Erina Investments Holdings Pty Ltd v Snowy Monaro Regional Council

Modification Application

1. The subdivision was designed such that generally the nearest and most convenient point of access for the residents of stages 9-12 would be the Kosciuszko Road intersection. The modification application seeks to delete that intersection and rely upon the other potential points of access and egress.
2. In the absence of the Kosciuszko Road intersection the residents in stages 9-12 will enter and leave only by Rawson Street at the western edge of the stages and will enter Jil Street before either accessing the intersection at Barry Way (number 3 in the figure) or proceed further along Jil Street onto Gippsland Street and other streets in the residential area.
3. The Applicants say that the access and egress in the absence of the Kosciuszko Road intersection is within the environmental capacity of the road system and creates no environmental impacts which would lead to the refusal of the application.

Planning framework

1. The majority of the site is zoned R2 - Low Density Residential with the balance RU1 - Primary Production, R1 - General Residential, R5 - Large Lot Residential and RE1 - Public Recreation pursuant to Snowy River Local Environmental Plan 2013 (SRLEP 2013).
2. The objectives of the R2 zone are: • To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment. • To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents. • To ensure development maintains residential amenity and contributes to the small-scale residential character of the zone. • To enable short-term, low impact tourist and visitor accommodation compatible with the surrounding residential character of the zone.
3. The consent authority must have regard to the zone objectives when determining a development application (cl 2.3(2) SRLEP 2013) and there is no suggestion otherwise than regard be had to the objectives in this modification application.
4. Snowy River Development Control Plan 2013 (the DCP) has general provisions which apply throughout the local government area and specific provisions which relate to specific types of development or, more importantly, specific parcels of land.
5. Chapter C deals with General Planning Considerations and includes Section 3 on Vehicle Access. The objectives include: "… - To provide adequate and convenient access for the development without compromising street character, landscape character, visual amenity, environmental features, pedestrian amenity and safety… - To ensure that access arrangements utilise the most cost effective and efficient route, subject to considering the above objectives."
6. The controls which are intended to achieve the objectives include: "b) Access roads are to be designed to minimise road infrastructure by utilising the most direct, and where possible the existing, legal routes… e) Where the development requires a second bushfire access/egress route, this is to be a permanent legal and practical access… h) Direct access from either the Alpine Way or Kosciuszko Road is not to be provided to a development unless the site has no other practical alternatives that exist or can be created…"
7. The last control should be observed - the general provisions of the DCP provide that access should not be provided to Kosciuszko Road.
8. Part F7 of the DCP is specifically concerned with Highview Estate - the subject site. That is, it is a site-specific development control plan, designed specifically to provide detail for the development of the land which includes stages 9-12, the residents of which the Kosciuszko Road intersection was intended to serve.
9. A curiosity of Part F7 is that it is part of the DCP made in 2013, whereas the consent for the subdivision was granted in 2007. It would appear that Part F7 was carried over from earlier development control plans, and in its terms it speaks prospectively of many matters which have already occurred (such as lot layout) and some parts recognise the fact of the approved subdivision.
10. The objectives for development in the Highview Estate include: "Streets and Public Space To provide attractive streetscapes which reinforce the function of the street and enhance the amenity of the natural and built environment. To provide an interconnecting street pattern for easy circulation with direct linkages with the surrounding street network. To provide pedestrian and cycle links through the site to the existing and proposed pedestrian and cycle networks. To provide a safe and efficient system of roads and pathways for vehicular, pedestrian and cycle movements. To provide strong pedestrian connections and view corridors to private open space within the development area."
