Crowhurst v Newcastle City Council - [2004] NSWLEC 734

No judgment structure available for this case.

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Crowhurst v Newcastle City Council [2004] NSWLEC 734

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Richard and Maryrose Crowhurst
RESPONDENT
Newcastle City Council

FILE NUMBER(S): 10728 of 2004

CORAM: Roseth SC

KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- Demolition of old house - erection of dwelling houses - streetscape - heritage

LEGISLATION CITED:

CASES CITED:

DATES OF HEARING: 15/10/2004, 21/10/2004 and 06/12/2004

EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE : 12/06/2004

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr J Burrell, solicitor
SOLICITORS
Burrell Solicitors
RESPONDENT
Mr A McKelvey, solicitor
SOLICITORS
Sparke Helmore

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Roseth SC

6 December 2004
10728 of 2004 Charles and Rosemary Crowhurst v

Newcastle City Council

JUDGMENT

1 This matter first came to the Court on 15 October 2004 at which time the parties requested the Court to issue consent orders. Before the hearing the parties had agreed to the Court appointing an expert to assess the two issues that were raised by the council.

2 The Court appointed Mr Mark Robinson as the planning expert. Mr Robinson’s first report dealt with the two issues, the first one being that the existing cottage should not be demolished. Mr Robinson reported that, while the existing cottage contributes positively to the streetscape of the locality and is of moderate historical and aesthetic significance at the local level, the engineering advice and his own inspection indicated that it is in poor condition and would require extensive rebuilding to enable its retention. Under those circumstances he concluded that the cottage was not of such heritage significance that it needed to be retained.

3 With respect to the second issue, Mr Robinson reported that the streetscape of the locality is characterised by a diverse mix of buildings of different periods, size, scale, design, construction materials and architectural character. He noted that the locality is not identified as a conservation area. His statement concluded that the proposed two-storey dwellings would be compatible with the scale and diverse character of existing development in the locality and would satisfactorily address the site’s corner location.

4 He noted, however, that the design appeared to have potential for improvement in terms of solar access and vehicle access to unit 3. His report recommended that the applicant examine the feasibility of improving these elements of the design.

5 Because Mr Robinson did not attend the hearing in Newcastle on 15 October 2004, and because there were no comments from him on the objectors’ representations, the Court adjourned the hearing until 21 October at which time Mr Robinson did attend. However, the applicant had not prepared drawings to correspond to the suggestions of Mr Robinson and suggested that they be dealt with by conditions. The Court found this unsatisfactory and required that the drawings be re-drawn. The Court also suggested that Mr Robinson carefully check the quality of the drawings and assure the Court that they are of a professional standard.

6 At the hearing on 6 December 2004, Mr Robinson assured the Court that he had assessed the amended plans against the standard set out in Sch B “Requirements for Plans in Practice Direction No. 17” and he considered that the plans are adequate.

7 In his supplementary report, which came to the Court as Exhibit 7, Mr Robinson also dealt with the issues raised by the objectors. The objectors were:

§ G N and J L Bates of 11 Clark Street,
§ R J and L A Stewart of 11 Clark Street,
§ Mrs S Hoe of 49 Newcastle Street and
§ Mrs J Dawson of 7 Clark Street.

8 Mrs Dawson has prepared submissions for the first hearing on 15 October 2004, for the second hearing on 21 October 2004, as well as for today’s hearing on 6 December 2004. Mr Robinson has dealt with the submissions up to 21 October in his written report (Exhibit 7). He dealt with the submission that came to the Court for today’s hearing in oral evidence.

9 The gist of his comments is as follows. Mrs Dawson’s objections are on the following grounds. The existing dwelling should be conserved for heritage reasons. Three dwellings on the site would allow limited outdoor space. Existing trees would have to be removed and there is limited space for replanting. Three tenants would be displaced. Loss of privacy to the objector’s property and safety as a result of vehicle fumes and traffic hazards.

