Currency Corporation Pty Limited v Wyong Shire Council - [2007] NSWLEC 634

No judgment structure available for this case.

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Currency Corporation Pty Limited v Wyong Shire Council [2007] NSWLEC 634

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Currency Corporation Pty Limited
RESPONDENT
Wyong Shire Council

FILE NUMBER(S): 11494 of 2005

CORAM: Hoffman C

KEY ISSUES: Appeal :- redevelopment of residential units,

LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Regulations 2000
Wyong Local Environmental Plan 1991

CASES CITED: Tenacity V Warringah [2004]NSWLEC140

DATES OF HEARING: 26/2/2007, 06/03/2007, 27/03/2007, 25/07/2007, 26/07/2007 and 27/07/2007

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
28 September 2007

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
Mr Craig, QC and
Mr Eastmen, solicitor
Instructed by Grech Solicitors
RESPONDENT
Mr C. Leggatt, SC
Instructed by Mr P. Brown, solicitor
of Abbott Tout Solicitors

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hoffman C

28 September 2007

11494 of 2005 Currency Corporation Pty Limited v Wyong Shire Council
JUDGMENT

1 This is a Class 1 Appeal No. 11494 of 2005 between Currency Corporation and Wyong Shire Council in regard to the refusal of redevelopment of flats on No.50 Werrina Parade, Blue Bay, The Entrance.

2 There had been different schemes put forward by the applicant, and following a Preliminary Decision by Biscoe J and Directions Hearings by Preston CJ and Jagot J, a final scheme was prepared and renotified for public comment. It did not involve use of the adjoining property for vehicular access as had previous schemes.

Description of the Subject Land and Locality:

3 The subject site is located in Blue Bay, a coastal suburb to the south of The Entrance on the Central Coast. Werrina Parade follows the coastline and provides access to approximately 73 houses. As the subject land is located on the eastern side of Werrina Parade it is a beach front property situated with one end on the frontal dune and the other end rising up the hillside to the Parade. The land falls away from Werrina Parade toward the east, with an overall fall of approximately 12.0m down to the beach.

4 The site currently supports an older style two storey split level residential flat building comprising seven small flats, known as "Roseleigh". It appears to have been subject to various alterations and was for a time used for tourist accommodation. The site currently appears to be unoccupied, although the building has been previously utilised as a residential flat building for a number of separate occupancies. The building is located at the top of the site with the balance being vacant except for a concrete terrace about half way down to the beach, and a stairway across the dune to the sand.

5 The surrounding land use is residential with varied historical subdivision patterns containing single dwellings and some dual occupancies.. The site represents a non-conforming existing use. The approximate density of the adjoining properties is 0.4:1.

6 The FSR of the proposal is 0.77:1, representing an increased density of 500m2 built area on the site in comparison to the existing building. The adjoining development is generally 2-storey.

7 The typical development pattern consists of two rows of buildings on battle-axe lots, one house up at the Parade and the other down near the beach with an open space/ landscaped break between. This is partly the result of the historical subdivision pattern in the vicinity. The subject site is one of the few remaining original lots, and extends from the street down to the beach.

The Proposal

8 The development proposed is a residential flat building development of six units comprising 1 x 4 bed unit, 4 x 3 bed units and 1 x 2 bed unit in a split level design. The application also includes the construction of a semi-basement car park for 10 vehicles built into the hillside on the 3rd floor. Demolition of the existing structures is proposed and new sewer connection works.

9 The building is a single structure that is said, in one place, to be three storeys, but mostly 2-storeys with a maximum elevation of RL 25.4 to the top of its flat roof.

10 Number 48 Werrina Parade to the north has recently been rebuilt with a detached house that is single storey to the street, but the high hipped roof conceals an attic master bedroom facing the ocean. On the eastern façade it is 3-storey above high foundations due to the slope of the land. The peak of its hipped roof is perhaps a metre above the flat roof of the proposal.

11 The proposal’s roof is about 2 m lower than the existing flats on the subject site.

12 No. 52A to the south of the property at the road-front has a ridge height of RL 26.5. It has a high curved “wave” form roof as does its beachfront neighbour at No.52. The latter is at a much lower level and is reached by the axe-handle driveway adjoining the subject site to a paved car-courtyard between Nos.52 and 52A.

