COMMISSIONER: Marrickville Development No.3 Pty Ltd (the Applicant) has appealed the deemed refusal by Inner West Council (the Respondent) of its development application (DA2017/00562) for demolition of an existing dwelling, and construction of two semi-detached dwelling houses, at 81 Station Street, Newtown (the Subject Site), also identified as Lot 8 in DP 316.
The development includes:
1. demolition of an existing single storey dwelling, together with a garage and shed;
2. construction of two (2) semi-detached dwelling houses each of two storeys;
3. Torrens title subdivision of the Subject Site into two allotments, with one dwelling on each of the resultant allotments;
4. The proposed subdivision would create two lots, each with a frontage of 4.725M, and with areas of 144.9m2 (proposed lot 81 [northern lot]) and 145m2 (proposed lot 81A [southern lot]).
The Subject Site is located on the western side of Station Street, west of Holt Street, and with a rear boundary to College Lane.
The Subject Site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Marrickville Local Environment Plan 2011 (MLEP).
The appeal is made pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), and the appeal is heard under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.
The Court convened a conciliation conference with the Parties on 1 August 2018. I presided over the conciliation conference that was held on-site and at Court. The Parties were unable to resolve contentions between them during the conciliation conference and so the conference was terminated.
The Parties appeared before the Registrar for further directions on 8 August 2018, and consented to me disposing of the matter at hearing.
The Parties appeared again before the Registrar on 11 October 2018, and leave was granted for the Applicant to amend its application and rely on amended plans and other supporting documentation.
The Court undertook a view of the Subject Site prior to the commencement of proceedings at Court, and during which submissions were received from the following individuals:
1. Ms Elizabeth Yeo, a resident of the adjoining property on Station Street who said:
1. the proposed development was not, in her opinion, consistent with the character of the area;
2. she held a concern in relation to the potential overshadowing impacts of the proposed development on her property;
3. she did not feel that she had had access to adequate information on the proposed development in relation to proposed finishes, elevations and parking.
1. Ms Elizabeth Teece, a resident of an adjoining property on Holt Street at the rear of the Subject SIte, who said that:
1. as noted by Ms Yeo, the proposed development was not, in her opinion, consistent with the character of the area;
2. she held concerns in relation to the potential impacts of the proposed development on her privacy, on trees, the heritage of the area, and on the rear wall of her property.
1. Mr Chris Chesher, a resident of Holt Street whose property adjoined the front Subject Site, who said he held concerns in relation to:
1. the scale, design, proposed setbacks of the proposed development;
2. the potential impacts of the proposed development on views, property values and established trees on the Subject Site.
At the commencement of the hearing at Court, the Applicant sought leave to further amend its application and to rely on further amended plans, referred to in the hearing as the Issue F plans, and leave was granted, without objection.
The Parties advised that several issues that had been in contention between them at the commencement of the appeal had been resolved on the basis of the amended plans, as well as through proposed conditions of development consent proposed by the Respondent, as follows:
1. whether the proposed subdivision of the Subject Site represented orderly development of the land, and in relation to which the respondent advised that it accepted that subdivision of the site was acceptable;
2. the area of landscaping required to be included within the proposed development , identified as 45m2 or 20% of the Subject Site, and which the Parties agreed was provided under the amended plans, other than in the circumstances of the proposed dual use of the rear area for both private open space and car parking;
3. the management of waste generated by the proposed development;
4. the provision of adequate setbacks, including the provision of an adequate front setback;
5. heritage issues, other than in relation to the removal of a tree within a heritage zone which requires consent, and in relation to which the Applicant had proposed the removal of a tree identified as tree T3;
6. the suitability of the presentation of the rear built form to Station Street, which, on the advice of the Parties' expert planners, the Parties agreed was now acceptable as proposed within the amended plans.
The Parties confirmed that the principal issues requiring resolution at the hearing related to the following issues:
1. the floor space ratio (FSR) development standard applicable to the proposed development;
2. the bulk and scale of the proposed development, and in particular the potential impacts of the rear first floor element of the two dwellings and whether the rear bedrooms of those dwelling should be deleted from the proposed development;
3. the proposed dual use of the rear yard of the proposed development as both private open space and a car parking space;
4. the potential impacts of the proposed development on a street tree identified as Tree T3, and whether the Applicant's proposed mitigation measures were sufficient to address those potential impacts.
[2]
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
The objects of the of the EP&A Act are as follows:
(a) to promote the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment by the proper management, development and conservation of the State's natural and other resources,
(b) to facilitate ecologically sustainable development by integrating relevant economic, environmental and social considerations in decision-making about environmental planning and assessment,
(c) to promote the orderly and economic use and development of land,
(d) to promote the delivery and maintenance of affordable housing,
(e) to protect the environment, including the conservation of threatened and other species of native animals and plants, ecological communities and their habitats,
(f) to promote the sustainable management of built and cultural heritage (including Aboriginal cultural heritage),
(g) to promote good design and amenity of the built environment,
(h) to promote the proper construction and maintenance of buildings, including the protection of the health and safety of their occupants,
(i) to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning and assessment between the different levels of government in the State,
(j) to provide increased opportunity for community participation in environmental planning and assessment.
Clause 4.15(1) of the EP&A Act requires that, in determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application:
(a) the provisions of:
(i) any environmental planning instrument, and
(ii) any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Secretary has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and
(iii) any development control plan, and
(iiia) any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 93F, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F, and
(iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), and
(v) any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979),
that apply to the land to which the development application relates,
(b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,
(c) the suitability of the site for the development,
(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations,
(e) the public interest.
Clause 4.15(3A) of the EP&A Act further provides that:
If a development control plan contains provisions that relate to the development that is the subject of a development application, the consent authority:
(a) if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application complies with those standards - is not to require more onerous standards with respect to that aspect of the development, and
(b) if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application does not comply with those standards - is to be flexible in applying those provisions and allow reasonable alternative solutions that achieve the objects of those standards for dealing with that aspect of the development, and
(c) may consider those provisions only in connection with the assessment of that development application.
Clause 4.16(2) of the EP&A Act requires that:
Despite subsection (1), the consent authority must refuse an application for development, being the subdivision of land, that would, if carried out, result in a contravention of this Act, an environmental planning instrument or the regulations, whether arising in relation to that or any other development.
