and interrelated before a conclusion as to existing use in the relevant sense is drawn. No doubt there will be cases, particularly in relation to expanding businesses, where the line between a reserve of land intended only for future use and the present use in a business of vacant and physically unused land may be extremely fine. But I cannot think that it will be often that a line can properly be drawn within a suburban allotment confining the existing use of the allotment to the area of physical use, treating the balance of the allotment as land intended only as a reserve for future use. Progressive physical use of the allotment, even though the progress be at irregular and long spaced intervals, would mean, if such a line were drawn, that the existing use of such an allotment as lot C1 would always be coterminous with its physical use. But it seems to me that the relevant use of land in the situation of lot C1 will not vary from time to time as its physical use varies according to the exigencies of the business to whose purposes the land as a whole has been devoted.