13 The side boundary setback proposed is 1.5m on both the north and the south boundaries, except for some indentations for entry doors or window bays. Overhanging hoods and planter boxes come to within 0.6m of the side boundary.

14 The proposal will cascade through 5 levels down the hill as a single structure from the road frontage to the beach frontage. There is no break between beach-front and road-front structures compared to the adjoining and nearby battle-axe properties. However there is a shared large common terrace 30m long on the beach-front end of the 3rd floor.

15 On the 4th and 5th floors the units have very large terraces facing the ocean varying between 6m and 17m long. These terraces’ lengths vary due to a distinct splayed façade at the 4th and 5th levels that is designed to preserve views to the north from the street-front house at No.52A Werrina Parade. The stepped commencement points of the terraces on the northern façade are designed to retain some views to the south for the street-front house at No.48 Werrina Parade.

16 The FSR of the existing building is 0.38:1, the expansion proposed has an FSR of 0.77:1. Importantly the site coverage has increased from 20% to 57% of the site.

17 The street-front setback matches its neighbours at about 6m. Most of the front setback is occupied by a double width entry drive and courtyard walls up to the street front for a residents courtyard entry, and another for one of the ground floor street-front units. During the view it was noticeable properties either side of the site and nearby had high street boundary fences and large gates.

18 At the eastern end adjacent the beach the 2-storey façade of the ground and first floor units is setback 18m from the beach boundary such that it is about 1m behind the statutory beach front erosion hazard line. There is a balcony at the upper level that cantilevers about 1.5m in front of the hazard line. The 3rd floor common terrace on the roof of the 2nd storey comes forward to a glass balustrade at the front of the eaves above the 2nd storey windows.

19 No. 52 on the south side of the proposal has its façade about 1m in front of the hazard line with a balcony at the upper level that cantilevers about 4m in front. No.48A the neighbour on the north side is an older house that is built about 6m in front of the coastal hazard line.

20 The beachfront boundary of all the lots nearby is splayed at about a 45 degree angle to the east-west side boundaries. As a result the subject proposal and No. 52 have splayed eastern facades.

21 Section 108 (3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 states:

An environmental planning instrument may, in accordance with this Act, contain provisions extending, expanding or supplementing the incorporated provisions, but any provisions (other than incorporated provisions) in such an instrument that, but for this subsection would derogate or have the effect of derogating from the incorporated provision have no force or effect while the incorporated provisions remain in force.

22 The site enjoys existing use rights. The consequence of preserving existing use rights is that planning controls that limit the size of the proposal (i.e. height and setback) have no application. However the merits of the proposal when compared to the surrounding area where the controls apply is relevant to the assessment.

23 The subject development is defined as a residential flat building as it contains three or more dwellings. Pursuant to Clause 10 of the Wyong LEP 'residential flat development' is a prohibited use within the 2(a) Residential zone cl. 40 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Regulations, 2000 state that an existing use:

"may, subject to the provisions of the regulations and the granting of development consent:

(a) be enlarged, expanded or intensified, or

(b) be altered or extended, or

(c) be rebuilt, or

(d) be changed to another use, including a use that would otherwise be prohibited under the Act".

24 A previous decision of the Court has confirmed that the site benefits from the existing use provision of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

25 The objectives are:

(a) to provide land primarily for detached housing generally not exceeding a height of 2 storeys and with private gardens in an environment free from commercial and other incompatible activities and buildings, and
(b) To provide for other uses, only where they:

(i) are compatible with the residential environment and afford services to residents at a local level, and
(ii) are unlikely to adversely affect residential amenity or place demands on services beyond the level reasonably required for detached housing.

26 The Respondent raises the following issues in relation to the appeal:

1. Inconsistency with the 2(a) zone objectives

Fodor

2. Bulk Scale Density and visual impact

Fodor

3. Tree Loss and Landscaping

The Cook Pine has a link to the historic use of the site and the surrounding place. Whilst replacement plants are identified, the current proposal does not allow sufficient site area for such a specimen to reach maturity in the vicinity of the vegetated corridor.