11. Section 2.8 deals specifically with Access, Traffic and Road Design. The objectives of this section are to: " Ensure that a safe and efficient road network is provides [sic]; and Ensure that the new road network integrates with the existing road network."
12. The DCP provides a background for the controls which follow. The following extract is worthy of note: "The Council has previously investigated traffic concerns external to the subdivision site through the Jindabyne Traffic Study (conducted in 2002). This study identified existing traffic concerns at various locations within the town. It also identified the potential for traffic generated by the development of the Highview Estate subdivision to exacerbate existing traffic problems, particular in Gippsland Street and at the junction of Barry Way and Kosciuszko Road (MR286). The eastern end of Gippsland Street has been identified as being narrow and subject to significant demand for on-street car parking, especially overnight during the peak occupation of holiday accommodation during winter and other school holiday periods. Therefore, it is necessary that arrangements are made to ensure that traffic generated from within the Highview Estate does not increase traffic volumes on this eastern section of Gippsland Street. The Jindabyne Traffic Study approached this issue by recommending that Highview Estate be physically separated from Gippsland Street and that Council investigate the closure of Gippsland Street to all traffic to the east of Candlebark Circuit. The principle that no additional traffic be directed onto the eastern section of Gippsland Street is central to avoiding unacceptable traffic impacts from this development. This requires that the land subject to this Development Control Plan does not have direct road access to Gippsland Street and that the amount of traffic directed to Jillamatong Street is minimized."
13. Whilst it can be observed that the DCP cites a traffic study which is approaching 20 years old, Council has not amended the DCP to remove reference to the principle which it seeks to apply, and the provisions remain current.
14. The Controls which are intended to achieve the objectives and reflect the principle are numerous and include: "(a) Adequate road widths and the creation of a road hierarchy is to be provided to assist in the legibility and for ease of navigation through the estate and ensure appropriate connections and relationships with the existing road system…. (l) Access to the part of Highview Estate located to the south east of the Council water tank must be obtained from Kosciuszko Road by the construction of a new intersection conforming to all relevant Roads and Traffic Authority design standards. (m) Local roads are not to operate as through traffic roads for externally generated traffic, and are to limit local drivers' need to speed in a low speed environment. (n) Access to the part of Highview Estate located to the north west of the Council water tank must be obtained from Barry Way by the construction of a new intersection conforming to all relevant Roads and Traffic Authority design standards and a suitable road connection to the estate." (Emphasis added.)
15. It is important to note Control (l) which requires access to be obtained by Kosciuszko Road. It is common ground that the land described in the control as "located to the south east of the Council water tank" is the land the subject of the consent as stages 9-12. That is, the DCP specifically provides for the Kosciuszko Road intersection to be constructed to service stages 9-12.
16. The Council also referred to "Vision for Jindabyne", a NSW Planning document describing a vision for Jindabyne and setting out principles to guide the development of the Go Jindabyne Masterplan. The document reinforces the enduring village nature of Jindabyne and the encouragement to develop the year-round attraction of Jindabyne. It is not a planning instrument and is far removed from a planning proposal and subsequent local environmental plan. The Council was really only observing that there is no long-term planning intention which would derogate from the objectives and controls in SRLEP 2013 and the DCP.