[3]
Marrickville Local Environment Plan 2011
Development on the Subject Site is subject to the provisions of MLEP, and as identified above, the Subject Site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of cl 2.1 of MLEP.
The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone are to:
• provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.
• enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.
• provide for multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings but only as part of the conversion of existing industrial and warehouse buildings.
• provide for office premises but only as part of the conversion of existing industrial and warehouse buildings or in existing buildings designed and constructed for commercial purposes.
• provide for retail premises in existing buildings designed and constructed for commercial purposes.
Within this R2 zone, semi-detached dwellings, such as are proposed by the Applicant, are a permissible development.
The dictionary within the MLEP defines a semi-detached dwelling as:
semi-detached dwelling means a dwelling that is on its own lot of land and is attached to only one other dwelling.
The following further provisions of MLEP are also of relevance in this appeal:
1. Clause 4.3 concerning height of buildings; and which provides for a 9.5m height of building control for the Subject Site. The objectives of the height of building development standard are:
(a) to establish the maximum height of buildings,
(b) to ensure building height is consistent with the desired future character of an area,
(c) to ensure buildings and public areas continue to receive satisfactory exposure to the sky and sunlight,
(d) to nominate heights that will provide an appropriate transition in built form and land use intensity.
1. Clause 4.4, which provides the floor space ratio development standard for the Subject Site. The objectives of cl 4.4 are to:
(a) establish the maximum floor space ratio,
(b) control building density and bulk in relation to the site area in order to achieve the desired future character for different areas,
(c) minimise adverse environmental impacts on adjoining properties and the public domain.
1. Relevantly, cll 4.4(2) and 4.4(2A) of MLEP provide as follows:
(2) The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map.
(2A) Despite subclause (2), development for the purposes of attached dwellings, bed and breakfast accommodation, dwelling houses and semi-detached dwellings on land labelled "F" on the Floor Space Ratio Map is not to exceed the relevant floor space ratio determined in accordance with the Table to this subclause.
1. Clause 4.5 of MLEP provides guidance in relation to the calculation of floor space ratio and site area, and under subcl (3) sates:
In determining the site area of proposed development for the purpose of applying a floor space ratio, the site area is taken to be:
(a) if the proposed development is to be carried out on only one lot, the area of that lot, or
(b) if the proposed development is to be carried out on 2 or more lots, the area of any lot on which the development is proposed to be carried out that has at least one common boundary with another lot on which the development is being carried out.
[4]
Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011
Development on the Subject Site is subject to the provisions of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (MDCP), the aims of which are to:
"1. Review and amend the contents of Council's existing DCPs so that they reflect contemporary planning practices;
2. Incorporate the amended/updated provisions of the existing DCPs and codes together with new planning provisions on contemporary and other planning issues into a single DCP; and
3. Build upon MLEP 2011 by providing detailed objectives and controls for
development."
The following sections of MDCP are of relevance in this appeal:
1. Part 2, concerning Urban Design, and in particular:
1. Part 2.1.2 Streetscape and Townscape, which provides guidance in relation to the subdivision of land;
2. Part 2.1.3 Infill design guidelines, which provides guidance in relation to scale, massing and form of infill developments;
3. Part 2.6.2 Aircraft noise, that provides guidance concerning acoustic privacy;
4. Part 2.7 Solar Access and Overshadowing, which provides guidance on managing the impact of development on the solar access for surrounding buildings (Part 2.7.3), and which requires under control C2 that direct solar access to windows of principal living areas and principal areas of open space of nearby residential accommodation must:
"(i) Not be reduced to less than two hours between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June; or
(ii) Where less than two hours of sunlight is currently available on 21 June, solar access should not be further reduced, but which also provides. However, if the development proposal results in a further decrease in sunlight available on 21 June, Council will consider:
a. The development potential of the site;
b. The particular circumstances of the neighbouring site(s), for example, the proximity of any residential accommodation to the boundary, the resultant proximity of windows to the boundary, and whether this makes compliance difficult;
c. Any exceptional circumstances of the subject site such as heritage, built form or topography; and
d. Whether the sunlight available in March to September is significantly reduced, such that it impacts upon the functioning of principal living areas and the principal areas of open space. To ensure compliance with this control, separate shadow diagrams for the March/September period must be submitted in accordance with the requirements of C1;"
1. Part 2.10 Parking, which provides guidance in relation to the provision of car and bicycle parking, and their design for private developments, and, as concerns this appeal, the relevant objectives of which are:
"O1 To balance the need to meet car parking demand on-site to avoid excessive spillover on to streets, with the need to constrain parking to maintain the Marrickville LGA's compact urban form and promote sustainable transport.
...
O3 To improve the integration of land use and transport by applying strict constraints to car parking within accessible areas and more modest constraints in less accessible areas.
O4 To ensure parking provision and design is compatible with the particular development proposed.
O5 To allow for appropriate variation of provision rates and design parameters for developments with particular characteristics, such as affordable housing or re-use of older buildings.
...
O7 To ensure all parking facilities are safe, functional and accessible to all through compliance with design standards.
O8 To ensure all parking facilities achieve positive visual, environmental, sustainable transport and pedestrian safety outcomes through adoption of best practice principles...."
1. The Subject Site falls within an area identified as Parking Area 1, and which for a semi-detached dwelling requires the provision of one (1) car space per dwelling, except
2. as stated under control C3, that Council may waive its requirements for the provision of on-site parking in low density residential areas where such provisions would:
"i. have adverse impacts on the existing streetscape;
ii. disrupt the existing pattern where the majority of the adjoining dwellings have no provisions for onsite parking; and
iii. Is inconsistent with the desired future character of the area."
1. Part 2.10.12, which provides guidance and controls in relation to car parking design;
2. Part 2.18 Landscaping and Open Space, which,
1. includes the following objectives of relevance in this appeal:
"O1 To promote site landscaping that conforms and complements the character of the individual building and the character of the area.
O2 To retain and enhance any existing significant trees and established planting found on site.
O3 To provide dwellings with outdoor recreation space.
O4 To minimise the extent of hard paved areas and facilitate rainwater infiltration.