10 In response to the concern about the heritage and historical value of the building, Mr Robinson reiterated his original finding that, while the building does contribute to the streetscape, it is in a poor condition, it is not in a conservation area, not a heritage item and that it would be unreasonable to require the applicant to retain it. This is not to say that he would not be glad to see somebody buy the cottage and renovate it, but in his opinion that is not a course that should be forced on the applicant.

11 In relation to the streetscape, Mr Robinson noted that the Newcastle City Wide Heritage Study was prepared for the council in 1996, and 1997 by a team of consultants co-ordinated by Suters Architects. The study recommended against extension of the existing heritage conservation areas identified in the LEP. Instead it adopted the urban village approach implicit in the Newcastle urban strategy to identify a number of local character precincts covering the majority of land which was urbanised after the First World War. The study identified several precincts in the Stockton area, of which the subject site is in the residential precinct between Hereford Street and the foreshore. The study report recommended that the council prepare guidelines for each of the local character precincts as appendices to the City Wide Heritage Development Control Plan. As an alternative the report recommended that the council consider listing the identified precincts in the LEP as conservation areas if the first recommendation was not adopted. In 1997 the council adopted the conservation policy recommended in the study and the strategy for its implementation. The boundaries of the precincts were not defined in the study and further investigation and field work is necessary for this purpose. The work has not yet been undertaken and preparation of the recommended guidelines has not yet commenced.

12 While the council has adopted recommendations for management of the heritage values of the precinct, and intends to implement them, it has not resolved to prepare an amending LEP to list the areas as a conversation area or commence preparation of a development control plan containing management guidelines. Mr Robinson said he supported the general thrust of Mrs Dawson’s submission that all reasonable efforts should be made to conserve buildings, streetscapes and other items valued by the local community. However, in his opinion, this objective would best be achieved by completion and implementation of the planning process as outlined above. This would give all parties a firmer and more explicit base for decision making on properties such as the subject site.

13 He repeated that he agreed that the cottage on the subject site is of moderate historical and aesthetic local significance and contributes positively to the streetscape of the locality. However, it is in a severely deteriorated condition and would require replacement of a large proportion of its fabric. He did not believe the cottage is of sufficient significance to justify this.

14 In his further analysis Mr Robinson reported that the impact of the proposed development was acceptable, that the fences were appropriate, the private open space provided was much less than it is now but was still acceptable. He found that his suggestions had now been adopted by the applicant in redesigning unit 3 and in relocating the vehicular access to it. Therefore he considered the application acceptable.

15 Mr Robinson has fully dealt with the objector’s concerns. He has ensured that his suggestions are incorporated in the drawings. I therefore move to issue the consent orders which I was requested to issue on two previous occasions. The formal orders of the Court are:

1 The appeal is upheld.
2 Development application to demolish the existing dwelling on lot 39 DP 9840434, known as 9 Clive Street, Stockton, to erect three dwelling houses on the allotment and subdivide it into 3 lots, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
3 The exhibits are returned, except Exhibits 7, 8 and A.
4 The Court notes that each party agrees to pay its own costs, including one half of the costs of the Court-appointed expert, Mr Mark Robinson.

Conditions of development consent

Annexure A

Charles and Rosemary Crowhurst v Newcastle City Council

1.1 The proposed development being carried out strictly in accordance with the details set out on the submitted plans and on the Application form (“the Plans”), except as otherwise provided by the conditions of this consent.