4. Communal Open Space

5. Issue 5 was deleted.

6. Safety

7. Privacy, Amenity and Noise

8. Internal amenity

9. Overshadowing

10. View Loss

11. Issue 11 was deleted.

12. DCP 2005

Chapter 100

13. DCP 2005 Chapter 77

14. DCP 2005 Chapter 64

15. SEPP 65

16. SEPP 71

17. Sewer was deleted.

18. Issues raised by objectors and the public interest.

(a) Whether the proposal should be approved having regard to the issues raised by objectors, including amenity impacts on No 52 Werrina Parade, view loss, inconsistency with the 2(a) objectives in terms of bulk and scale, increased site coverage, exceeding the 7 metre hight limit, the unbroken length of wall, overlooking and privacy issues, acoustic privacy, overshadowing, proximity to the coastal hazard line, SEPP 65, visual impact upon the beachfront, streetscape, loss of vegetation and limited landscaping, non compliance with driveway width, inadequate setbacks, compatibility with surrounding development in terms of the 20 metre building depth.

19. Inadequacies and inconsistencies with the Plans and Non-Compliance with Schedule B, insufficient information

27 The respondent’s evidence was heard from:

Mr M. C. Johnson, manager of legal and policy at Council.
Mr J. Woodford objector, 48A Werrina Pde.
Mr P. Ede objector, 48 Werrina Pde.
Mr R Currie and Ms J Spring objectors, 52A Werrina Pde.

28 Other objectors had provided written submissions to this revised design of the proposal that were tendered in evidence.

29 The applicant’s evidence was heard from :

Mr D. C. Sneddon, consultant town planner
Ms C. C. Slater, consultant architect
An arborist report by Ms S. Slaytor, but she was not called for crosss-examination.
A driveway gradient, parking and access and sewerage report by Mr N Petherbridge, but he was not called for cross-examination.

30 The site has an area of 1,363 sq m with a street frontage of 15.45 m, and a depth of about 95 m on the north side and 84 m on the south side. The side boundaries are approximately square with the street boundary. Due to the splay of the eastern boundary referred to previously, it is 20.5 m long.

31 There is a paper bark tree in the front setback, that is in the location of the proposed driveway and so it is sought for removal. There is a young Cook Island pine about half way along the northern boundary on the site set in about 4 m from the boundary. It would be removed by the proposed building. The neighbours in No. 48A seek a change to the proposal to keep that tree as it would break up the long length of the northern façade as seen from their back yard.

32 In regard to Issue 19(xiii), that concern was overtaken by the withdrawal of Issue 17 on Sewerage. The final proposal had two options, one provided for all units to have gravity connections to the existing sewer, but it involved under boring a healthy stand of 5 or more Cook Island trees on No. 48A that grow close to the common boundary with the subject site about half-way along its northern boundary. It would also involve works on No. 48A to connect the bore into an existing sewer manhole.

33 The other option was to divert the existing sewer main where it crossed the site and get gravity sewer to all except Unit 6. The latter would have a collection and pump-out tank to be located on-site uphill of the coastal erosion hazard line contrary to an earlier scheme referred to in Issue 19(xiii). The relocation of the sewer on-site would mean excavation in the proximity of some of the Cook Island pines.

34 The parties agreed on this latter scheme as the arborist report said that a 4m radius “no go zone” from the nearest trees could be achieved to protect the pines, and it avoided any works on neighbouring properties. The pump-out being out of the coastal hazard line and only for one unit was considered acceptable.

35 Stormwater would be dealt with by a 6 kilolitre tank under the building that could be used for irrigation, but having an overflow to soakage trenches in the 18m beachfront setback at the east end of the property.

36 A landscape plan was tendered at the hearing showing three replacement trees in the front setback for the paperbark. The arborist report said the paperbark is healthy, but it could be seen on-site that it had an unusual canopy either due to pruning or wind-cropping and stood about as high as the existing building. The tree is a “local keystone specie”. The landscape plan shows it replaced with three similar melaleuca linarifolia, but not the keystone mel. Quinquenervia. The respondent did not object to the replacement specie, and the proposal includes understorey planting of indigenous coastal heath species.

37 Narrow side boundary vegetation is proposed except where paving or stairs directly adjoined the boundary (along most of both sides, the setbacks are 1.5 m or less). Some planter vegetation is proposed on the terraces and balconies.

