Branca and City Of Stirling
[2008] WASAT 69
•28 MARCH 2008
BRANCA and CITY OF STIRLING [2008] WASAT 69
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2008] WASAT 69 | |
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:333/2007 | 5 DECEMBER 2007, 16 JANUARY 2008 (FURTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED 22 JANUARY 2008, 1 FEBRUARY 2008 & 4 MARCH 2008) | |
| Coram: | MR P DE VILLIERS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 27/03/08 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | The application for review is dismissed and the decision of the respondent affirmed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | RAFFAELE BRANCA CITY OF STIRLING |
Catchwords: | Town planning Development application Preliminary matter Interpretation of cl 2.2.3.4 of the City of Stirling District Town Planning Scheme No 2 Demolition of existing residence and construction of two dwellings Heritage Protection Area Heritage provisions of City of Stirling District Town Planning Scheme No 2 State Planning Policy 3.5 Historic Heritage Conservation Retention and conservation of original buildings within Heritage Protection Area Unlisted buildings within Heritage Protection Areas Integrity of streetscape Subdivision of subject land approved Alterations to original dwelling Practical limitations of existing dwelling Contribution to streetscape Whether cultural significance is such that demolition should be refused Whether development complies with Character Retention Guidelines |
Legislation: | City of Stirling District Planning Scheme No 2, cl 1.3.5.1(f), cl 2.2.3, cl 2.2.3.1, cl 2.2.3.2, cl 2.2.3.4 Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), Pt 3 |
Case References: | Branca and City of Stirling [2008] WASAT 31 |
Orders | 1. The application for review is dismissed.,2. The decision of the respondent is affirmed. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : BRANCA and CITY OF STIRLING [2008] WASAT 69 MEMBER : MR P DE VILLIERS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) HEARD : 5 DECEMBER 2007, 16 JANUARY 2008 (FURTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED 22 JANUARY 2008, 1 FEBRUARY 2008 & 4 MARCH 2008) DELIVERED : 28 MARCH 2008 FILE NO/S : DR 333 of 2007 BETWEEN : RAFFAELE BRANCA
- Applicant
AND
CITY OF STIRLING
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning - Development application - Preliminary matter - Interpretation of cl 2.2.3.4 of the City of StirlingDistrict Town Planning Scheme No 2 - Demolition of existing residence and construction of two dwellings - Heritage Protection Area - Heritage provisions of City of StirlingDistrict Town Planning Scheme No 2 - State Planning Policy 3.5 Historic Heritage Conservation - Retention and conservation of original buildings within Heritage Protection Area - Unlisted buildings within Heritage Protection Areas - Integrity of
(Page 2)
streetscape - Subdivision of subject land approved - Alterations to original dwelling - Practical limitations of existing dwelling - Contribution to streetscape - Whether cultural significance is such that demolition should be refused - Whether development complies with Character Retention Guidelines
Legislation:
City of Stirling District Planning Scheme No 2, cl 1.3.5.1(f), cl 2.2.3, cl 2.2.3.1, cl 2.2.3.2, cl 2.2.3.4
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), Pt 3
Result:
The application for review is dismissed and the decision of the respondent affirmed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr SJ Bain (Acting as Agent)
Respondent : Mr C Famiano assisted by Ms L McGrath
Solicitors:
Applicant : SJB Town Planning & Urban Design (Town Planners)
Respondent : City of Stirling
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Branca and City of Stirling [2008] WASAT 31
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 This matter involved an application from Raffaele Branca for a review of the decision of the City of Stirling to refuse approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of two dwellings on Lot 319 Ninth Avenue, Inglewood.
2 The subject land, the subdivision of which has been approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission, falls within the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area and is currently occupied by a single storey residence and two garage structures.
3 The issues were:
• Whether the proposed demolition of the dwelling was inconsistent with cl 2.2.3.2 of the respondent's District Planning Scheme No 2, and in particular the Objective of s 3.1 of the respondent's Character Retention Design Guidelines to retain and conserve original buildings; and
• Whether the two proposed dwellings complied with the provisions of the Character Retention Guidelines for the area.
4 In regard to the question of the cultural heritage value of the existing dwelling, the Tribunal found that while alterations had clearly impacted on the level of integrity of the dwelling this impact had not been so extensive as to render it devoid of cultural heritage significance. In addition, the streetscapes of the locality were characterized by a high level of retention of original dwellings.
5 On this basis, the Tribunal questioned the proposed demolition of the existing dwelling.
6 In regard to whether the two proposed dwellings complied with the provisions of the Character Retention Design Guidelines, the Tribunal found that the proposed dwellings would have an adverse impact on the streetscapes in the immediately locality and undermine the objectives of the Character Retention Guidelines for the area.
7 For these reasons the application for review was dismissed and the decision of the respondent affirmed.
(Page 4)
8 A question of law emerged during the final hearing of the application for review:
"Whether cl 2.2.3.4 of the City of Stirling District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS 2 or Scheme) permits approval to commence development to be granted for the demolition of an existing building without an earlier or simultaneous approval being granted for the construction of a new building on the same site."
9 The question of law was referred to the President of the State Administrative Tribunal for resolution. On the question of law, the Tribunal found the City of Stirling District Planning Scheme No 2 permits approval to be granted for demolition of an existing building in a Heritage Protection Area without an earlier or simultaneous approval being granted for development on the site (Branca and City of Stirling [2008] WASAT 31).
10 However, without commenting on the merits of the case, the Tribunal noted that, in appropriate circumstances, it is within the planning discretion of a consent authority to refuse a development application for demolition in a Heritage Protection Area in the absence of approval of an appropriate replacement building.
Background
11 On 2 March 2007, Raffaele Branca (applicant) lodged an application to demolish the existing residence on Lot 319 (HN 203) Ninth Avenue, Inglewood (subject land or site) and construct two dwellings on the subject land. This application was refused by the City of Stirling (respondent) on 31 August 2007.
12 An application for review was subsequently lodged with the Tribunal on 2 October 2007.
Subject land
13 The subject land comprises an area of 707 square metres located on the south-east corner of Ninth Avenue and Clifton Crescent, Inglewood. The subject land is currently occupied by a single storey residence located on the north-eastern portion of the land and two garage structures located on the south-western extremity of the land adjacent to an unmade right of way (ROW) which runs between Ninth Avenue and Eighth Avenue.
(Page 5)
14 The existing residence is a simple Californian Bungalow constructed circa 1930s and its condition appears to be sound (see Attachment 1). While the existing house has undergone changes, the form of the house and its location on the site are representative of its architectural style.
15 The land is rectangular with a width of 15.17 metres and a depth of 47.8 metres. The short boundary is orientated to Ninth Avenue with the longer side boundary facing Clifton Crescent. On the 18 May 2007, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) granted approval for the subdivision of the land into two freehold (Green Title) lots comprising 354 square metres and 353 square metres respectively.
Locality
16 Inglewood is laid out on a rectangular grid with lots which generally vary between 650 square metres and 750 square metres, and have street frontages of between 13 and 15 metres. The street blocks have central ROWs which parallel to the avenues.
17 The suburb comprises predominantly single residential buildings with one house to each block. Houses are generally single storey and are located towards the front of the lot. Setbacks are fairly consistent within individual streets and vary between 5 and 9 metres. Houses in the suburb were constructed predominantly in the period from 1910 to 1950.
18 The subject land is located in the section of Ninth Avenue between Macauley Park on Hamer Parade and Beaufort Street. The context of the site is a subdivisional development dating from the 1920s and 1930s. Houses in this section of Ninth Avenue are typically single storey brick and tiled dwellings predominantly of Inter-war Californian Bungalow styles with some Federation Bungalow styles.
19 This area of Ninth Avenue is characterised by original dwellings with few vacant lots or infill houses. There are two existing double storey houses in Ninth Avenue although both have the upper storey set back. Some of the lots in the section of the street between Clifton Crescent and Beaufort Street contain new dwellings set back behind the original dwellings and generally taking access from the ROW.
20 Two vacant lots on Ninth Avenue occur at Lot 318 (HN 205) on the western corner of Ninth Avenue and Clifton Crescent and Lot 320 (HN 201) immediately adjacent to the south-east of the subject property. HN 201 was demolished in 2000 and HN 205 in 2005.
(Page 6)
21 Clifton Crescent largely comprises the side elevations of dwellings which face the avenues. In the locality of the site, one original dwelling at Lot 318 has, as noted above, been demolished leaving a vacant site. In addition, the rear section of Lot 407, on the south-east corner of Clifton Crescent and Tenth Avenue, has been subdivided and is currently vacant. A single storey residence has been constructed to the rear of Lot 280 on the north-west corner of Clifton Crescent and Eighth Avenue.
22 While Clifton Crescent is changing, and is likely to continue to change, the character of Ninth Avenue is less likely to change.
Application
23 The application the subject of the current review involves the demolition of the existing dwelling on the subject land and the development of two new dwellings (Lot 1 and Lot 2).
24 The proposed residence on Lot 1, on the corner of Ninth Avenue and Clifton Crescent, comprises a two storey residence with entry from Ninth Avenue incorporating a double garage accessed from Clifton Crescent. The ground floor of the residence is set back 3.225 metres (home office) and 4.675 metres (living room) from Ninth Avenue and between 1.5 metres and 3.12 metres from Clifton Crescent. The upper floor, comprising two bedrooms, and a living area and terrace facing Clifton Crescent, is set back 4.675 metres from Ninth Avenue, and between 3.12 metres and 4.0 metres from Clifton Crescent with a roofed balcony projecting to within 1.98 metres of the boundary.
25 The proposed residence on Lot 2, on the corner of Clifton Crescent and the ROW, comprises a two storey residence with entry from Clifton Crescent incorporating a double garage accessed from the ROW. The ground floor setbacks to Clifton Crescent vary between 2.0 metres and 2.69 metres, while the double garage is set back 1.0 metres from the ROW. The upper floor, comprising a master suite, retreat and home office, is setback between 2.0 metres and approximately 4.0 metres from Clifton Crescent although a long covered balcony projects approximately 1.4 metres onto the 4.0 metres setback giving an actual setback of approximately 2.6 metres.
Respondent's decision
26 The respondent refused the application on the 31 August 2007 for the following reasons:
(Page 7)
- "The proposal is not in accordance with Clause 2.2.3.2 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 and does not conform with the objectives of the Character Retention Guidelines (Section 3.1)."
Statutory and policy provisions
27 The subject land is zoned Low Density Residential R30 under the provisions of the City of Stirling District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS 2 or Scheme) and falls within the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area.
28 The current heritage protection area was gazetted by way of Amendment 364 to DPS 2 in May 2000, replacing previous heritage protection provisions. The subject land is not contained on either the Heritage List under DPS 2, or the respondent's adopted Municipal Inventory.
29 Clause 1.3.5.1(f) of DPS 2 sets out matters to which the respondent shall have regard in determining an application for development and includes any heritage policy statement or guidelines adopted for Heritage Protection Areas.
30 The Scheme specifically addresses Heritage Protection Areas in cl 2.2.3.1 and cl 2.2.3.2 and seeks to ensure that any new development within a Heritage Protection Area is in harmony with the character of existing dwellings in the area and the local streetscape, and complies with the Character Retention Design Guidelines (Guidelines) adopted by the Council.
31 The Guidelines for the Heritage Protection Areas of Mount Lawley, Menora and Inglewood were adopted by the respondent in July 2006. These Guidelines were developed over a four year period which included extensive public consultation.
32 Clause 3.1 of the Guidelines, which addresses the demolition of existing buildings, sets out the objective to "retain and conserve original buildings within the Heritage Protection Areas, particularly those dating from the early 1900's to the 1950's".
33 In May of 2007, the State Planning Policy 3.5 Historic Heritage Conservation was made under Pt 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA). This policy applies principally to historic cultural heritage including heritage areas, and applies to places and areas of significance at both State and local level.
(Page 8)
34 In addressing development within heritage areas, the policy suggests that a general presumption should apply in favour of retaining buildings that make a positive contribution to the significance of the area.
The issues
35 It was agreed between the parties that the issue to be addressed in this review was:
"Whether the proposed demolition of the dwelling at (Lot 319) HN 203 Ninth Avenue, Inglewood is inconsistent with Clause 2.2.3.2 of the respondent's District Planning Scheme No 2, and the Objective of Section 3.1 of the respondent's Character Retention Design Guidelines."
36 However, the application for review sought "approval of the proposed development" which was set out in the original development application made to the respondent as "Demolition and construction of two dwellings".
37 In this context a further issue in this review is whether the two proposed dwellings comply with the provisions of the Guidelines.
38 The Tribunal will deal with each issue in turn.
Whether the proposed demolition is inconsistent with cl 2.2.3.2 of DPS 2 and the objective of s 3.1 of the Guidelines?
39 It was agreed between the parties that the external presentation of the existing house and its context were the issues to be considered in assessing its significance.
40 It was further agreed that the existing house is an example of a simple Californian Bungalow constructed circa 1930s.
41 The house has been altered in the following ways:
• The external walls are entirely rendered and painted;
• The verandah facing Ninth Avenue is enclosed and incorporates an aluminium-framed window;
• The timber frames of other windows have been replaced with aluminium frames with sliding sashes;
(Page 9)
- • The porch at the front door has been enclosed and incorporates an aluminium-framed window and a door with a modern security screen; and
• The external paint colour is uncharacteristic.
42 The heritage expert witnesses agree that "while the existing house has undergone changes, the form of the house and its location on the site are representative of its architectural style" but that "the existing house is somewhat stylistically isolated in its immediate locality particularly due to the vacant lots nearby".
43 Ms Moredoundt, the heritage expert called by the respondent, argued that "[f]rom a planning viewpoint, Ninth Avenue is an intact streetscape, which is characterized by single storey dwellings, with large setbacks (gardens). The only exception to this along Ninth Avenue is two adjoining vacant lots at HN 201 and HN 205".
44 The heritage advice prepared by Palassis Architects for the respondent in June 2007 suggests the existing residence appears "to be a largely intact example of a single storey Inter-war Californian Bungalow residence with some alterations and infills". This advice concludes that the residence, "while not having individual heritage significance as a residence in its own right, contributes to the streetscape amenity of both its immediate neighbourhood and the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area through its form, scale, setback and relationship to other individually listed buildings".
45 Ms Moredoundt concluded that "[i]n order to preserve the integrity of the streetscape in accordance with the Guidelines, a more appropriate approach would be for the existing dwelling to be retained and a new dwelling constructed to the rear of the site fronting Clifton Crescent".
46 Mr Bodycoat, the heritage expert called by the applicant, submitted that the existing house "is not a very good example of Federation Bungalow and Californian Bungalow styles" and that "the quality of the garden and the lot fencing is degraded and altered". Given the extent of changes to the original residence he argued it is "no longer a representative example of the Californian Bungalow style with the exception of the roof form and the orange terracotta roof covering".
47 Mr Bodycoat concluded that the existing house is stylistically incongruous, out of character with the adjacent and nearby houses and, as a consequence, is not a critical element in the streetscape of Ninth Avenue. He further argued
(Page 10)
- that changes to the existing house and its context render it incapable of contributing to the streetscape. That streetscape, it was put, is already degraded. Thus "the place has little, if any, cultural heritage significance".
48 Mr Bodycoat also suggested that the existing residence suffers a number of practical limitations:
• The building has only two bedrooms and one bathroom;
• The original kitchen and bathroom require replacement;
• Laundry facilities are inadequate;
• Electrical wiring, plumbing and ceiling are likely to require replacement; and
• The existing garages are in a state of disrepair.
In responding to the points relevant to proposed demolition in cl 3.1 of the Guidelines, Mr Bodycoat submitted that:
a) changes to the architectural character of the house and its setting indicate that it no longer contributes positively to the character of the Area nor the streetscape;
b) the changes which have been enacted to the external fabric … (mean) … the place is not typical of a specific architectural style and no longer contains unusual or finely executed detailing representative of the original style;
c) the condition of the place appears to be sound, although roofing tiles are likely to require total replacement due to deterioration over the life span of the house;
d) the building is not listed on the City's Heritage List;
e) the building, prior to alterations, was a representative small house, of which style many examples survive throughout the region, in the original presentation; it is unlikely to have been the work of a noteworthy architect, designer or builder;
(Page 11)
- f) the place is not known to have been associated with an important person or significant event or activity; and
g) the place is likely to be claimed by local heritage groups as significant, but such a claim would be based on a flawed perception of the significance of the building in its current form.
49 In the hearing, Mr Bodycoat expressed considerable reservations in regard to Heritage Protection Areas. He argued that in not assessing individual buildings the establishment of such areas creates uncertainty by effectively applying a "control blanket" over the designated area. This made it difficult for owners by restricting changes.
50 He also submitted that "[i]n that locality, substantial change is evident as a consequence of residential redevelopment and demolition". In this regard, he challenged the designation of the locality as a "highly intact residential area" in the Guidelines. He argued that incremental changes have gradually eroded the cohesiveness of the streetscapes.
51 Evidence was presented at the hearing by both the heritage expert witnesses that it would be possible, although difficult, to retain the existing dwelling and develop a new dwelling to the rear facing Clifton Crescent. Ms Moredoundt expressed the view that the exposure to both streets was likely to constrain the size of an addition to the existing dwelling but that it could be achieved. Mr Bodycoat argued that the existing dwelling does not warrant such a course of action and that this approach would not only change the original character of the dwelling but fail to address contemporary amenity issues.
52 The heritage expert witnesses in this review agreed that "while the existing house has undergone changes, the form of the house and its location on the site are representative of its architectural style". While the Tribunal accepts their evidence that the existing dwelling "is somewhat stylistically isolated in its immediate locality" based on the evidence presented by Ms Moredoundt, and not challenged by the applicant, it represents an original dwelling in a street (Ninth Avenue) characterised by a remarkably high level of retention of original dwellings from the 1900 to 1950 period.
53 In regard to the question of the cultural heritage value of the existing dwelling, the Tribunal finds that while the alterations to the existing dwelling have clearly impacted on the level of integrity of the existing dwelling the fact that it is still "representative of its architectural style" suggests this impact has not been so extensive as to render it devoid of cultural heritage significance.
(Page 12)
54 Two vacant blocks in the immediate locality have clearly undermined, to some degree, the integrity of the area. However, the fact that [the] streetscape, particularly in North Avenue, is characterised by so many original dwellings means that, if retained, the existing dwelling would continue to make a contribution to the character of this streetscape.
55 On this basis, and in the context of the wider cultural heritage value of North Avenue and the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area, the Tribunal questions the proposed demolition of the existing dwelling.
Whether the two proposed dwellings comply with the provisions of the Character Retention Design Guidelines?
56 The respondent submitted that the proposed development did not meet the principle objectives of the guidelines and, more particularly, was deficient in the following respects:
• The upper floor setbacks to both the Ninth Avenue and Clifton Crescent boundaries were inadequate.
• The provision of small porches rather than of substantive verandahs facing the primary streets.
57 In the respondent's view, the proposed dwellings were generally overscaled and would require substantive changes to meet the requirements of the guidelines. As such, they would have an adverse impact on the streetscape, particularly the Ninth Avenue streetscape.
58 Mr Bain, for the applicant, argued that the guidelines do not formally deal with corner blocks and that, in any event, cl 3.9 provides the potential for the consideration of variations. He further submitted that the issues of scale and proportion had not been previously raised by the respondent.
59 Mr Bodycoat, submitted that the development was in character with the prescribed requirements for the locality and this was reflected in the following provisions:
• 40% use of red face brick externally;
• roof pitched at 30 degrees, incorporating hipped and gabled roof forms with expressed timber boarding to the gables;
(Page 13)
- • principle windows to the street of vertical proportions;
• garages not dominant from the street;
• verandahs provided in the alternative form of balconies and recessed porches, a sympathetic alternative which is not a replication of earlier forms; note that the existing house has no verandahs;
• eaves expressed with rafters;
• garden setbacks provided to street frontages; and
• adequate open space externally, direct sun exposure and ventilation.
60 In regard to the setbacks of the upper floors, Mr Bain submitted that the dwellings are "designed to be sympathetic to existing dwellings and not to replicate them. This approach is considered acceptable given the site is on a corner and the adjoining and opposite sites are vacant and do not support original dwellings".
61 In terms of a requirement for verandahs facing the primary streets Mr Bain argued that the design for the proposed dwellings was articulated and this effectively served the same purpose. The dwelling on Lot 1, for example, had both an entry porch facing Ninth Avenue and a covered alfresco area facing Clifton Crescent with a balcony above. In the same way, the dwelling on Lot 2 had a larger covered entry porch with a balcony above.
62 In regard to the question of whether the two proposed dwellings comply with the provisions of the Guidelines the Tribunal finds that the location of the upper storey sections of both units toward the Clifton Crescent boundary runs directly counter to objective of the Guidelines which seeks to "[r]etain the appearance of a single-storey built form from the street" by requiring an increased setback for upper floors.
63 Furthermore, front setbacks are fairly consistent within individual streets in the area. The proposed front setback to the Ninth Avenue boundary does not reflect the setbacks which characterize existing residences in the immediate locality in this street.
64 The bulk, scale and restricted setback to the upper floors of the proposed dwellings, particularly in relation to the typically single storey brick and tiled dwellings of the locality, would introduce an intrusive and uncharacteristic element into the streetscapes.
(Page 14)
65 On this basis, the Tribunal concludes that the proposed dwellings would have an adverse impact on the streetscapes in the immediately locality and undermine the objectives of the Guidelines for the area.
Conclusion
66 In regard to the demolition of the existing dwelling the respondent, and the Tribunal on review, is required by cl 1.3.5.1(f) of DPS 2 to have due regard to any heritage policy statement of guidelines adopted for Heritage Protection Areas under cl 2.2.3 of DPS 2.
67 The objective of the Guidelines to "retain and conserve original buildings … particularly those dating from the early 1900s to the 1950s" creates a general presumption in favour of retaining such buildings. However, such a policy aspiration is not determinative of the matter and individual applications are required to be assessed on their merits.
68 In this instance, the Tribunal finds that the alterations to the existing dwelling while they have clearly impacted on the level of integrity of the structure are not so extensive as to render it devoid of cultural heritage significance.
69 In addition, while the integrity of the streetscapes have been adversely impacted by the demolition of two dwellings in the immediate locality they are still characterized by the retention of most of the original dwellings.
70 In this context, the existing dwelling continues to make a contribution to the character of the streetscape (particularly in Ninth Avenue) and therefore warrants retention. Its retention is likely, however, to require adaptation to meet current standards. This may require some flexibility in applying the provisions of the Guidelines, particularly in regard to the Clifton Crescent streetscape.
71 The prior approval of subdivision by the WAPC is not determinative in regard to demolition. The advice to the applicant provided with that approval clearly indicates a planning approval and/or Demolition Licence is to be obtained from the Local Authority prior to commencement of demolition works.
(Page 15)
72 The proposed new dwellings do not comply with the provisions of the Guidelines for the area, and would undermine the objectives of the Guidelines for the Inglewood Heritage Protection Area.
73 For these reasons the application for review is dismissed and the decision of the respondent affirmed.
Orders
74 For the above reasons, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
1. The application for review is dismissed.
2. The decision of the respondent is affirmed.
I certify that this and the preceding [74] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR P DE VILLIERS, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER
(Page 16)
Attachment 1
Existing Dwelling Lot 319 Ninth Avenue, Inglewood
View across the Ninth Avenue/Clifton Crescent Intersection (Photograph: R Bodycoat Oct 2007)
Clifton Crescent View (Photograph Palassis Architects June 2007)
(Page 17)
5