The details of the Plans are as follows:

§ DA – 1802 – 01 Issue H – Kim Griffiths Building (Subdivision Plan)

§ DA – 1802 – 02 Issue H – Kim Griffiths Building (Shadow Diagrams)

§ DA – 1802 – 04 Issue H – Kim Griffiths Building (Site Plan)

§ DA – 1802 – 14 Issue H - Kim Griffiths Building (Stormwater Drainage)

§ DA – 1802 - 15 Issue H - Kim Griffiths Building (Typical Sections)

§ 203124/1 – Survey Plan – Tattersall Surveyors

§ DA – 1802 – 05 Issue H - Kim Griffiths Building (Unit 1 Ground Floor Plan)

§ DA – 1802 – 06 Issue H - Kim Griffiths Building (Unit 1 First Floor Plan)

§ DA – 1802 – 07 Issue H - Kim Griffiths Building (Unit 1 Elevations)

§ DA -1802 – Issue H – Unit 1 Energy Rating

§ DA – 1802 – 09 Issue H - Kim Griffiths Building (Unit 2 Floor Plans)

§ DA – 1802 – 10 Issue H - Kim Griffiths Building (Unit 2 Elevations)

§ DA -1802 – Issue F – Unit 2 Energy Rating

§ DA – 1802 – 12 Issue H - Kim Griffiths Building (Unit 3 Floor Plans)

§ DA – 1802 – 13 Issue H - Kim Griffiths Building (Unit 3 Elevations)

§ DA -1802 – Issue F – Unit 3 Energy Rating

§ LPPO1 – Issue B - Existing Tree Plan – Moir Landscape Architecture

§ LPPO2 – Issue C - Landscape Plan - Moir Landscape Architecture

§ LLP03 - Issue B – Details and Specifications - Moir Landscape Architecture

Note: Any proposal to modify the terms or conditions of this consent whilst still maintaining substantially the same development to that approved, will require the submission of a formal application for Council’s consideration in accordance with the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Reason: To confirm and clarify the terms of Council’s approval.

1.2 The proposed driveways being reduced in width to correspond to the width of the respective garage door opening, tapering to a maximum width of 3.5m at the street alignment in the case of Dwellings 1 and 2.

Reason:

1.3 Appropriate measures being taken to safeguard the existing large tree on the adjacent site to the north against drainage during the construction of the proposed dwellings. In this regard, the applicant/developer is to engage a qualified Arborist and is to comply with the Arborist’s recommendations in respect to any required lopping of branches or interference with roots so as to maintain the health of the said tree, full details to be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:

2. Conditions Requiring Payment of a Monetary Contribution and Carrying Out of Off-site Works.

2.1 A total monetary contribution of $1,639.00 being paid to Council, pursuant to Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, towards the provision of the following public amenities and public services within the locality, such contribution to be payable prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate in respect of the proposed development:

a) Youth facilities $ 10

b) Community facilities $377

c) Local open space and recreation $300

d) District parklands and sportslands $117

e) Regional foreshore promenade $117

f) Traffic management $210

g) Associated studies $126

h) Bikeways $ 21

i) Section 94 management $361

ii) The amount of contribution payable under this condition has been calculated on the basis of current costs as at the date of consent and is to be indexed at the time of actual payment in accordance with the “Consumer Price Index” weighted average of eight capital cities published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics each quarter. Any party intending to act on this consent should contact Council’s s94 Coordinator, City Strategy Group, for determination of the indexed amount of contribution as at the date of payment.)

Reason:

2.2 Residential type vehicular crossings 3.5m and 4.2m wide respectively being constructed across the public footway at each of the proposed driveway entrance/exits in standard grey concrete at no cost to Council and in accordance with Council’s A017 Series (Concrete Vehicular Crossings) design specifications and such crossing being properly maintained.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate clearly defined and properly constructed means of all-weather vehicular access to the site in order to encourage the use of on-site parking facilities and in the interest of maximising vehicular and pedestrian safety and convenience.

2.3 Any redundant existing vehicular crossings being removed at no cost to Council and the public footway and kerb being restored to match the existing infrastructure.

Reason: To clarify site access arrangements in the interest of traffic and pedestrian safety, as well as road efficiency, to maximise kerbside parking opportunity and to ensure that reinstatement work is undertaken to an appropriate standard.

2.4 Any necessary alterations to public utility installations being at the Developer/Demolisher’s expense and to the requirements of both Council and the appropriate authorities.