Issues

1. The issues in summary are: 1. Whether because the modification application was made under s 4.55(1A) of the EP&A Act the modification must be refused because the modification is not of minimal environmental impact. 2. Whether the consequence of not constructing the Kosciuszko Road intersection is that the local road network within Highview Estate will be adversely affected by additional traffic so as to unreasonably impact on the safety of road users, particularly persons crossing the roads. 3. Whether the consequence of not constructing the Kosciuszko Road intersection is that the amenity of the dwellings is unreasonably adversely affected because of increased traffic. 4. Whether there is an unreasonable impact on the access of emergency services to the dwellings in stages 9-12.
2. It is appropriate to dispose of two issues immediately.
3. When the Council opened its case and identified the first issue, I enquired as to whether it was truly an issue, and whether the Applicant could not rely upon an alternate source of power, being s 4.55(2) of the EP&A Act to enable the modification application to be granted. Council reserved its position until final submissions which was not inappropriate. In final submissions the contention was not pressed.
4. It is the case that, in my opinion, although a modification application is made under s 4.55(1A) of the EP&A Act, if it transpires that there is more than minimal environmental impact, the Court can exercise the power under s 4.55(2) of the EP&A Act if on the merits it is appropriate to do so. It is important though, that the alternate source of power is only available if any pre-conditions to the exercise of that alternate source of power have been fulfilled.
5. In this case there is no issue that the necessary pre-conditions have been satisfied. The modification application was exhibited in accordance with the Council's DCP and any necessary consultation with concurrence bodies was conducted. Accordingly, assuming the impact is more than minimal, but the modification would otherwise have been acceptable, the Court could exercise the power under s 4.55(2) of the EP&A Act to grant the application. (See McAuley v Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel [2013] NSWLEC 125 at [114] to [116] citing Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning v Rosemount Estates Pty Ltd (1996) 91 LGERA 31; [1996] NSWCA 365 at 85 - 86.)
6. As to the fourth issue, there was some evidence from traffic experts that, without the Kosciuszko Road intersection, emergency vehicles from Jindabyne town centre are likely to take a little longer to arrive at some dwellings within stages 6-9. In final submissions the Council argued that there was no evidence from the Applicant dealing with the adequacy of emergency response times.
7. It was pointed out to the Council solicitor that there was no evidence from the Council that there was any failure to comply with any standard, no identification of any relevant standard, nor that the outcome was unsatisfactory in any way. I also reminded the Council of the Contention related to emergency access which was in the following terms: "1.4 The loss of the Kosciuszko Road public road link results in reduced accessibility for local emergency services. The Fire, Ambulance and Police stations are located in Thredbo Terrace, within close proximity to Kosciuszko Road such that retaining the Kosciuszko Road access to the subdivision will improve response times by these services."
8. The Contention does not in fact identify the basis upon which the modification application should be refused. It simply states what it says to be a fact - retaining the Kosciuszko Road access will improve response times. It does not assert that the outcome of removing that access means that response times will be unsatisfactory, or that the times will exceed some standard. The only evidence led by the Council was to the effect of supporting the statement of fact in the Contention.
9. The Court's Practice Direction - Class 1 Development Appeals includes the following: "5. In Part B Contentions the respondent consent authority is to identify each fact, matter and circumstance that the respondent contends require or should cause the Court, in exercising the functions of the consent authority, to refuse the application or to impose certain conditions. 6. In Part B Contentions, the respondent consent authority is to: (a) focus on issues genuinely in dispute; (b) have a reasonable basis for its contentions; (c) present its contentions clearly, succinctly and without repetition; (d) where it contends that the application must be refused, identify the factual and/or legal basis for that contention. Any such contention is to be made at the beginning of Part B Contentions and is to be clearly identified as a contention that the application must be refused; (e) where the respondent consent authority contends there is insufficient information to assess the application, list the information it contends is required; (f) where it contends that a proposal does not comply with provisions, including development standards, of an environmental planning instrument or provisions of a development control plan, identify the standard or provision that is breached and quantify the extent of the noncompliance (if necessary, in a diagrammatic form), grouping together provisions dealing with the same aspect (for example, height or density); (g) identify the nature and extent of each environmental impact relied upon to support any contention and, if practicable, quantify that impact; and (h) identify any contentions that may be resolved by conditions of consent."
10. Contention 1.4 does not comply with the Practice Direction because it does not identify a basis upon which the application should be refused, does not identify a reasonable basis for the contention and fails to identify that the proposal does not comply with any particular provision.
11. There must be a reasonable basis for a contention in any event. It is incumbent, in my opinion, for a Council to lead sufficient evidence to establish that there is a foundation for a contention. This arises particularly where it is said that there is insufficient/inadequate evidence, or no evidence, to deal with a particular issue. That is not to say that the evidentiary bar is very high for a Council. But the evidence needs to be sufficient to bring the issue within the rubric of a relevant consideration for the purposes of s 4.15 of the EP&A Act. The evidence must disclose that the issue is one which has to be addressed, identifying why that is the case. The Contention, and the evidence, needs to identify the reasonable basis for the Contention.
12. I exclude from this consideration matters going to the jurisdiction of the Court, where the Court needs to be satisfied that a pre-condition to the exercise of power has been met before it can grant the application. It is entirely appropriate for a Council to contend that there is no evidence that a particular pre-condition going to the jurisdiction of the Court has been met. That is entirely different from the raising of a particular matter of merit as a contention.
13. In response to the observations to the above effect made by me to the solicitor for the Council during the course of final submissions, the solicitor quite properly simply submitted that the Contention was not one which was determinative of the modification application.

