Denoc Holdings Pty Ltd v Orange City Council

[2017] NSWLEC 1271

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	Denoc Holdings Pty Ltd v Orange City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1271
Hearing dates:	9 – 10 May 2017
Date of orders:	10 July 2017
Decision date:	01 June 2017
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Dickson, C
Decision:	Orders at [102]
Catchwords:	DEVELOPMENT APPEAL: impact of additions on heritage significance of the item and the heritage conservation area – appropriateness of impacts on heritage fabric – adaptive reuse as a hotel – impacts of use on adjoining residential properties
Legislation Cited:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
Cases Cited:	Renaldo Plus 3 Pty Ltd v Hurstville City Council [2005] NSWLEC 315 Cachia v Manly Council (No. 2) [2009] NSWLEC 1107 Futurespace Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council (2009) 169 LGERA 153 Marinkovic v Rockdale City Council [2007] NSWLEC 71
Texts Cited:	Guidelines for Infill Development in an Historic Environment, NSW Heritage Office
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Denoc Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant) Orange City Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr C McEwan SC   Solicitors: Mills Oakley (Applicant) Mr A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2016/ 00183468
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This appeal was lodged against the refusal by Orange City Council of development application 329/2015(1). The application sought consent for the use and development of the heritage item known as Yallungah Mansion as hotel or motel accommodation. In addition to the use, the application seeks consent for partial demolition, structural changes to the interior of the existing building, demolition of outbuildings and removal of trees.

2. The hotel proposes to utilise the existing Yallungah Mansion and incorporate a modern two-storey extension that adjoins the existing building at the rear of the subject site.

3. In hearing the appeal the role of the Court (cl 39 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act)) is to assess and determine the development application based on the evidence in the proceedings and the amended plans. The amended plans have resulted in the following main changes to the proposal:

A reduction in

1. the number of proposed rooms from 28 to 22;

2. the length of the proposed extension;

3. the extent of glazing to the eastern elevation;

4. the car parking provided; and

5. the total floor area.

6. Other changes include an amendment to the roof pitch, changes to the external finishes to be complementary to the existing building and deletion of the through driveway from Hills Street.

4. The issues for the Court to determine are:

1. Whether the impact of the proposed development on the heritage significance of Yallungah mansion is acceptable;

2. Whether the impact of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the adjoining heritage items, and the Central Orange heritage conservation area, is acceptable; and

3. Whether the application has a detrimental impact on the amenity and privacy of adjoining properties.

The site and its context

NOT IMPLEMENTED: support for w:pict - without v:imagedata

5. The subject site is legally described as Lot 3 DP 758817, Lot 4 DP 1085463 and Lot 1 DP 956418, being 62 Byng Street and 77 Hills Street, Orange.

6. The property at 62 Byng Street slopes from north to south with a fall of approximately 2.4m over its 120m length to the southern boundary of 77 Hill Street. 62 Byng Street contains a mansion type dwelling which is identified as a local heritage item. The building is setback approximately 20m from the street with the front setback comprising a garden area. The rear portion of the site, behind the house, is cleared with the exception of trees located at the perimeter of the property.

7. 77 Hill Street is a relatively flat site containing dwelling that is set back approximately 5.5m from the street frontage. The rear portion of the site contains outbuildings and a garden area.

8. The arrangement of the lots and the existing site features can be seen in the following extract of the aerial photograph.

9. The site is located within a residential area at the North West periphery of the Orange Central Business District. Within proximity of the site the built form is generally characterised as single and double storey period residential dwellings to the west of the site, with a greater prevalence of commercial buildings and uses to the east of the site.

Planning Controls:

10. Section 79C(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) requires the consent authority, in this case the Court, to consider a number of provisions of any environmental planning instrument, any development control plan, any planning agreement, relevant regulations, and any coastal management plan that may apply to the land to which the development application relates. Amongst other things, s 79C also requires consideration of the likely impacts of the development, the suitability of the site for development, any submissions made, and the public interest.

11. In accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 a certificate has been submitted with the development application and the relevant requirements incorporated in the proposal. The proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of this policy.

12. Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (LEP 2011) applies to the site. Relevant to this appeal LEP 2011 has the following relevant aims (cl 1.2(2)):

(a)To encourage development which complements and enhances the unique character of Orange as a major regional centre boasting a diverse economy and offering an attractive regional lifestyle;

(b)To provide for a range of development opportunities that contribute to the social, economic and environmental resources of Orange in a way that allows present and future generations to meet their needs by implementing the principles for ecologically sustainable development;

…

(f) To recognise and manage valued environmental heritage, landscape and scenic features of Orange.

It is agreed between the parties that the development is consistent with the aims of the LEP.

13. Pursuant to LEP 2011 the site is zoned R1 General Residential. The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

to provide for the housing needs of the community;

to provide for a variety of housing types and densities;

to enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents;

to ensure development is ordered in such a way as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling in close proximity to settlement;

to ensure that development along the Southern Link Road has alternative access.

It is agreed between the parties that the development is consistent with the objectives of the zone.