O5 To improve the appearance, amenity and energy efficiency of development through integrated landscape design.
..."
1. provides guidance and controls, including in relation to semi-attached dwellings within Part 2.18.11.1, and which includes controls:
"C11 Landscaped area
The entire front setback must be of a pervious landscape with the exception of driveways and pathways.
C12 Private open space
i. The greater of 45m2 or 20% of the total site area with no dimension being less than 3 metres, must be private open space.
ii. A minimum 50% of private open space must be pervious."
1. Part 2.21 Site facilities and Waste management, which provides guidance and controls, including a requirement (under Parts 2.21.2.5 and 2.21.3.1) that a development application for each semi-detached dwelling should provide:
1. a 1 x 240L recycling bin per dwelling, a 1 x 140L general waste bin and and 1x140L green waste bine (control C4];
2. adequate and accessible open air clothes drying facilities, visually screened from the street and adjoining (control C50);
3. external clothes drying areas at a rate of 3.75m2, and a minimum of 6m of clothes line.
1. Part 3, concerning subdivision, amalgamation and movement networks, and in particular:
1. Part 3.2, in relation to Torrens title subdivision, which includes:
1. Part 3.2.2 Residential Torrens Subdivision and Amalgamation controls, which has the objective of retaining the prevailing cadastral pattern of the street (objective O3).
1. Part 4, concerning residential development, and in particular:
1. Part 4.1.1 which provides the following relevant objectives:
"O1 To provide more details on the residential standards contained in Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011).
O2 To maintain and encourage compatible architectural styles within residential areas.
O3 To encourage residential development which is sensitive to the local environment, socially responsive and which promotes a safe living environment and makes better use of existing infrastructure.
O4 To ensure the impact of urban housing on the amenity of surrounding properties and the streetscape is a prime and initial consideration in the preparation and assessment of development proposals.
...
O6 To require high quality urban design and accessible and adaptable accommodation.
O7 To encourage innovative design that positively responds to the character and context of the locality."
1. Part 4.1.4 which provides guidance on good urban design practice;
2. Part 4.1.6, which provides guidance on built form and character, including in relation to FSR, height, and building setbacks, and which includes Part 4.1.6.2 concerning Building Setbacks, which
1. notes that 'setbacks may be varied to suit an individual site's context, especially in some of the' highly built up areas to maintain a reasonable level of amenity for adjacent properties', and
2. which provides the following guidance under control C10 for building setbacks for attached dwellings, dwelling houses and semi-detached dwellings:
"i. Front setback must be:
a. Consistent with the setback of adjoining development or the dominant setback found along the street; and
b. On corner lots where there is a consistent secondary boundary setback to buildings on opposite street corners, reflected in the design of any proposal.
ii. Side setback must be determined in accordance with the following table:
iii. Rear setback must:
a. Where a predominant first storey rear building line exists, is consistent and visible from the public domain, aim to maintain that upper rear building line;
b. In all other cases, be considered on merit with the adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties being the primary consideration along with ensuring adequate open space; and
c. Where the prominent form of development is terrace housing with access to a rear lane, maintain the capacity for off-street parking."
1. Part 4.1 7, which provides further guidance on car parking, the design of garage doors and driveways, including a requirement for vehicle parking at the rear of properties and off laneways, and which includes the following relevant controls:
"C14 Car parking structures must be located and designed to:
i. Conveniently and safely serve all users;
ii. Enable efficient use of car spaces, including adequate manoeuvrability for vehicles between the site and the street;
iii. Not dominate or detract from the appearance of the existing dwelling or new development and the streetscape;
iv. Be compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling or development on the site;
v. Not reduce availability of kerbside parking;
vi. Retain any significant trees; and
vii. Have minimal impact on existing fences and garden areas that contribute to the setting of the associated dwelling and the character of the streetscape.
C15 For existing and new dwellings, a car parking structure in order of priority must be:
i. Located at the rear of the site with access from a rear lane; or
ii. Located at the side of the dwelling house behind the front building alignment where it is the predominant form of parking structure in the street and is consistent with the desired future character for the area."
1. Part 9, concerning strategic context considerations, and in particular:
1. Part 9.14, in relation to the Camdenville Precinct, and which confirms that the Subject Site is located within the Enmore-Newtown Heritage Conservation Area (Area C12/HCA 12), and which provides the following desired future character description for the Precinct:
"The desired future character of the area is:
1. To protect and preserve contributory and period buildings within the precinct and require their sympathetic alteration or restoration.
2. To protect the identified Heritage Items within the precinct.
3. To maintain distinctly single storey streetscapes within the precinct.
4. To protect significant streetscapes and/or public domain elements within the precinct including landscaping, fencing, open space, sandstone kerbing and guttering, views and vistas and prevailing subdivision patterns.
5. To preserve the predominantly low to medium density residential character of the precinct.
6. To ensure the provision and location of off-street car parking does not adversely impact the amenity of the precinct.
7. To protect the identified values of the Enmore-Newtown Heritage Conservation Area, Enmore House Estate Heritage Conservation Area, Camden & James Street Heritage Conservation Area and the Holmwood Estate Heritage Conservation Area.
8. To ensure orderly development on the masterplan site in accordance with the principles of the masterplan vision, including allotment amalgamations, where required, that are not detrimental to achieving the overall masterplan structure and achieve an efficient and high quality built outcome.
9. To facilitate the redevelopment of the underutilised industrial site at 32-60 Alice Street, Newtown for a mix of uses that will contribute to the character and diversity of the precinct.
10. To ensure that higher density development demonstrates good urban design and environmental sustainability and provides suitable amenity for occupants of those developments.
11. To ensure that the design of higher density development protects the residential amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties."
[5]
Contentions
As discussed above at [12], at the commencement of the hearing, the Respondent submitted that the principal questions requiring resolution in this appeal were:
1. what is FSR applicable to the proposed development, and as a consequence of resolving this issue, is a written request required under the provisions of cl 4.6 of MLEP to vary the FSR control applicable to the proposed development?
2. is the bulk and scale of the proposed development acceptable, and as a consequence of resolving that question, should a proposed bedroom at the rear of each of the proposed semi-detached dwellings be deleted if the Applicant's development application is to be approved?