Hearing and consideration

1. The hearing commenced with a site inspection. In the presence of the parties' representatives and experts I inspected the existing subdivision, including the streets where additional traffic is likely to occur together with the Barry Way intersection under construction and the location of the approved Kosciuszko Road intersection.
2. After the site inspection the hearing resumed in Cooma Local Court where the representatives appeared in person. The second day of the hearing was in Sydney conducted by MS Teams in accordance with the Court's Covid-19 Pandemic Arrangements Policy 10 December 2020.
3. Expert evidence was given on Traffic by Mr S Morgan retained by the Applicant and Mr M McCarthy retained by the Council. The traffic experts prepared a joint report and gave oral evidence.
4. Town planning evidence was given by Mr T Tuxworth retained by the Applicant and Ms S Ballinger Coordinator Development at the Council. The planners prepared a joint report and gave oral evidence.
5. Although there was no oral evidence given by local objectors, a number of written objections were submitted to Council during the exhibition of the modification application and the later application for review. The issues raised in the submissions were in general:

• Increased traffic on local streets leading to congestion and gridlock;
• Reduced safety;
• Poor service for the subdivision, particularly providing only one means of access and egress;
• The local streets are too narrow to cope with the additional traffic.

1. The traffic experts agreed that there will be additional traffic on certain residential streets and that the analysis should be of the traffic flows in winter other than the "super peaks" but disagreed as to the quantification and consequences. They did agree that table 4.6 of RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments October 2002 (RTA Guide) provided appropriate guidance as to the environmental capacity of residential streets. The table is reproduced below. Although there is an "environmental goal" the experts agreed that current traffic engineering practice is to regard the "maximum" as the relevant yardstick for the environmental capacity of the residential streets.
2. The experts agreed that the task was to:

• Determine the base data of existing traffic in the affected streets during winter, ignoring the "super peaks" of winter weekends and winter school holidays;
• Determine the likely traffic generation from the development of the additional lots in stages 9-12;
• Determine the likely path of travel of vehicles from stages 9-12 in the absence of the Kosciuszko Road intersection;
• Thereby determine the likely traffic flow in the affected streets;
• Assess that traffic flow against the environmental capacity of the streets according to the RTA Guide;
• Assess whether the increased traffic flow gave rise to any safety concerns.

1. One difficulty is that the base data the Applicant relies upon is from a survey in October 2020 (survey data) which is obviously not during the winter and therefore after the period when there is consistently more traffic in Jindabyne and the site. The experts accepted that the survey data reflected typical daily flow outside of the ski season and each of the experts applied other data to determine a factor by which the survey data would be increased to arrive at the assumed base traffic data for non-super peak winter ski season. Regrettably each expert considered different data was appropriate and in utilising that different data reached different conclusions as to the winter base traffic flow.
2. Mr Morgan relied on the 2016 Census data which showed that 54% of dwellings in Jindabyne were non-private dwellings, that is, holiday rental or the like, occupied by visitors or unoccupied at the time of the Census. Applying that data to the survey data, Mr Morgan applied a factor of 2.17 to the survey data to establish the winter baseline traffic flows.
3. On the other hand, Mr McCarthy considered the factor of 2.17 as too low. Mr McCarthy considered that a comparison of traffic flows between data available for June 2018 (winter) and the survey data from October 2020 is more reliable than the Census comparison. Mr McCarthy identified the increases from October 2020 (not winter) to June 2018 (winter) to be between 360% to 380% on Barry Way, 427% to 537% on Kosciuszko Road (east) and 560% to 713% on Kosciuszko Road (west). Mr McCarthy adopted the smallest increase of 360% (a factor of 3.6) and applied it to the survey data.
4. Mr Morgan criticised the use of the Barry Way/Kosciuszko Road data saying that both those roads carry significant through traffic movements and act as major collects for traffic in Jindabyne as well as areas outside of Jindabyne for travel to the ski fields and therefore do not reflect the likely increase in flows in the local roads within Jindabyne itself and in particular in Highview Estate.
5. There is plainly a difficulty when there is no data available for the winter period which can form a proper and reliable foundation for analysis. That said, it is not unreasonable to take the data which is available and apply appropriate adjustments to obtain a reasonably reliable baseline traffic flow figure.
6. The criticism of Mr McCarthy's approach has merit. The increased overall movement of traffic through Jindabyne is not necessarily reflected in the same order of increase in a local street. That is perhaps why Mr McCarthy adopted the lowest of the percentage increases for his analysis, which unsurprisingly is on Barry Way. Barry Way is not a through road for access to the main ski fields but is the road to more remote parts of the high mountain country. It carries much less traffic than Kosciuszko Road.
7. There is a flaw in the approach by Mr Morgan. He assumes, reasonably, that the survey data is reflective of the permanent resident population shown by the Census data to be 46% of dwellings. He then applied the factor of 2.17 to "convert" the traffic flows for 46% of dwellings to 100% of dwellings, obviously including the non-permanent population dwellings. The difficulty with that approach is that it assumes that each dwelling within the 54% non-permanent population dwellings will generate the same number of vehicle movements as each dwelling in the 46% of permanent population dwellings.