38 At the beachfront the 18 m setback is proposed to retain most of the bitou bush weed that covers it, and only place some coastal heath species in front of the ground floor unit’s terrace. In contention is the proposed stand of banksia and Cook Pines adjacent the northern boundary directly outside the south facing living and dining room windows of No.48A. These windows afford a pleasant view along the sand-water interface of Toowoon Bay Beach immediately south.

39 No.48A also complained that the north-eastern corner point of the proposal would obstruct the same view enjoyed from their kitchen window and asked that the last 2 m of the corner be deleted.

40 During the hearing it was agreed that all of the bitou bush weed must be removed and replaced with indigenous coastal heath species, but the fate of the copse of banksia and pine is left to the Court.

41 The applicant notes that despite the existing use rights meaning that any controls or statutes that derogate from those rights shall not apply, the proposal does comply with most.

42 Height: the proposal is 2 storeys for the most part and 3-storeys are permitted on steep slopes. The proposal has a very small part of the building on the steep slope that is 3 storeys, and it does not interfere with views. It complies with the requirement of 7m maximum to the ceiling of the top floor, and 11m maximum to the top of the roof – in fact it is 1 m below that.

43 Setbacks: it has the 6 m front setback and 1.5 m side setbacks, and is behind the Foreshore Erosion Hazard line. These are better than some adjoining and nearby buildings.

44 Density: It complies with the maximum site cover of 60%. The existing building has 15 bedrooms in 7 units, the proposal is 6 units with 18 bedrooms. It is comparable with existing occupancy potential. That is the measure of density.

45 Bulk/scale: It has articulation in some experts’ opinions, complies with the height requirements, it is proportional to its large site area compared to the smaller battle-axe lots adjoining and nearby.

46 Privacy: there is a component of cross-overlooking by neighbours upon each other in this locality due to everyone wanting as much view as possible. No-one can have complete privacy where view sharing with neighbours is provided. The proposal has put screening devices in where reasonable.

47 Overshadowing: the control of the height and stepping of the building has reduced this to a minimum such that southern neighbours retain substantial sunlight.

48 Views: the design has been articulated to minimise loss of views for neighbours, even though those views are ACROSS the site and Tenacity V Warringah [2004] NSWLEC140 says that such views are difficult to justify for retention.

49 In considering the view loss evidence, I conclude as below.

50 In the case of No. 52A, the concern was loss of view north to Norah Head, and down to the beach BOTH across the subject site. No view to the beach itself was possible otherwise due to existing buildings on other lots. During the site visit it was observed that from the Currie’s rear deck one could only see Norah Head by going to the balustrade at the south-east end, and sighting Norah Head through the branches of one of the Cook Island pines on No. 48A. The applicant said that view must only have become available after two of the Cook pines said by Mr. Woodford as having mysteriously died. Their stumps are in that view line.

51 The Currie’s retain their full panorama except from a sitting position at their table setting, a small part of the ocean view to the north-east will be lost, but the aspect and sky component of it will remain due to the deliberately splayed east elevation of the proposal. The view to the beach will be reduced. There would have been a larger proportion kept if No.48A had complied with the Foreshore Erosion Hazard line. But, due to the proposal complying with the hazard line, and being flat roofed, there will be a part of the beach/water interface still seen from Currie’s rear deck.

52 In the case of No. 48, the Ede’s, their view to the north and north-east is magnificent over Blue Bay and the headland to the north and Norah Head beyond. It remains untouched. Directly east the stand of Cook Island pines on No. 48A stops any view towards the ocean. Their view to the south-east is between the existing flats on the site and the Cook pines and over the roof of No. 52. They see the water in Toowoon Bay and the end of the rocks at the south of the bay. It is not a primary view, it is a narrow view and it would remain with perhaps a little less of the landward part of the rocks seen.

53 In regard to the loss of view from the kitchen of No. 48A, Mr Woodford said that the splay of the beach boundary has caused a building design anomaly. It forms a N-E corner that is a very small part of the living room floorspace. It is within the acute angle formed by the splay. The respondent submitted that the plans should be amended to cut off the acute corner. The very small reduction in floor space relates to an area which offers extremely limited useability and utility. Significantly, if this area were removed, there would be no impact at all on the views enjoyed from the proposed development. However, the current proposal if approved would completely remove No 48A’s highly valued and significant view from their kitchen. The proposed design change also reflects the approach taken by the building on the beach at No 52 Werrina Parade.