3. is the proposed dual use (private open space and car parking) of the area the rear of the Subject Site acceptable?
4. are the potential impacts on a street tree located in the College Street, and identified as Tree 3 (T3), acceptable?
These questions are addressed seriatum below. The Court's consideration of these questions was assisted by submissions and/or testimony from the following experts:
1. Mr Jeff Chapmen, expert planner, for the Respondent);
2. Mr Lewis Adey, expert planner for the Applicant;
3. Mr Oleg Sannikov, expert traffic engineer for the Applicant;
4. Mr Ian McKenzie, arboricultural expert, for the Respondent;
5. Mr George Palmer, arboricultural expert, for the Applicant.
[6]
What is FSR applicable to the proposed development, and as a consequence of resolving this issue, is a written request required under the provisions of cl 4.6 of MLEP to vary the FSR control applicable to the proposed development?
The proposed development is for the construction of two semi-detached dwelling houses including the Torrens title subdivision of the Subject Site into two lots so that each of the semi-detached dwellings would sit on its own lot.
Under MLEP, a semi-detached dwelling is a type of residential accommodation that is defined as a dwelling that is on its own lot of land and is attached to only one other dwelling.
Clause 4.5 of MLEP provides guidance on the calculation of the FSR of a proposed development, and states that the FSR is the gross floor area of all buildings within the site to the site area, and the site area is defined as follows:
The site area is taken to be:
(a) if the proposed development is to be carried out on only one lot, the area of that lot; or
(b) if the proposed development is to be carried out on two or more lots, the area of any lot on which the development is to be carried out that has at last one boundary with another lot on which the development is being carried out.
In the current appeal, the proposed development is for two semi-detached dwellings. By definition (see above at [27], each of the semi-detached dwellings must sit on its own lot. Indeed, based on the definitions within MLEP, a development proposing two semi-detached dwellings cannot be undertaken on a single lot.
The Respondent in this appeal does not oppose the subdivision of the Subject Site into two lots (see above at [11(1)]).
Based on these points, I accept the submission of the Applicant that the proposed development is to be undertaken on two lots, which will adjoin each other, As a consequence, the definition of site area applicable to the calculation of the applicable FSR for the proposed development in this appeal is that based on the second limb [that is the limb (b)] of the site area definition quoted above at [28].
Therefore, for the purposes of identifying the FSR development standard applicable to the proposed development in this appeal, the site area would be the area of any lot on which the development is to be carried out that has at least one boundary with another lot on which the development is being carried out, and in my assessment this must be the areas of the two lots that will be created after subdivision of the Subject Site.
The site areas of the two lots on which the proposed development is to be carried out would be 144.9m2 (proposed lot 81 [the northern lot]) and 145m2 (proposed lot 81A [the southern lot]).
Consequently, because both lots have a site area of less than 150m2, then under the provisions of cl 4.4(2A) of MLEP the applicable FSR for each of the two lots on which each of the semi-detached dwellings is proposed is 1.1:1.
On this basis, the FSR of each of the semi-detached dwelling developments as represented within the so-called version F plans, would be:
1. 0.89:1 for the semi-detached dwelling on proposed lot 81; and
2. 0.89:1 for the semi-detached dwelling on proposed lot 81A.
I conclude that:
1. the FSR of both semi-detached dwellings is less than the FSR development standard applicable to their respective lots which is 1.1:1; and
2. given the compliance of the proposed development with the applicable FSR development standard for the lots, there is no need for the Applicant to provide a written request under the provisions of cl 4.6 of MLEP to vary the FSR control applicable to the proposed development.
[7]
Is the bulk and scale of the proposed development acceptable, and as a consequence of resolving that question, should a proposed bedroom at the rear of each of the proposed semi-detached dwellings be deleted if the Applicant's development applicable is to be approved?
The Respondent had said that the proposed development should not be approved because the bulk and scale of the proposed development would give rise to unacceptable visual impacts to the adjoining properties to its north at 2-12 Holt Street, and would have unacceptable visual and solar access impacts on the adjoining property to the south at 83 Station Street.
I will address the potential impacts of the proposed development in relation to the Holt Street properties first, before considering the potential impacts on the property to the south at 83 Station Street.
[8]
Potential impacts on the Holt Street properties
In relation to the Holt Street properties, the principal contention between the Parties was whether the bulk and scale of the proposed development would give rise to unacceptable visual impacts on the residents of those properties as perceived from their rear yards which adjoined the Subject Site.
The Court was assisted in its consideration of this question by the expert planners for both Parties, Mr Chapman, for the Respondent, and Mr Adey, for the Applicant.
Within the joint report of the expert planners, tendered as evidence at the hearing, Mr Chapman had said that the length, and subsequent bulk and scale, of the upper level of the proposed development was contrary to the objectives and controls contained in the following parts of MDCP:
1. Part 2.1.3, which provides guidance in relation to the design of infill developments;
2. Part 4.1.4, concerning good urban design practice, and which provides a suite of considerations concerning the design of new developments;
3. Part 4.1.6, concerning built form and character in low density residential settings, and which provides under Part 4.1.6.2, amongst other matters, that setbacks may be varied to suit an individual site's context, especially in highly built up areas to maintain a reasonable level of amenity for adjacent properties. It also provides that for lots with a width of less than 8m, the minimum setbacks to side boundaries are a matter for Council's discretion, having considered visual and solar access impacts on adjoining properties.
Mr Chapman had also said in the report that, in his opinion, the resolution of these concerns would be achieved through a reduction in the scale of the upper level of the proposed development as this would reduce its visual bulk, and provide a consistent alignment with the upper floor of the dwelling at 83 Station Street to its south.
Mr Chapman proposed that the deletion of the rear upper bedrooms from the proposed development (the so-called Bedrooms 1) would achieve the required reduction in scale and achieve compliance with relevant objectives and controls of MDCP identified above at [41].
In contradiction to Mr Chapman's proposition, Mr Adey, within the joint report, said that he did not agree that the deletion of proposed upper floor rear bedrooms was necessary because, in his opinion,:
1. the first floor setback of the proposed development was aligned with the rear building line established by the adjoining property at 83 Station Street;
2. any potential impacts on the adjoining Holt Street properties to the north of the Subject Site were:
1. minimal and acceptable, and
2. consistent with those anticipated by the controls given the proposed development's compliance with the height and FSR standards, as well as with the existing setbacks.