1. This finding is reflected in the annotated image below.
2. The next step is to compare the traffic flows to the environmental capacity of the roads in accordance with the RTA Guide Table 4.6 which is reproduced below:
3. Table 4.6 takes into account both amenity and safety considerations.
4. The classifications of the relevant roads according to their geometric design are all Collector with a maximum peak hour two-way volume of 500 vehicles. Gippsland south of Munyang Collector Munyang between Gippsland and Kosciusko Collector Gippsland south of Jillamatong Collector Gippsland north of Jillamatong Collector Jillamatong west of Gippsland Collector

1. A comparison with the data in [68] above demonstrates that the maximum is exceeded in each case.
2. Mr McCarthy says in the joint report: "...the exceedance of the environmental capacity of 500 vehicles per hour means that Gippsland Street, Munyang Street and Jillamatong Street are forecast to operate above a Collector Road and based upon peak hour volume will operate similar to a sub-arterial road. Again, this does not necessarily mean the capacity of the road has been reached from a traffic flow perspective, it just means that the roads operate at a high order road compared to a Collector or Local Road. For the development to be acceptable, Jillamatong Street, Gippsland Street and Munyang Street would have to be categorised as a sub-arterial road. The primary function of a sub-arterial road is traffic flow efficiency with residential amenity (pedestrian considerations) and vehicle access being subservient to traffic flow efficiency. Hence the proposal is forecast to increase traffic flow above acceptable peak hour thresholds, impacting residential amenity."
3. The sorts of impacts which will occur according to Mr McCarthy are:

• Increased noise impacts;
• Pedestrian safety impacts (ability to safely cross the road);
• Increased risk and delay for vehicles leaving driveways;
• Increased risk of collisions due to increases in traffic volumes.