Reason: To ensure that any required alterations to public utility infrastructure are undertaken to acceptable standards and without demands on public sector resources.

2.5 A temporary protective crossing being provided over the footway for vehicular traffic before building operations are commenced. This approval does not permit access to the property over any adjacent private or public land.

Reason: To ensure public safety and protection of public assets.

2.6 Any proposed work within the public road, including pipe or vehicle crossings, being the subject of Council’s separate approval prior to commencement.

(Note: The required approval can be obtained by telephoning Council’s Depot on 49746000 to request a Road Opening Approval. A fee will be payable in this regard.)

Reason:

3.1 Submission to the Principal Certifying Authority of a Subdivision Certificate Application accompanied by the appropriate fees as required by the Principal Certifying Authority. The application is to be supported by a survey plan of subdivision, seven copies thereof and a Section 50 Certificate from the Hunter Water Corporation Limited.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

3.2 All proposed driveways being constructed with a basecourse of adequate depth to suit design traffic, being sealed with either bitumen seal, asphaltic concrete, concrete or interlocking pavers and being properly maintained. Full details are to be included in documentation for a Construction Certificate application.

Reason: To facilitate the use of vehicular access and parking facilities and to minimise any associated noise and dust nuisance.

3.3 Any alteration to natural surface levels on the site being undertaken in such a manner as to ensure that no surface water is drained onto or impounded on adjoining properties. Full details are to be included in documentation for a Construction Certificate application.

Reason: To ensure that any such proposed works do not disrupt existing natural stormwater flows in the vicinity.

3.4 All roof and surface waters being conveyed to the street gutter by way of a separate sealed pipe system in respect of each individual dwelling, such to extend through the footway to Council requirements. Full details are to be included in documentation for a Construction Certificate application.

Reason: To ensure the provision of appropriate stormwater management and to prevent the creation of unhealthy or dangerous conditions.

3.5 The Developer instituting appropriate erosion protection and soil stabilisation measures in association with the proposed site works. Such measures to be designed in accordance with the requirement of the Department of Land and Water Conservation. Full details to be included in the documentation for a Construction Certificate application.

Reason: To control soil erosion and prevent sedimentation of surrounding lands both private and public.

3.6 All proposed planting and landscape elements indicated on the submitted landscape concept plan or otherwise required under the conditions of this consent being implemented and a comprehensive landscape design plan and specification in respect thereof being prepared by a qualified landscape designer and being submitted with a Construction Certificate application.

(Note: i) The required comprehensive landscape design plan and specifications is to be in accordance with the provisions of Council’s adopted Development Control Plan No 33 and is to include cross sections through the site where appropriate, proposed contours or spot levels, botanical names, quantities and container size of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, details of proposed soil preparation, mulching and staking as well as treatment of external surfaces and retaining walls where proposed, drainage, location of taps and the nominated maintenance periods. Refer to attached checklist.

ii) The Plant Matrix 1.1 in the Newcastle Landscape Structure Plan adopted by Council on 28 November 1989 may be used as a guide in the selection of suitable tree and shrub species. A copy of Planting Guideline P.1 from the Landscape Structure Plan and the relevant Plant Matrix have been included with this consent.

iii) A Landscape Practical Completion Report is required to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority by the consultant responsible for the landscape design plan prior to occupation of the premises or any portion of the premises that is the subject of this consent. The report is to verify that all landscape works have been carried out in accordance with the approved landscape design plan to a high professional standard and that an effective maintenance program has been commenced.)

Reason: To ensure that adequate and appropriate provision is made for landscaping of the site in association with the proposed development, to enhance the external appearance of the premises and to contribute to the overall landscape quality of the locality.

3.7 Satisfactory arrangements being made with the Hunter water Corporation Limited, an electricity authority and telecommunications company for the provision of water supply and sewerage, the provision of electricity supply and the provision of underground telephone service to the respective proposed lots and written confirmation in this regard being submitted to Council with the required Subdivision Certificate application.