54 The applicant said that the Woodford’s of all the neighbours had the least to complain about. Their panoramic north, east and south views of the ocean across THEIR land are unaffected. Under Tenacity there would be little justification to retain the view from the kitchen, a work space of a house, when views to the south through their living and dining SIDE windows and ACROSS the subject site would be kept. Also the applicant had agreed to conditions amending parts of the parapet to the Communal Terrace that the Woodford’s did not like.

55 It seems to me that the proposed copse of banksias and Cook Island pine at the north-east corner of the site and this part of the proposed building would, in time, take out the view of the water-land interface that is considered under Tenacity to be of high value, even though in this case it is across a side boundary. The banksia and understorey are not likely to grow up into the viewlines from No. 48A’s windows, so the Cook Island pine should be deleted. Retaining the view from the dining and living rooms would usually be enough and effects only the landscaping. The submission of the Council on the limited usability of the acute corner of the proposal has some merit and seems to be a minor change that minimises impacts on No. 48A. This eliminates ALL view loss for No. 48A which is an unusually beneficial outcome when view sharing between neighbours mostly results in both losing some views or parts of views.

56 In doing that a matter of privacy should also be attended to. The plans show a window on the north side of Unit 4’s living room directly opposite the kitchen window of No. 48A, and a narrow return balcony from the beachfront along the north side. The window will be reduced in size via the cutting back of the acute corner however the window should have obscured glass to avoid vision whilst maintaining light. The return balcony should be deleted for privacy of No. 48A.

57 Other privacy concerns of neighbours were resolved by the parties agreeing to conditions for privacy screens in appropriate positions and prevention of view loss by any future installations.

58 The other objection of No. 48A to the length of the north elevation of the proposal as seen from their back yard needs consideration. It is related to the over-arching issue put by the respondent that the length of the proposal is so out of character with the locality that it should not be approved.

59 The respondent’s evidence is that the pattern of development and the current zoning has resulted in a “green space” between the beach-front and the street-front houses that is a characteristic of the area and should be repeated by any proposal on the subject site by splitting it into two buildings.

60 Mr Sneddon for the applicant had considerable experience as a government regional planner and consultant. In analysing the locality he said first that the proposal, on an intact original large lot is not unlike the size and proportions that a wealthy owner might build as a single luxury house or mansion. Blue Bay is a beautiful location in high demand by the wealthy.

61 Compared to Nos. 52 and 52A for bulk and size, they both had higher, multi-facetted “wave” roofs of greater bulk than the proposal. And, due to the narrow un-vegetated car courtyard and high retaining wall between them, No.s 52 and 52A could hardly be said to reflect the “green space” between houses claimed for the locality. Their bulk and combined length is similar to the proposal. Their paved driveway beside the site from street almost to beach had almost no vegetation.

62 The houses north of the site had a space between the beach-front and the street-front buildings but they were mainly for driveways and car courtyards with some trees and shrubs provided they did not block views. They are hardly “green spaces” in the full sense of the words. The Woodford’s except for their delightful stand of Cook pines against the Ede’s boundary have very little except grass and driveways in their “green space”.

63 This gap between the houses to the north is not reflective of a landscape feature of the topography or pre-development vegetation. It is a result of subdivision of battle-axe lots and the need for utility services connections, driveways, manoeuvring areas (because it is too far to reverse cars to the street) and backyards. Mr Sneddon showed this by mapping paved areas on aerial photos of the locality.

64 He found no planning instrument or development control plan that required the gap.

65 The gap space is really only evident for 3 house-lots north of the site, and he showed this from aerial photographs. After that the curve of the bay reduces the depth of lots between the parade and the beach such that the gap is not evident visually.

66 Mr Sneddon said the character of the locality can be described also as “context” and he had several other photos taken from the ocean, from the street and between houses and aerial to illustrate. There are other blocks of flats in Werrina Parade and/or fronting the beach of more recent vintage that are up to 4-storeys high set above high foundations due to the slope of the land. This gives them the bulk of 5-storeys.

