45. Some of the matters referred to in s 119, namely s 119(1)(b) and (c), are matters which may give some support to the plaintiffs' contention that the provision established what are jurisdictional facts for the decision. These are matters which are easily identifiable and determinable. Codes referred to in s 119(1)(a), however, are more complex. While they consist of rules which are quantitative and, again, more conceptually compatible with the requirement of a jurisdictional fact, the criteria are much more problematic in this context. They are replete with value judgments of a complex kind that would prove difficult for precise assessment in the way indicated by Gray J. Thus, decisions such as whether buildings are sited "to minimise overlooking", whether for a development "the highest standards of architectural design can be achieved", requiring a development to provide "'[r]ich, imaginative and subtle design elements", all mentioned in code criteria, are not ones which seem to me to lend themselves to decisions that are required as a jurisdictional fact. That the criteria are replete with adjectives such as "compatible", "high quality", "useable", "extensive", "attractive", "comprehensive" and "appropriate" is hardly likely to have been intended by the legislature to mean that the relevant facts are jurisdictional facts. A high point may be that one criterion specifies that: