Brigham v Canterbury-Bankstown Council

[2018] NSWLEC 1406

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	Brigham v Canterbury–Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1406
Hearing dates:	25 - 26 July 2018
Date of orders:	07 August 2018
Decision date:	07 August 2018
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Dixon SC
Decision:	Appeal dismissed
Catchwords:	APPEAL- development application for alterations and additions – proposal exceeds the maximum floor space ratio under cl 4.4 of the Canterbury – Bankstown Local Environmental Plan- adequacy of the applicant’s clause 4.6 written request to vary development standard – whether compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case
Legislation Cited:	Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Cases Cited:	Four2 Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWCA 248 Four2 Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 Four2 Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 109 Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] NSWLEC 7; Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Callantha Brigham (Applicant) Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: R O’Gorman-Hughes (Applicant)   Solicitors: Mills Oakley (Applicant) A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):	17/383422
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

Background

1. The applicant, Callantha Brigham has appealed Canterbury – Bankstown Council’s (Council) refusal of her development application (DA 291/2017) for alterations and additions to her family home at 30 Tennent Parade, Hurlstone Park (site). The appeal is brought pursuant to s 8.6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act).

2. The existing building is a detached brick interwar California Bungalow with a tall sandstone under croft, a hipped roof and gabled terracotta titled roof with an imitation half-timbered gable end over an enclosed veranda. At the frontage of the property - inserted into another sandstone wall is a double garage. The land opposite the site is recreational space.

3. The site is currently located in the R3 – Medium, Density Residential zone under the Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 (CLEP).

Planning Proposal

4. The site is also referred to in a Planning Proposal to amend the CLEP. The Planning Proposal has received Gateway approval from the Minister’s delegate on 14 December 2016, (Council bundle Exhibit 6 folio 195). The amending Local Environmental Plan is required to be finalised by 22 June 2019.

5. The amendment seeks to downgrade the zoning of all sites currently zoned R3 and R4 that are located in a draft Heritage Conservation Area, to R2. The evidence is that the site forms part of a chain of properties (being 16 - 30 Tennent Parade) which have been identified as being contributory buildings within the proposed Draft Tennent Parade Heritage Conservation Area. The State Heritage Inventory (SHI) forms submitted with the Planning Proposal identifies the significance of the Draft Tennent Parade Heritage Conservation Area in the following terms:

The area is of historical significance as an area developed from the Jeffrey’s Estate 9th subdivision on 19 May 1917 in (DP 8865) with housing styles that reflect this history and period of development.

The area is of aesthetic significance for its consistent group of predominantly interwar California bungalow style houses (numbers 18 to 30 Tennant Parade) and one Federation Queen Anne style house (number 16), mostly set high above street level overlooking parkland along the Cooks River to the east. The house designs reflect the topography with tall sandstone under crofts that are a distinctive form within the suburb

…

The property forms part of consistent streetscape of contributory outbuildings with changes mostly associated with front fences and garages. It is noted that the adjoining property at the south-west is a residential flat building”.

6. These sites, which are predominately elevated single storey houses with similar brick constructions on sandstone foundations are described in the Planning Proposal as:

“ Inter - war California Bungalows, on elevated side of the street on high sandstone subfloors, looking South over the parkland and the Cooks River.”

7. The applicant‘s site is identified as a Contributory 1 ranking building within the Draft Tennent Parade Heritage Conservation Area. The other listed properties in Tennent Parade attracted either a Contributory 1 or 2 ranking. Needless to say the adjoining red brick three-storey residential flat building with garages forwarded of the building line at 32 - 32A Tennent Parade is not located within the Draft Tennent Parade Heritage Conservation Area.

8. Prior to the Planning Proposal, the Council has approved alterations and additions to the properties at 18 and 24 Tennent Parade. More recently, it also approved the redevelopment of 30 Tennant Parade - which Mr Davies, the applicant’s heritage consultant said was unfortunate but did not change his heritage assessment that these properties remain worthy of inclusion in the Draft Tennent Parade Heritage Conservation Area. (For completeness I note that Mr Davis was retained by the Council to prepare the heritage studies which supported the Planning Proposal – as I said he now appears on behalf of the applicant in these proceedings).

The Proposal

9. The application as filed seeks approval of the following development:

● Replacement of the entry stairs located along the south western boundary with an enclosed stairway and construction of entry points for the lower ground and ground floors in accord with an amended plan.

● Excavation to create a new lower ground floor opening onto the existing terrace in the font setback, with a fourth bedroom, living area and bathroom.

● Construction of a swimming pool atop the existing terrace, and new deck and balustrade in the front yard.

● Provision of windows to the garages fronting Tennent Parade.

● Internal modifications to create a third bedroom on the existing ground level.

● Demolition of a portion of the existing building at the rear (outdoor undercover area and room with toilet) and construction of a double height kitchen/dining/living room, with a new roof above (located behind the existing pitched roof).

10. As the appeal concerns a residential development it was directed to be dealt with under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (Court Act). This section requires the parties engage in a conciliation of the issues before commencement of the hearing. The conciliation took place on the site after a view of the properties along the northern side of Tennent Parade and after hearing from the two local objectors to the application.

11. The objectors are residents in the adjoining red brick residential flat building located on the south western boundary of the site. Their separate apartments were referred to for the purposes of the hearing as “the top level” and “middle level” of the apartment block. Their respective bedroom windows look out toward the south western wall of the proposed new entry to the site. The existing dwelling is setback from the property boundary in excess of 1 metre. The proposal (as originally lodged) sought to bring the new development to the boundary with a nil side setback. The objectors believe that if the DA is approved in that form that they will lose their amenity and pleasant landscaped outlook from their bedrooms. They object to the view being replaced with a long high blank masonry wall built on the property boundary with no setback. They also object to the bulk and scale of the development on this boundary in breach of the side setback and FSR controls.

Amended proposal

12. At the conciliation, in an effort to address the concerns raised about this interface with the residents’ properties the applicant offered to amend the design and provide a graduated side setback off the boundary starting at the front entry wall (200mm from the corner of the existing building) at 680mm then tapering to 400mm before returning to a nil setback for the majority of the boundary. It also offered to lower the roof height to reduce the bulk and scale. Tim Blythe, the applicant’s planner, believes that these amendments improve the interface/outlook from objectors’ bedroom windows as they allow for the retention of some of the existing vegetation and provide opportunity for some supplementary landscaping.

13. The amendments were discussed at the conference by the parties and their experts however; they did not satisfy the Council’s planner Haroula Michael or achieve a resolution of the appeal. Therefore, I terminated that process and with the parties’ consent commenced the hearing back at the court house in Sydney based on what I had heard and seen at the conciliation conference and site view. At the resumed hearing, the applicant asked that I substitute the amended side setback plan in the appeal. The Council agreed and the plan was marked Exhibit K. The hearing proceeded based on the plans as amended.

Jurisdiction

14. The proposal exceeds the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard expressed in cl 4.4 of the CLEP. This is the first issue that must be determined because it is a precondition to the exercise of the power to grant development consent. 

15. To address this the applicant has lodged a cl 4.6 written request with the Council seeking a variation of the development standard in cl 4.4. The written request was prepared by Mr Blythe and dated 7 June 2018. It is marked (Exhibit C).

16. The Council does not accept that the FSR control in the circumstances of this case is unreasonable and unnecessary and it should be applied. It does not accept that the proposed development meets the objectives of the cl 4.4 of the CLEP.

Outcome of the appeal

17. For the reasons that follow, I have decided not to uphold the applicant’s cl 4.6 written request to vary the FSR development standard in cl 4.4 of the CLEP. It follows that the appeal must be dismissed.

The determinative issue - Floor space ratio

18. The FSR map accompanying cl 4.4 of the CLEP sets a maximum FSR control of 0.5:1 for the site. Notwithstanding this cl 4.4(2)(b) permits an FSR of 0.55:1 for a dwelling house or semi- detached dwelling if the site has an area of at least 200m2 but less than 600m2.

19. The site has a total land area of 360m2 and an allowable gross floor area (GFR) of 198.44m2.

20. The applicant’s cl 4.6 written request states that the additional floor space associated with the development relates to :

● A ground level extension to the rear and south –western side of the dwelling;

●The excavation of a lower ground floor level to accommodate an additional bedroom and living space underneath the existing built form of the dwelling.

21. Cumulatively the additional floor area in the original application proposed a GFA of 212.42 m2 and FSR of 0.59:1. This represents a variation of 13.98m2 or (7%). The development’s excedence of the floor space is reduced slightly by the increase in the side setback of 680 – 400mm on the southern boundary as detailed in Exhibit K. The final variation is somewhere in the order of 11-13m2 or (5%).

22. As it happened, with respect to the excedence of the maximum FSR, the lateral ground level extension to the south western boundary was the focus of the Council’s case at the hearing. It was also the focus of the objectors’ concerns. This area is a covered access way - over the entry stairs to the development’s new front door and provides access to the new rooms in the under croft area.

Clause 4.6 of the CLEP

23. Under cl 4.6, in exercising the functions of the consent authority on appeal, I have power to grant development consent to the development even though the development would contravene the FSR standard. However, I am unable to exercise that power and grant consent for the development unless I have considered the applicant’s cl 4.6 objection (the requirement in cl 4.6(3)) and am satisfied that, first the cl 4.6 objection adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3) as required by cl 4.6(4)(a)(i) and second, that the development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the FSR standard and the objective for development within the R3 zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (the requirement in cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii)).

24. The clause provides :

4.6   Exceptions to development standards

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)  to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b)  to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

(2)  Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

(3)  Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a)  that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b)  that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

(4)  Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a)  the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i)  the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

(ii)  the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(b)  the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

(5)  In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider:

(a)  whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b)  the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

(c)  any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Secretary before granting concurrence.

25. The meaning of the clause has been the subject of judicial consideration in several cases including: Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] NSWLEC 7 per Preston CJ; Four2 Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWCA 248 per Meagher JA; Leeming JA; Four2 Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 per Pain J; Four2 Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 109 per Pearson C; Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 per Preston CJ.

26. As discussed by Preston CJ in Micaul a cl 4.6 written request must address the following matters:

(3)(a) That compliance with the relevant development standard must be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case;

(3)(b) That there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard;

(4)(a)(i) That the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause 3;

(4)(a)(ii) That the proposed development would be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone

27. It is also understood from that judgment at [34] that the requirements mandated by SEPP 1 (as discussed in Wehbe) are only relevant in demonstrating that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary for the purpose of cl 4.6(3)(a).

The applicant’s cl 4.6 written request

28. In this case the applicant’s cl 4.6 written request states at the outset that it was drafted having regard to relevant decisions of the Court. After citing some of the case law the written request then addresses the development’s consistency with the objectives of the FSR control in cl 4.4. It first records in a tabular form each of the objectives and then provides a comment against each objective. The table is reproduced below.

29. Following that the applicant’s cl 4.6 written request then sets out the zone objectives with a comment in a similar format.

30. Next the written request addresses the heading “Unreasonable or Unnecessary”. The text states:

“Strict compliance with the maximum FSR development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the application based on the following:

• The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the development standard as provided in clause 4.4 of CLEP 2012.

• The 6% variation is minor in numerical terms (less than 14 m²) and does not contribute to any discernible or perceived building bulk.

• The additional floor space on the lower ground floor converts an existing subfloor area, currently enclosed by existing stand sandstone walls, to a usable space to connect the existing lower terrace to the dwelling. Removal of the additional floor space above the development standard in the lower ground floor would result in the loss of useable living space and for no benefit other than for the sake of numerical compliance.

• The additional floor space does not impede future development on the surrounding sites.

• The proposal will not result in any adverse impact when compared to a compliant scheme.

1. The additional floor space on the lower ground floor level is not discernible from the public domain as it is contained within the existing building footprint and does not result in an increase to the bulk or scale of the dwelling.

2. The proposed material selection includes timber windows and doors, recycled bricks and a steel balustrade, improving the architectural quality and amenity of the streetscape.

3. The addition of the building to the south-west side boundary of the new main entry to the dwelling, allows the removal of the existing stair located on the front elevation of the dwelling. The removal of this existing feature is considered to be an entirely positive design response that will improve the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape presentation.

• Taking into account the above and particular circumstances of this development it is neither reasonable nor necessary to require strict compliance with the FSR development standard.

In terms of the Wehbe 5 - part test, it is submitted that, at the very least, the first Wehbe test is readily established – compliance with the development standard is unreasonable unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the numerical standard.”

31. The cl 4.6 written request then incorporates a plan called Figure 2 showing the site topography and the proposed development in elevation.

32. The written request then discusses the topic “Sufficient Environmental Planning Grounds” which I understand is intended to address subclause 3(b).

33. The next headings in the written request is in respect of the topic “Any Matter of Significance” which I understand is intended to address subclause 5(a); and , then there is a heading “Public Benefit” which addresses subclause 5(b). Relevantly, subclause 5 deals with considerations relevant to the Secretary’s grant of concurrence, if required. The subclause does not need to be addressed in the written request in response to clause 4.6.

Council’s position in respect to the cl 4.6 written request

34. The Council’s planner, Ms Michael is of the opinion that the breach of the FSR, in conjunction with the lateral side extension along with the rear and lower ground level, results in an unacceptable bulk and scale and is thereby inconsistent with the objectives in (a) (b) and (c) of cl 4.4 of the CLEP.

34. For that reason, she does not accept that the applicant has demonstrated that compliance with the standard in this case is unreasonable or unnecessary: cl 4.6(3)(a).

35. With respect to objective (a) of the standard which seeks to “provide effective control over the bulk of future development”, Ms Michael gave oral evidence that in her view the lateral extension increases the bulk of the dwelling and does not maintain the established proportions and existing visual curtilage of the site and streetscape. She does not accept that setting back the new entry to the dwelling a short distance from the edge of the existing dwelling will effectively control the new bulk of this future development. In her opinion, the additional bulk built essentially to the boundary will be visible from the street and parkland opposite and dominate in the existing streetscape.

36. In saying this however, she conceded in the joint report that if the lateral extension was deleted, the proposal would be a compliant scheme. Moreover, such an amendment would in her assessment reduce the visual bulk, whilst maintaining a functional living space and kitchen, and a dwelling that would comprise of a four bedroom house with three separate living areas.

37. Objective (b) of cl 4.4 seeks to “protect the environmental amenity and desired future character of the area”. Accepting that the desired future character of the area for the purposes of the cl 4.6 is the existing character under the current controls, Ms Michael expressed the opinion that the bulky lateral extension creates an undesirable precedent with essentially a nil setback on the south western side of the site. In her assessment, the breach to the side setback to accommodate the lateral extension and additional FSR is inconsistent with the existing form of development in the locality, where the dwellings are setback from the side boundaries. It is not replicated elsewhere (even in the renovated dwellings within the street) and will be plainly visible from the public domain opposite, Tennent Parade and from the adjoining site. Accepting that the existing built form is the existing character under the current controls it cannot be said that this lateral building bulk protects the desired future character of the area.

38. Ms Michael also endorses the objections raised by the adjoining residents about the adverse environmental impacts of the bulk of the development on their amenity. She accepts that if approved the development will not “minimise adverse environmental impacts on their adjoining properties or the public domain” and meet objective (c) of the standard. She believes that the outlook from the bedroom windows in the adjoining middle and top floor apartments will be adversely affected by the removal of most of the existing vegetation and its replacement with a high long blank wall located in the main on the boundary. She does not accept that the amendment to slightly shift the wall off the boundary for a short distance and add planting will overcome the adverse environmental impacts of this additional FSR on this boundary.

39. For those reasons she does not believe that the development protects the environmental amenity and desired future character of the area: objective (b) cl 4.4 or minimises adverse environmental impacts on adjoining properties and the public domain: objective (c) of cl 4.4.

40. It is the Council’s position that the separation between the existing dwellings in Tennent Parade and the character of the area are achieved by a compliant FSR. To date development along Tennant Parade has respected the pattern and rhythm of the development in respect of lateral bulk. Accordingly, there is no justification to approve this proposal which increases bulk and is at odds with the stated objectives of the FSR standard.

Consideration - Unreasonable or unnecessary

42. At the outset, I wish to make clear my view that when dealing with a cl 4.6 written request it is useful to address each element of the clause in the order in which it is read. This approach helps to avoid legal error and ensure that all relevant subclauses are referred to in the written document. Furthermore, I think it is important to make specific reference to the particular subclause being addressed rather than using a topic heading. As discussed in Miacul at [14] the Court must make specific findings of fact to ground the power to grant consent; and where the ultimate finding of fact is dependent on the application of a legal standard it needs to make specific factual findings in respect of each relevant subclause: Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 at 273, 281.

43. Clause 4.6 mandates a discussion about certain matters and the written request must address these matters in order for the consent authority (including the Court on appeal) to consider and form a view about its satisfaction or not. This is better achieved by using the exact wording from the clause specifically rather than paraphrasing the words when addressing particular considerations in respect of the development.

44. The written request in this case seeks to address the mandatory matters in cl 4.6 by reference to headings. It also purports to summarise “several key LEC planning principles and judgments “ which it is asserted “have refined the manner in which variations to development standards are required to be approached” . The key findings and directions of each of the judgments are then outlined in the written request in some detail.

45. I do not need to deal with the accuracy or otherwise of the law as summarized in the applicant’s written request simply because it does not change the end result. Although, that said, it is plainly wrong at law to state as the applicant asserts that all of the principles in Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46 with some refinement are relevant to a consideration of a cl 4.6 written request; or that “Commissioners of the Court now frequently comment that there is no requirement anywhere in clause 4.6 that the non-complying development must amount to “a better outcome” than a strictly complaint scheme”. It would have been more helpful had the applicant heeded the caution in the decision of Four2 Five Pty Ltd - that when dealing with a cl 4.6 variation request one should remain “faithful to the language of the clause rather than any stated principles”.

46. Perhaps, and more importantly it should be remembered that cl 4.6 by its terms does not invite a discussion of the historical case law about the former SEPP1 or for that matter any case law or comment by a commissioner or judge. Rather, cl 4.6 mandates a planning assessment of the matters directly raised by the clause and relevant to the particular development and the circumstances of the case. This is not to say that a legal interpretation of what a particular phrase or clause means cannot be referred to if relevant and ultimately relied upon. For example, the discussion of the meaning of the phrase “unreasonable and unnecessary” by the Preston CJ in Wehbe at [42] – [48] accepted and endorsed more recently in Micaul can be relevant. However, you do not need to list all five tests from Wehbe if the first test is relied upon and said to be satisfied.

47. Having made some general observations about how to approach a cl 4.6 written request let me now address the terms of the clause and the written request before me.

48. First, cl 4.6 requires that I consider and be satisfied as to whether the applicant’s written request justifies the contravention of the development standard in cl 4.4 of the CLEP because it demonstrates “that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case” cl 4.6(3)(a).

49. In the event that I am not satisfied about this fact then that is the end of the matter. I cannot approve the variation and there is no jurisdiction to approve of the DA or consider anything else.

50. In this case, the cl 4.6 written request sets out the objectives of the standard in cl 4.4. Objective (a) provides “ to provide effective control over the bulk of future development”.

51. In response to this objective the written request states:

“The bulk and scale of the proposal is appropriate for the site and the surrounding context.

The proposed arrangement of the development with the bulk of the proposal contained within the building footprint and behind the existing built form reduces the visual impact of the building scale, ensuring the proposal remains compatible with the prevailing suburban character of the area”.

52. The written request also states that strict compliance with the maximum FSR development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the application for the reasons I have already outlined at paragraph [30].

53. Ultimately in respect of subclause 3(a), the written request concludes with the assertion that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the development standard as provided in clause 4.4 of CLEP 2012. The 6% variation is minor in numerical terms less than 14 m² and does not contribute to any discernible or perceived building bulk. (Noting that the written request dealt with the original proposal which has since been amended to reduce the variation to something in the order of 5% I wish to make clear that I have considered this amendment in my assessment of the cl 4.6 written request).

Finding

54. It is my considered opinion that the applicant's cl 4.6 written request does not satisfactorily demonstrate that compliance with the fixed control in the FSR in cl 4.4 of the CLEP standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in this case pursuant to the first test in Wehbe.

55. I accept Ms Michael’s evidence as summarised above that the objectives (a), (b) and (c) of cl 4.4 of CLEP are not achieved by this proposal. Based on my observations at the site view, the lateral extension to the south-western boundary will add bulk to the dwelling which will be visible from the street and the parkland opposite. This is a small site and it is my considered opinion that only strict compliance with the FSR numerical control will achieve the first objective of the standard: cl 4.4(1)(a).

56. The concerns expressed by the adjoining residents about the dominant bulk on their common boundary are reasonable in my view. The development does not “minimise adverse environmental impacts on adjoining properties and the public domain” – which is objective (b) to cl 4.4. The adjoining neighbours existing amenity/outlook will be unreasonably comprised by the proposed development essentially on their boundary. While an effort has been made to protect the existing landscaping and introduce more landscaping I am not convinced that this planting will minimise the adverse visual impact of a high, long, blank wall of a development essentially built to their boundary. The additional bulk in this location is not justified on this small site. As Ms Michael observed a fully compliant FSR can be achieved by removing the proposed entry way.

57. I accept that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of achieving ends - those ends being environmental or planning objectives. And, that alternative means can achieve the objectives of a standard. However that is not the case at hand. The proposed development does not proffer an alternative means of achieving the objectives (a), (b) and (c) of the standard under review. In that circumstance there is no appropriate degree of flexibility to relax the requirement for strict compliance with the standard. It is both necessary and reasonable as it serves to achieve the objectives of the standard and thereby a better outcome for and from development.

Orders

58. For the reasons set out the appeal is dismissed and the exhibits returned.

__________________

Susan Dixon

Senior Commissioner

**********

Amendments

09 August 2018 - Corrections to typographical errors at, [11], [16] and coversheet

Decision last updated: 09 August 2018