67 Most houses although classified as 2-storeys are also above high foundations giving them the bulk of 3-storeys. The recently built No.48 is an even larger example of that, as it actually has a 3rd storey attic, technically giving it a 4-storey appearance from the ocean side. This cannot be seen easily of course due to the tall stand of Cook pines in front.

68 There were also photo-montages, in evidence, of the proposal inserted into this context. Mr Sneddon said these illustrated how the lower, by comparison, height of the proposal and its stepping down the hill would fit into the context of the existing buildings within their streetscape and coastal landscape settings.

69 In terms of complaints about the flat roofed design also being out of character he said the flat roofs are partly due to the design objective of view retention for neighbours and minimising bulk and overshadowing, although the latter would mainly be of paved driveways. Shown in his photos it could be seen there were hipped roofs, gabled roofs of various pitches, styles and materials, flat roofs and, as seen next door, the high multi-facetted “wave” roofs of No.s 52 & 52A. There is no consistent architectural style or roof design that would require a change to the proposal he said. It is a contemporary functional design that takes more account of its neighbours and potential impacts than many others, especially considering its existing use rights.

70 The single Cook pine on the subject site is a young tree and separated from the stand on No. 48A. In council’s controls it is the Norfolk Island pine trees abundant in the locality that are considered to have importance. The council’s assumption that the tree has “historic” association with the site is unexplained. It could not be sufficient for refusal.

71 Turning back to the Woodford’s concern about the north elevation, the applicant’s evidence shows there is some articulation in the wall via bay window indentations, stepping of the building, and overhanging vegetation from the planter troughs built into the communal terrace. There are also panels of louvres used in many places on elevations to give interest and break up the length of walls. Boundary landscaping on the protected north side of the proposal should also thrive, and if taller species are used than shown in the landscape plan, it should further soften the architectural form. Given this I see no weight in this complaint of the Woodford’s.

72 Another concern on the north elevation relates to the Ede’s bedrooms. Their house has its bedrooms on the lower level adjacent the proposal’s large louvre grille ventilation to the carpark. They are concerned about noise at night reverberating in the carpark, the operation of the turntable there to rotate cars for exit in a forward direction, and related manoeuvring. This is a reasonable concern, and I adopt a condition requiring deletion of the north elevation grilles and details of roof exhaust ventilation to be incorporated.

73 Overall, I have come to the conclusion that the proposal is worthy of approval subject to the matters referred to above.

74 Given the exhaustive evidence on the issues in contention, the parties forwarded amended draft conditions with alternatives for unresolved conditions on 1st August 2007. The draft conditions had spread throughout, requirements that change the plans on important details related to the evidence. The dispersed layout of these conditions required matters that change the plans even at the “Prior to issue of Occupation Certificate” stage. This is unsatisfactory for, the council, an applicant or a private certifier to have easy understanding of the conditions.

75 Rather than re-write the conditions myself, putting all the changes required to the drawings in Condition 1 where they should be, I conclude the most efficient process is to give deferred commencement consent so that the council and the applicant will have an amended set of plans in compliance with the conditions. I incorporate conditions for the matters found in this judgment.

76 Therefore the Orders of the Court are:

K G Hoffman

Commissioner of the Court

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Currency Corporation Pty Limited v Wyong Shire Council [2007] NSWLEC 634

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

3

CITATION:	Currency Corporation Pty Limited v Wyong Shire Council [2007] NSWLEC 634
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Currency Corporation Pty Limited RESPONDENT Wyong Shire Council
FILE NUMBER(S):	11494 of 2005
CORAM:	Hoffman C
KEY ISSUES:	Appeal :- redevelopment of residential units,
LEGISLATION CITED:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Regulations 2000 Wyong Local Environmental Plan 1991
CASES CITED:	Tenacity V Warringah [2004]NSWLEC140
DATES OF HEARING:	26/2/2007, 06/03/2007, 27/03/2007, 25/07/2007, 26/07/2007 and 27/07/2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 September 2007
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Mr Craig, QC and Mr Eastmen, solicitor Instructed by Grech Solicitors RESPONDENT Mr C. Leggatt, SC Instructed by Mr P. Brown, solicitor of Abbott Tout Solicitors