1. In dealing with the potential for traffic flows to exceed the maximum environmental goal Mr Morgan said in the joint report: "…the current roads, during the peak ski seasons, potentially exceed the guide line requirements for residential roads. There are a number of accommodation options provided along Gippsland Road with multi rooms for singles, couples and family units which Council have permitted within a residential area. Council as part of the assessment for these developments have permitted uses which create much higher traffic demands than individual residential lots in this area and it should therefore be accepted that at peak times, roads including Gippsland Road and Munyang Road operate as urban road with traffic flows greater than the environmental goals set out within the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments."
2. I take Mr Morgan here to be referring to the ordinary peak rather than the weekend and school holiday "super peaks" because the data to which he refers is the ordinary peak data.
3. I agree with Mr McCarthy that the traffic flows will be above acceptable peak hour flows and therefore have unacceptable impacts of the type he describes. Mr Morgan really offers a planning opinion about Council's expectations, which to a degree he is entitled to do, but such an opinion must be considered in the light of the planning regime.
4. The assumed traffic flows are estimates based on data which is not ideal because there is no true baseline data, only assumed baseline data following adjustment from non-winter to winter. The directional split of the traffic is not brimming with certainty either. However, the ultimate analysis shows that there is a comfortable exceedance of the maximum environmental goal, rather than a marginal exceedance. Further, the submissions from local residents suggests that the existing traffic situation is somewhat difficult, albeit the submissions do not clearly distinguish between weekend and school holiday traffic and traffic at other times during winter.
5. Although it is not necessary to base my decision on what follows, I am somewhat troubled that both experts have ignored the "super peaks" of winter weekends and winter school holidays for the purpose of their analysis. One can readily accept the example that a shopping centre need not cater for the parking demand on Christmas Eve, but cater generally to other peak times. That principle is well understood - plan for the usual rather than the exceptional. The ski season is for about four months within which there are around 32 weekend days and two weeks of public school holidays and an extra week of private school holidays. That is a total of about 42 to 47 days out of 112 days when the traffic flows are expected to be higher than the traffic flows used for the purpose of the analysis by the experts.
6. It seems to me that to decide that those days are to be ignored in a traffic study is troubling. Up to a third of the time during winter the traffic will be worse than the traffic flows considered for the purposes of the traffic planning in this case. Whilst that is not determinative of the outcome of this case, it may warrant consideration in future traffic planning.
7. The planners, Mr Tuxworth and Ms Ballinger relied upon the traffic evidence from the experts retained by the Applicant and Council respectively. Logically, Mr Tuxworth considered the impacts of the proposal acceptable having regard to the conclusion of Mr Morgan that the increased traffic will be within the environmental capacity of the roads. Similarly, Ms Ballinger reached the contrary conclusion having regard to the evidence of Mr McCarthy.
8. The Applicant submitted that the proposal met the objectives of the DCP notwithstanding the non-compliance with the requirement for access to Kosciuszko Road. (The Applicant accepted the proposition that the specific requirement in the DCP relating to Highview Estate took precedence over the general requirement in the DCP that there be no access provided to Kosciuszko Road.)
9. The Respondent submitted that having regard to the evidence of Mr McCarthy the proposal failed to comply with the controls or objectives of the DCP and therefore should be refused.
10. In the DCP relating to Access, Traffic and Road design, the broad objective is to ensure that a safe and efficient road network is provided. It must follow from the acceptance of Mr McCarthy's evidence that the increase in traffic on residential roads beyond the maximum environmental capacity does not achieve that objective. The safety and efficiency of the network will be detrimentally affected and by an objective standard will be unsatisfactory.
11. The DCP anticipates unsatisfactory traffic impacts if the Kosciuszko Road intersection is not constructed and the construction of that intersection is one of the Controls intended to achieve the objective of a safe and efficient road network.
12. In terms of traffic the impact on Jillamatong Street is particularly concerning. It is plainly intended to be a quiet residential street which is relatively narrow for the most part. The increased traffic would create traffic problems and have a real and noticeable impact on the residents and visitors in that street.
13. Whilst amenity considerations are not a stated objective of the Traffic provisions in the DCP, I can have regard to the objectives of the R2 zone which includes "to ensure development maintains residential amenity and contributes to the small-scale residential character of the zone". The increased traffic in the residential streets will have a real impact on residential amenity. The transformation of a local road into a collector road, or a collector road into a sub-arterial road, changes the character of a street or neighbourhood from a pedestrian and resident dominated area to a thoroughfare dominated area. The increased risks identified by Mr McCarthy are real and the residential amenity will not be maintained.
14. I do not accept Mr Morgan's view that the approval of the "ski lodge" type accommodation means that the expectation of amenity is somehow reduced. That is not reflected in any planning instrument and is inconsistent with the zone objective to which I have referred.

Conclusion

1. I accept the evidence of Mr McCarthy that the traffic flows will increase to exceed significantly maximum environmental capacity of the streets within Highview Estate if the Kosciuszko Road intersection is not constructed to cater for the traffic generated by stages 9-12. The consequence is that simply as a matter of traffic planning the Kosciuszko Road intersection is still required, and its removal is inconsistent with the Control in the DCP for Highview Estate and inconsistent with the objectives of the Control.
2. Further, the proposal is not consistent with the objective of the R2 zone in that it does not maintain residential amenity, and so taking into account that objective of the zone the proposal should be refused.
3. It follows that the appeal must be dismissed. It is the case that the modification application was granted in part (related to a change in staging) but refused in relation to the Kosciuszko Road intersection. Whereas upon the lodgement of an appeal in relation to conditions of a development consent the consent ceases to have effect (s 8.13 of the EP&A Act) there is no provision in relation to the effect of an appeal lodged in relation to a modification application. It appears that the consent has been modified by the partial grant of the application already and I do not need to make an order in that regard. By dismissing the appeal it seems that the modification of the staging will not be affected. I will grant liberty to the parties to apply if any difficulties arise.
4. Accordingly, I make the following orders: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The exhibits be returned other than exhibits A, B and 1.

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: 29 April 2021