Reason:

3.8 The proposed dwellings being completed prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate. Completion of the works in accordance with this Development Consent is to be confirmed to Council by the Principal Certifying Authority.

Reason:

4.1 All building work being carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

Reason:

To confirm a condition of consent prescribed by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

4.2 With the exception of work where there is in force an exemption under clause 187 or 188 of the Environmental planning and Assessment Act 1979, all building work that involves residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, such a contract of insurance being in force.
Reason: To confirm a condition of consent prescribed by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

4.3 All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building being executed safely and in accordance with appropriate professional standards.
Reason: To confirm a condition of consent prescribed by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

4.4 Construction / demolition work noise that is audible at other premises being restricted to the following times:
Monday to Friday, 7.00am to 6.00pm
Saturday, 8.00am to 1.00pm
No construction/demolition work noise is permitted on Sundays or Public Holidays.
Reason: To prevent ‘offensive noise’ from construction/demolition sites in accordance with the Environmental Protection Authority Guidelines.

4.5 Council’s “PREVENT POLLUTION“ sign being erected and maintained in a conspicuous location on or adjacent to the property boundary so that it is clearly visible to the public or at other locations on the site as otherwise directed by Council for the duration of construction work.

(Note: Council’s PREVENT POLLUTION sign can be obtained by presenting your development application receipt at Council’s Customer Enquiry Counter at 282 King Street Newcastle or at the Master Builders Association office.)

Reason: To increase industry and community awareness of developer's obligations to prevent pollution and to assist in ensuring compliance with the statutory provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

4.6 All public footways, footpaving, kerbs, gutters and road pavement damaged during the works being restored to match existing conditions at the Developer’s/Demolisher’s expense.

Reason: To ensure that the required restoration is undertaken to acceptable standards and without demands on public sector resources.

4.7 Building demolition being planned and carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601:1991 (The Demolition of Structures).

Reason: To minimise the risk of injury or damage to property as a result of the proposed demolition.

4.8 The owner/demolisher ensuring that all services (ie water, telecommunications, gas, electricity, sewerage etc, are disconnected in accordance with the relevant authority’s requirements prior to demolition.

Reason: To prevent damage to reticulation systems and ensure maintenance of public health standards.

4.9 A Hazardous Substances Audit of the building being conducted in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601: 2001 - The Demolition of Structures and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The nature and location of each hazard identified and the proposed measures for controlling and/or removing the hazards are to be set out in a Hazardous Substances Management Plan and such measures are to be implemented in accordance with that Plan. The required Plan is to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of work and is to be kept on site and made available to authorised Council officers upon request.

Reason:

4.10 The removal, handling and disposal of any asbestos material being undertaken only by a contractor who holds both a demolition licence and the appropriate class of asbestos licence, issued by WorkCover NSW, and in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover NSW, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission’s Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos [NOHSC: 2002 (1988)] and Guide to the Control of Asbestos Hazards in Buildings and Structures [NOHSC: 2002 (1988)], and the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation.

(Note: In this regard, all asbestos and other hazardous materials are to be appropriately contained and disposed of at a facility holding the appropriate license issued by the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation.)

Reason: To ensure that no work takes place involving the removal or handling or disposal of hazardous substances including asbestos material other than in accordance with appropriate public health guidelines.

4.11 Demolition work not being undertaken until the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) has been provided with a copy of any required Hazardous Substances Management Plan, has inspected the site and is satisfied that all measures are in place to comply with the provisions of such Plan.

(Note: Demolition, in relation to a building, work, archaeological site, relic or place means the damaging, defacing, destruction, pulling down or removal of that building, work, archaeological site, relic or place in whole or in part.)

Reason: To ensure that no work takes place involving the removal or handling or disposal of hazardous substances including asbestos material other than in accordance with appropriate public health guidelines.