During the hearing the expert planners provided the following additional testimony:
1. Mr Chapman said that:
1. he was satisfied with the design of the proposed development in relation to its streetscape presentations and its front setback;
2. his concerns in relation to the adequacy of the side setbacks, and the bulk and scale of the proposed development in relation to the properties on Holt Street, were maintained, other than in relation to the property at 2 Holt Street which he said was not an issue;
3. he maintained his opinion that the upper rear bedrooms of the proposed development should be deleted in order to relieve the potential visual impact of the proposed development on the properties in adjoin that portion of the proposed development on Holt Street.
1. Mr Adey said that the amendments included within the version F plans, and upon which the Applicant now relied, provided for:
1. a lowering of the height of the proposed development by some 800mm;
2. an increase in side setback by 600mm;
3. the insertion of a courtyard on the northern elevation of the building opposite the rear of the dwellings at 4 and 6 Holt Street to provide articulation to the faced and to relieve potential visual impacts on those properties;
4. a height of the proposed development at its northern elevation that is approximately 1.5m lower than that of the existing building on the Subject Site and should not present a worse impact on the property at 8 Holt Street compared with the current dwelling.
The Parties, and their experts, agreed that the question of whether the upper floor rear bedrooms should be deleted was a matter for merits consideration by the Court.
Having considered the submissions of the Parties, and the evidence of the experts, I have concluded that the design of the proposed development, including the proposed rear upper floor bedrooms, is acceptable because:
1. I agree with Mr Adey that the alignment of the upper level of the proposed development is satisfactory as it is consistent with the rear alignments of developments to its south, including with the dwelling at 83 Station Street,
2. the potential visual impact of the proposed development, as represented by the version F plans, on the property at 8 Holt Street, which is the property that would be the primary beneficiary of the deletion of the upper rear bedrooms, is acceptable as, in my assessment,:
1. it is similar or less than the visual impacts of the bulk and scale of the current dwelling on the Subject Site;
2. any potential visual impact on that property is similar to, and certainly no worse than, any potential impact on the properties at 4 and 6 Holt Street.
1. there are no significant potential visual impacts that arise from bulk and scale of the proposed development on the properties at 10 and 12 Holt Street as these:
1. are not adjacent to the proposed dwellings on the Subject Site; and
2. would be subject to potential visual impacts that are less than those that would be experienced by residents of 4, 6 and 8 Holt Street, which I have already found to be acceptable.
I am also satisfied that the design of the rear upper floor of the proposed development is such that it would not give rise to any overlooking impacts in relation to the rear of the properties at 10 and 12 Holt Street. I base this conclusion on the Applicant's provision of privacy treatments associated with the windows to the rear upper storey bedrooms and the relationship of these windows in terms of view lines and angles, and their distances to the rear yards of those properties.
I conclude that the proposed deletion of the rear upper floor bedrooms is not required to mitigate any potential bulk and scale impacts to the properties adjoining the Subject Site on Holt Street.
As a consequence of my findings above at [47] and [48], I also conclude that the only reason I should require the deletion of the proposed rear upper level bedrooms, as proposed by the Respondent, would be to address potential solar access impacts in relation to the property at 83 Station Street, which I discuss below at [51] to [65].
[9]
Potential impacts on 83 Station Street
In relation to 83 Station Street, the principal contentions between the Parties were:
1. whether the rear alignment of the proposed development, notably the alignment of the rear upper storey, was acceptable;
2. whether the potential solar access impacts of the proposed development on the rear yard of 83 Holt Street were acceptable;
3. whether the potential solar access impacts of the proposed development on the north facing windows of the dwelling at 83 Station Street are acceptable.
I have already concluded (see above at [48]) that the alignment of the proposed development, including that of its rear upper floor, is acceptable other than in relation to its potential solar access impacts on the property at 83 Station Street.
In relation to the potential solar access impacts on the rear yard of 83 Station Street, the experts agreed during the hearing that:
1. the proposed development would not provide for 2 hours of solar access to the rear yard of 83 Station Street. However,:
1. the rear yard of 83 Station Street does not currently enjoy 2 hours of solar access;
2. the proposed development would improve slightly the solar access available to the rear yard, and, as a consequence, it is consistent with the relevant control in MDCP (control C2 of Part 2.7.3) which requires that where less than 2 hours of sunlight is currently available on 21 June each year, the solar access provided following a development should not be reduced further
Consequently, I am satisfied that the Applicant's proposed development should not be refused on the basis of potential solar access impacts to the rear yard of the property at 83 Station Street.
In relation to the potential solar access impacts on the first floor, north facing, windows of 83 Station Street, the experts also agreed at the hearing that:
1. the level of solar access currently enjoyed by the residents of 83 Station Street through this window would be retained under the proposed development,
2. based on this, the proposed development is consistent with the relevant control in MDCP (control C2 of Part 2.7.3).
Consequently, I am satisfied that the Applicant's proposed development should not be refused on the basis of potential solar access impacts to the north facing, first floor window of the property at 83 Station Street.
Concerning the potential impact of the proposed development on the solar access available through the north facing, ground floor, windows to the rear kitchen of 83 Station Street, the experts agreed that, as a consequence of the proposed development, there would be a loss of solar access through these windows (one a glass block window and one a smaller highlight window).
In relation to this potential loss of solar access:
1. Mr Chapman said that the deletion of the rear upper storey bedroom from the proposed development should be preferred as this would retain 2 hours of solar access between 12 midday to 2pm to these windows and the rear kitchen of 83 Station Street;
2. Mr Adey said that, in his opinion,:
1. both north facing, ground floor, windows of 83 Station Street served as secondary windows to the kitchen area;
2. the primary light and outlook enjoyed from within the kitchen were obtained through the windows and doors of the kitchen facing west, and towards the rear yard;
3. given the compliance of the proposed development with the building envelope, height and FSR controls applicable to the Subject Site, and the continuing functionality of the kitchen for reasons provided above at [(c),] it would be unreasonable to require the deletion of the proposed upper floor rear bedrooms in order to retain the solar access to these ground floor and secondary windows;
4. this would be consistent with the provisions of control C2 of Part 2.7.3 of MDCP (see above at [0]), under which the Council, or Court on appeal, can give consideration to certain circumstances of the Subject Site, and the adjoining property, when a proposed development will impact solar access.
Having considered the submissions of the Parties and the evidence of the expert planners, I concur with the agreed position of the experts that the proposed development would enhance the solar access afforded to the rear yard of 83 Station Street, and would retain the solar access to the first floor north facing windows of 83 Station Street.
Concerning the solar access provided by the north facing highlight and glass block windows to the rear ground floor kitchen, I agree with the evidence provided by Mr Adey in relation to the acceptability of the potential impacts of the proposed development on these windows and the kitchen, for the reasons he provided above at [58(2)], which I adopt.
In particular, I do not consider that it is reasonable to require the removal of the proposed rear upper floor bedrooms in circumstances where the FSR of the proposed development, which is 0.89:1 for both dwellings, is comfortably within the applicable development standard of 1.1:1.
I agree with Mr Adey that the loss of solar access to the two ground floor windows at 83 Station Street, in these circumstances, while not ideal, is, nevertheless, consistent with the circumstances identified within control C2 of Part 2.7.3 in which exceptions might be granted to the solar access requirements of that control.
Consequently, I accept that the design of the proposed development as represented within the Issue F plans, upon which the Applicant relies, is acceptable from the perspective of potential solar access impacts on the property at 83 Station Street.
Based on this, and my findings above at [54], I further conclude that the bulk and scale of the proposed development, including in relation to the design of its rear upper floor, is acceptable.
As a consequence of my conclusions at [63] and [64], I find that there is no need for the proposed upper level rear bedrooms to be deleted as proposed by the Respondent.
[10]
Is the proposed dual use (private open space and car parking) of the area the rear of the Subject Site acceptable?
Under the provisions of Parts 2.10.4 and 2.10.5 of MDCP, the proposed development is required to provide one car parking space for each dwelling house in a semi-detached dwelling development.
Inner West Council has provided that the requirements of Parts 2.10.4 and 2.10.5 of MDCP may, under control C3, be waived in relation to low density housing in circumstances where the provision of parking (garage, carport or hardstand area) would:
1. have adverse impacts on the existing streetscape;
2. disrupt the existing pattern where the majority of adjoining dwellings have no provision of on-site parking;
3. be inconsistent with the desired future character of the area.
My assessment of the provisions of control C3 is that they do not apply to the proposed development, and so do not provide a basis for exemption to the parking requirements applicable under MDCP.
I have reached this finding because the Applicant's proposed parking space:
1. would not have an adverse impact on the existing streetscape;
2. would not disrupt the existing pattern where the majority of adjoining dwellings have no provision of on-site parking;
3. is not inconsistent with the desired future character of the area.
The Applicant has proposed that a portion of the rear private open space associated with each of the semi-detached dwellings be used to provide a single off-street parking space for each of those dwellings, such that these rear areas would serve the dual purpose of providing private open space and a car parking space.
The Applicant has proposed that this dual use of the private open space for the provision of one off-street parking space would satisfy the provisions of Parts 2.10.4 and 2.10.5 of MDCP (see above at [23(1)(e)]), which require that each semi-detached dwelling in Newtown (other than in areas west of Edgeware Road) provide one car parking space per dwelling.
The Applicant said that this dual use outcome would be achieved by laying a set of wheel strips into the rear lawn of each dwelling, as proposed within the Applicant's issue F plans.
The Respondent submitted that the proposed parking strips in the rear yard of each dwelling should be removed from the design of the proposed development so that the area at the rear of each dwelling could be used exclusively as private open space.
The Respondent said that it based its submission, in part, on the location of the Subject Site which it submitted was within an area that was accessible to good public transport, with the consequence that future residents of the proposed development would not require a vehicle.
The Applicant submitted that, notwithstanding the accessibility of the Subject Site to public transport, the proposed design of the car parking space was consistent with the relevant objectives and controls of MDCP for car parking requirements (Part 2.10.4 and 2.10.5) and the design of car parking spaces (Part 4.1.7), and also would not offend either the relevant objectives or controls concerning private open space under Part 2.18.1 and Part 2.18.11, (see above at [23(1)(g)]).
The proposed dual use of the rear private open space for car parking was examined at the hearing in relation to its acceptability from a planning perspective and its acceptability from a traffic engineering perspective. I will address each of these in turn.
[11]
Is the proposed dual use of the rear private open space acceptable from a planning perspective?
The Parties' expert planners, Mr Chapman and Mr Adey, provided testimony on the acceptability of the dual use of the rear private open space within their joint report, and during the hearing, as follows:
1. Mr Chapman said that, in his opinion, the use of the rear yard for car parking diminished the private open space provided by the Applicant's proposed development by 16.5m2 for each semi-detached dwelling and resulted in the area of private open space available to each dwelling being 28.5m2, which is less than the 45m2 required under the provisions of MDCP.
2. Mr Adey said that, in his opinion, the dual use of the private open space in the rear yard for car parking was 'a sensible approach in this location', as it provided future residents with flexibility and the ability to comply with both Council's open space requirements and those for car parking.
As noted above at [75], the Applicant has submitted, and I agree, that proposed use of the rear yard for car parking is consistent with the provisions of MDCP concerning car parking and car parking design.
As a consequence, because it is consistent with car parking design controls of MDCP with respect to its location in the rear yard, the question for resolution then becomes:
1. is this proposed dual use of the rear yard also consistent with the provisions of MDCP concerning private open space in semi-detached dwelling developments?
The relevant provisions in relation to this question are those in Part 2.18 of MDCP (see above at [23(1)(g)]).
In my assessment, the Applicant's proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the Landscaping and Open Space in Part 2.18.1, for the following reasons:
1. in relation to Objective O1,
1. there was no contention between the Parties that this objective was not fulfilled, and in any case, the proposed development includes site landscaping that conforms with, and complements, the character of the individual building and the character of the area;
1. in relation to Objective O2,
1. there was no contention between the Parties that this objective was not fulfilled, and in any case it is my assessment that the proposed development does retain and enhance existing significant trees and established planting found on site to the extent possible;
1. in relation to Objective O3,
1. the proposed development will, in my assessment, provide both semi-detached dwellings with outdoor recreation space;
1. in relation to Objective O4,
1. the proposed development does, in my assessment, minimise the extent of hard paved areas and facilitate rainwater infiltration; and
1. in relation to Objective O5,
1. the proposed development does provide an integrated landscape design that will improve its appearance and amenity, and which will not increase energy demand, and so will be energy efficient.
Further, in my assessment, the Applicant's proposed development is also consistent with the controls for Landscaping and Open Space in Part 2.18.11.1 concerning semi-detached dwelling developments, because:
1. Control C11 relates to the front setback and so has no relevance to the consideration of the Applicant's proposed dual use of the rear setback for a car parking space; and
2. Control C12 places no restriction on the potential dual use of the rear open space as proposed by the Applicant such that it would serve to reduce the calculated area of private open space; and
3. the Parties agreed that the area of private open space within the proposed development is compliant with the numerical standards in this control.
Based on these considerations, I conclude that there are no planning grounds that should preclude the Applicant's innovative proposal for the dual use of the rear area of the proposed development as both private open space and for car parking through the installation of parking strips in the lawn of the rear yard.
[12]
Is the proposed dual use of the rear private open space acceptable from a traffic engineering perspective?
The provisions of Part 4.1.7 of MDCP, provided above at [23(3)(d)], include a recognition that the parking of vehicles in areas such as Marrickville and Newtown, which were designed and built before the advent of mass car ownership, is often difficult to provide due to the narrow streets and desire to maintain the unity of the surrounding built form. It also notes that, for this reason, Council has identified that the preferred location for off-street parking for residential developments is either at the rear or at the side of dwelling houses, and the Applicant's proposal is consistent with this preferred location.
My assessment of the Applicant's proposed use of the rear private open space for use in relation to the objectives of Part 4.1.7 of MDCP is as follows:
1. Objective O17, to maintain kerbside parking and streetscape character, in relation which:
1. the Applicant's proposed development would generate a need for one parking space for each of the semi-detached dwellings, and the proposal includes one parking space for each dwelling. The proposed parking space for the northern dwelling would replace an existing garage on the Subject Site and have no impact on kerbside parking. The creation of the proposed on-site parking space for the southern dwelling would require the loss of one on-street car parking space. The Applicant's expert traffic engineer, Mr Oleg Sannikov, said, in a written statement tendered as evidence at the hearing, that the provision of the on-site parking space for the southern dwelling would balance the demand created by the proposed development with the loss of one on-street parking space. The Respondent said that it did not press this issue as it had not been clearly pleased when the Applicant's amended pans were filed.
1. Objective O18, to ensure where permitted that car parking structures respect and enhance the character of the street, in relation which:
1. the Applicant's proposed parking arrangements would respect the character of the street and are neutral with respect to any enhancement of the street.
1. Objective O19, to ensure car parking structures are designed to complement and not compete with the architectural character of the building and do not become a dominant element on the site or in the streetscape, in relation which:
1. the Applicant's proposed parking arrangements would complement, and would not compete, with the architectural character of the building proposed for the Subject Site. It would also not be a dominant element on the Subject Site or in the streetscape.
1. Objective O20, to require vehicle parking at the rear of properties and off laneways, in relation which:
1. the Applicant's proposed parking arrangements are at the rear of the Subject Site consistent with this objective.
Having considered the evidence before me and the submissions of the Parties, I accept that the Applicant's proposed car parking arrangements are acceptable with respect to the objectives of Part 4.1.7 of MDCP, and in the context of the provisions of s 4.15(3A) of the EP&A Act (see above at [15]).
I have also considered the proposed parking arrangements for the proposed development in relation to the controls within Part 4.1.7 of MDCP. The relevant controls in this part of the MDCP are controls C14 and C15 (see above at [23(3)(d)]).
The Applicant's proposed car parking spaces are at the rear of the Subject Site, consistent with the provisions of control C15 of Part 4.1.7 of MDCP.
I also consider that the proposed parking arrangements are consistent with the provisions of control C14 of Part 4.1.7 of MDCP relating to the location and design of parking structures, because the Respondent's concerns in relation to the design of the Applicant's proposed parking arrangements, which were not formally pressed at the hearing, have been addressed in a statement provided by expert traffic engineer Oleg Sannikov, tendered as evidence at the hearing.
The Sannikov statement included refined details for the design of the parking space, its associated driveway and swept path analyses that confirmed a vehicle using the car parking space was capable of safe entry and exit consistent with the requirements of AS2980.1:2004.
The statement further confirmed the details of design for a roller door to the car parking space and that vehicles using the space could avoid physical interactions with a street tree (identified as Tree T3), and in relation to which my assessment is provided below (see [92] to [104]).
[13]
Are the potential impacts on a street tree located in the College Street, and identified as Tree 3 (T3), acceptable?
As noted above at [25], the Court's consideration of matters pertaining to the potential impact of the proposed development on the street tree identified as Tree T3 were assisted by the evidence of the arboricultural experts Mr Ian McKenzie, for the Respondent, and Mr George Palmer, for the Applicant.
The arboricultural experts agreed in their joint report, tendered as evidence at the hearing, that Tree T3, identified by the Applicant's arborist as a 5m high Callistiomen sp. specimen, should be retained. They also said that there was insufficient space adjacent to the Subject Site to plant a replacement tree if Tree T3 were to be removed.
The experts further agreed that installation of the proposed driveway crossover to the southern allotment (proposed lot 81A) would result in a 36% encroachment into the tree protection zone (TPZ) of Tree T3.
The Applicant's arboricultural expert, Mr Palmer, said that, while the loss of 36% of T3's TPZ was relatively significant, the age and hardy nature of the tree was such that it would tolerate a broad range of construction impacts including those proposed by the Applicant in relation to the driveway cross over to proposed lot 81A.
The Respondent's expert, Mr Mackenzie, agreed that tree species of the genus Callistomen had a relatively good tolerance to development impacts and that Tree T3 was likely to survive the construction impacts of the proposed development in the short term.
The Applicant's expert had undertaken excavation works around the base of Tree T3 in order to map the roots of that tree for the purpose of impact assessment. The results of this root mapping were tendered as evidence at the hearing.
This root mapping had identified two structural roots supporting Tree T3 that extended under the area of the proposed crossover and driveway associated with proposed lot 81A, and in relation to which the experts agreed that:
1. no part of the larger of the two structural roots was found above a 400mm depth for the width of the proposed driveway, and as a consequence this structural root would not be impacted by the driveway's construction;
2. a second, smaller, structural root, that had not been mapped initially, did extend from Tree T3 in the direction of the proposed driveway. This root had a diameter in excess of 20mm and was located at a depth of approximately 200m below the surface.
The Applicant's arboricultural expert, Mr Palmer, said that, in his opinion, and based on advice from the Applicant's engineer, Mr Hortez, and its traffic expert, Mr Sannikov, the proposed driveway to proposed lot 81A could be constructed in a manner that would not require that root to be removed.
In response to a question from the Applicant, the Respondent's arboricultural expert, Mr Mackenzie, said that, in his opinion, the installation of an impermeable driveway above the TPZ of Tree T3 would give rise to an impact that would reduce the useful life expectancy (ULE) of the tree.
However, in response to a further question from the Applicant, Mr Mackenzie also agreed that the potential impacts from construction of the driveway and footpath for proposed lot 81A could be reduced, and the ULE of Tree T3 could be extended, if a permeable paving were used. Mr Mackenzie said that, on balance, and while not certain, the removal of the current concrete footpath at the rear of the Subject Site and its replacement with a permeable surface, was likely to assist the viability of Tree T3.
In response to the statements of Mr Mackenzie, the Applicant's arboricultural expert, Mr Palmer, said that soil permeability was an important consideration in assessing the potential impacts of the proposed development on Tree T3, and that the proposed design of the driveway and footpath at the rear of proposed lot 81A, was, in his opinion, acceptable and would adequately protect Tree T3.
In response to a question from Mr Bonanno, for the Respondent, Mr Mackenzie said that he had been involved with the approval of a driveway incorporating permeable paving, and that, in his opinion this had the potential to increase the ULE of Tree T3 from a 5 to 15 year timeframe, as would be anticipated under a concrete driveway, to 15 years plus, which would be within the anticipated ULE of Tree T3 should the proposed development not be approved.
Having considered the evidence of the arboricultural experts, and the submissions of the Parties, I accept that the design of the driveway and footpath as proposed by the Applicant, but incorporating the use of permeable pavement, would mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed development on Tree T3, such that the likely ULE of that tree would be extended into the range that might otherwise be anticipated without the proposed development.
Notwithstanding this, and given the potential impact of works on Tree T3 during construction of the driveway and footpath to proposed lot 81A, I have also concluded that delivery of these specific aspects of the proposed development should be overseen by an appropriately qualified arboricultural expert, engaged by the Applicant. This requirement should be reflected in final conditions of consent for the proposed development.
[14]
Conclusions
Having considered the submissions of the Parties, and the evidence of the expert planners, I am satisfied that:
1. the Applicant's proposed development, as amended, is compatible with FSR development standard applicable to the Subject Site in the context of the proposed development;
2. the potential visual and overlooking impacts of the proposed development, as amended, in relation to adjoining dwellings at 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 Holt Street are acceptable;
3. the design of the driveways and footpaths related to each of the proposed semidetached dwellings, incorporating the use of a permeable pavement material, are acceptable, including in relation to the potential impacts of the proposed development on street tree identified as Tree T3;
4. the construction of the driveway and footpath related to proposed lot 81A (the southern lot) should be overseen by an appropriately qualified arboricultural expert, engaged by the Applicant. This requirement should be reflected in final conditions of consent for the proposed development;
5. the proposed development complies with all other relevant provisions of MDCP as identified in this judgment.
I have, therefore, concluded that:
1. the proposed development is in the public interest;
2. the Applicant's Development Application DA D/2017/491, as amended, for demolition works and construction of two (2) semi-detached dwellings each of two storeys, at Newtown, should be approved.
Following the hearing, the Parties each provided draft conditions of consent for the proposed development. These drafts differed in certain respects, reflecting the positions of the Parties concerning the contentions between them at the hearing.
Following resolution within this judgment of the principal questions in this appeal, these differing draft conditions of consent can now be reconciled, and the Parties can file agreed final conditions of consent for the proposed development.
For this reason, in order to dispose of these proceedings, I provide the following directions.
[15]
Directions
The Court directs;
1. the Parties are to agree, and the Respondent is to file with the Court, settled conditions of consent, reflecting the conclusions in this judgment, by no later than Friday 24 May 2019;
2. the matter is listed for mention on Monday 27 May 2019 at 4:30pm; and
3. if direction (1) is complied with, final orders will be made granting development consent to the Applicant's development application DA D/2017/491, as amended, and the mention on 27 May 2019 will be vacated;
4. The Parties are granted liberty to restore on 3 days' notice.
[16]
Addendum
On 14 May 2019, the Parties were directed to agree, and the Respondent was directed to file with the Court, by no later than Friday 24 May 2019, settled conditions of consent, reflecting the conclusions in the Court's judgment in this matter.
The Parties have now agreed settled conditions of consent reflecting the conclusions in the Court's judgment, and these have been filed, as directed, and the Court is able to make final orders.
Orders
The orders of the Court are:
1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on amended plans;
2. The appeal is upheld;
3. Development application DA2017/00562 for demolition of an existing dwelling, and construction of two semi-detached dwelling houses, at 81 Station Street, Newtown, also identified as Lot 8 in DP 316, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions provided at Annexure 'A'.
4. The exhibits are returned, with the exception of Exhibits A, B and 1.
……………………….
Michael Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (1.32 MB, pdf)
[17]
Amendments
28 May 2019 - Final Orders
07 June 2019 - Pursuant to UCPR r 36.16(3B), by the Court's own motion, amend Annexure A referred to in order (3) of the orders of 28 May 2019 to include the following attachments:
Attachment A - Design and Specifications (referred to in Condition 79); and
Attachment B - Design and Specifications (referred to in Condition 72A)
which was previously omitted.
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: 07 June 2019