4.12 Seven working days notice in writing being given to Council and the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) prior to the commencement of any demolition works. Such written notice is to include the date demolition will commence and details of the name, address, contact telephone number and licence details (type of licences held and licence numbers) of the demolition contractor.

Reason:To ensure that the PCA has all necessary information to effectively monitor demolition works in the public interest and Council is aware of the contact details of the contractor should it need to follow up on complaints.

4.13 On demolition sites where buildings to be demolished contain asbestos materials, a standard commercially manufactured sign containing the words “DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS” measuring not less than 400mm x 300mm being erected in a prominent position to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA). The required sign is to be erected prior to demolition work commencing and is to remain in place until such time as all asbestos material has been removed from the site to an approved waste facility.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate warning signs are in place regarding the conduct of a hazardous operation on site, in the public interest.

4.14 A building waste enclosure having a minimum size of 1800 mm square by 1200 mm high being provided on the site prior to the commencement of any work. It is to be constructed with a 'star' picket (corners) and weed control mat (sides), or equivalent. The matting is to be securely tied to the pickets.

Reason:

To control wind blown litter.

4.15 Any building waste containers used in association with the proposed demolition being located on the site where possible.

(Note: Where this is not feasible, application must be made for Council’s approval to position the container on the adjacent public road in accordance with Council’s adopted Building Waste Container Policy.

Reason: To ensure that such containers are so positioned as to not endanger pedestrian or vehicular traffic movement.

4.16 The owner/demolisher ensuring that all demolition material is kept clear of the public footway and carriageway as well as adjoining premises.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed demolition is undertaken in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent public or private property.

4.17 Any demolition/waste building materials being disposed of at Council’s Waste Disposal Depot or other approved site.

Reason: To prevent indiscriminate dumping or use of demolition/waste building material for purposes of unauthorised land fill.

4.18 The placing of building materials or the carrying out of building operations upon or from Council's footway or roadway is prohibited unless prior consent in writing is obtained from Council.

Reason: To maintain pedestrian passage and public safety.

4.19 A sign being erected in a prominent position on any work site on which work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is carried out:

a) stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited, and

b) showing the name of the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which that person may be contacted outside working hours.

Any such sign is to be removed when the work has been completed.

Reason: To confirm a condition of consent prescribed by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

4.20 The individual dwellings being identified by the provision of house numbers on the building exterior and mailbox such that they are clearly visible from the road frontage. The minimum numeral height is to be 75 mm.

Reason: To ensure that the property can be readily identified by visitors, motorists, emergency services and the community generally.

4.21 All building or site works or other written undertaking or obligation indicated in the submitted plans and supporting documentation or otherwise required under the terms of this consent being carried out or implemented prior to occupation of the premises.

Reason:To ensure compliance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

5. Advisory Conditions

5.1 Prior to commencing any construction works, the following provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the ‘Act’) being complied with:

a) A Construction Certificate is to be obtained in accordance with Section 81A(2)(a) of the Act.

b) A Principal Certifying Authority is to be appointed and Council is to be notified of the appointment in accordance with Section 81A(2)(b) of the Act and form 7 of schedule 1 to the Regulations.

c) Council is to be given at least two days notice of the date intended for commencement of building works, in accordance with Section 81A(2)(c) of the Act and Form 7 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations.

_________________

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Crowhurst v Newcastle City Council [2004] NSWLEC 734

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0

CITATION:	Crowhurst v Newcastle City Council [2004] NSWLEC 734
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Richard and Maryrose Crowhurst RESPONDENT Newcastle City Council
FILE NUMBER(S):	10728 of 2004
CORAM:	Roseth SC
KEY ISSUES:	Development Application :- Demolition of old house - erection of dwelling houses - streetscape - heritage
LEGISLATION CITED:
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:	15/10/2004, 21/10/2004 and 06/12/2004
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE :	12/06/2004
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Mr J Burrell, solicitor SOLICITORS Burrell Solicitors RESPONDENT Mr A McKelvey, solicitor SOLICITORS Sparke Helmore