14. The proposal is defined as hotel or motel accommodation, which is a type of tourist and visitor accommodation. The development is permissible, with consent, in the zone.

15. LEP 2011 provides no mapped height or floor space ration controls for the subject site.

16. Clause 5.10- Heritage Conservation applies to the proceedings as the site is a heritage item, Yallungah Mansion, listed in Schedule 2 of the LEP (reference I36), and is within the Central Orange Heritage conservation area. The subject site adjoins Galbally Mansion (reference I35), the Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society Hall (reference I27) and 87 Hill Street (reference I27) which are also heritage items. An extract of the heritage map is provided below:

17. Pursuant to cl5.10(2) development consent is required for the demolition and alterations proposed, as well as for the erection of the extension.

18. The objectives of cl 5.10 of LEP 2011, ‘Heritage Conservation’ at sub-cl (1), are to conserve the environmental heritage of the Orange and the heritage significance of heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, setting and views.  The consent authority must, before granting consent in respect of a heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the area, at sub-cl (4).

19. The Orange City Council Heritage Inventory describes the Yallungah Mansion as follows:

‘A substantial home of two storeys with unusual verandah treatment, incorporation [of] curved render work to ground level, plain timber to first floor and a large lattice balustrade. The walls are constructed of local brick, with contrasting colour to pointed window heads. The roof is slate. The building is enhanced by the substantial garden.

The statement of significance sets out the following:

The two storey face brick residence with slate roof and distinctive return verandahs is rare within Orange as one of the collection of mansion type houses and it complements the streetscape while contributing to the Conservation Area as a heritage item.

20. The Statement of Significance for the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area (Central Orange HCA) identifies that it consists of a range of buildings dating from the latter part of the nineteenth century and early part of the twentieth century, and that some have historical importance for reflecting the period of development and prosperity of Orange during that period.

Key characteristics of the residential areas within the Central Orange HCA include (drawn from clause 13.1 of DCP 2004):

• An important spread of Victorian buildings, especially public and ecclesiastical buildings, and many buildings from the    turn of the century with late Victorian and Edwardian features, which are of particular significance because of their concentration and good condition.

• Some significant Federation houses and bungalows of the twenties and thirties which make up a major element of the housing stock.

• Significant common features, including the use of the vernacular ‘buff brown’ brick, corrugated iron roofs and consistent front verandah elements.

• These common elements from each of the building periods, together with wide streets often complemented by large trees, the Central conservation area has been described as “having a grace, consistency and highly urban character rarely found in the towns of New South Wales especially in the concentration that exists here”.

21. The Orange Development Control Plan 2004, (DCP 2004) applies to the proposal. At section 0.1 of the document the DCP includes interim provisions that seek to provide guidance on the appropriate interpretation of the current DCP provisions under the LEP 2011 and to ensure the relevance of the controls. The clauses of DCP 2004 relevant to the appeal are in:

1. Part 7: Development in Residential Areas

In relation to character Clause 7.1 relevantly states:

The emphasis of planning under Orange LEP 2000 and this associated DCP is for new development to positively contribute to the highly-valued character of the City. Achieving this requires that development recognises and addresses the features of each area. In established areas, the character has already been defined. New development should clearly relate to the existing development pattern of the neighbourhood.

…

The original “Square Mile” layout of the Orange Village broadly relates to the Central Orange Conservation Area, which includes the Central Business District and surrounding residential areas. The residential areas comprise a high concentration of mainly brick heritage houses set behind period fences and gardens to make up impressive streetscapes of houses in wide tree-lined streets set in a gridstreet pattern with formal parks, churches, corner stores.

…

In relation to Desired Future Character Clause 7.4 states in part:

… The above statements of significance for conservation areas provide the context for development within residential areas of the urban conservation areas of Orange.

As the Urban Form publication indicates, the layout of urban residential areas beyond the limits of the Conservation Areas in Orange alter with different lot sizes, widths and street layouts. Building form remains consistent.

Residential areas predominantly comprise single-storey housing. Narrow-frontage lots with deep backyards in central areas become replaced by wider lots with smaller backyards in the contemporary subdivisions of fringing-release areas.

The single-storey character of residential areas predominates. Retaining this character requires attention in considering two-storey infill development. Contemporary residential areas are anticipated to comprise single-storey houses that face or present to the street.

A mix of housing forms on a range of lot sizes will provide for a range of housing needs. New residential development should complement the existing character of established areas and provide a quality environment in new areas through addressing design elements such as orientation, building form and scale and facade treatment through presenting buildings to the street.

(2) Section 7.7: Design Elements for Residential Development

Streetscape Objectives:

1 To ensure that the development fits into its setting and environmental features of the locality;

2 To ensure that the appearance of housing is of a high visual quality, enhances the streetscape and complements good quality surrounding development;

3 To ensure that new development complements places with heritage significance and their settings in a contemporary way.

4 To develop a sense of place with attractive street frontages

5 To encourage visually appealing cohesive streetscapes

6 To create a safe and secure environment

7 To provide consistent design elements that protect private investment

Clause 7.7.2 Planning Outcomes – Building Appearance

1 The building design, detailing and finishes relate to the desired neighbourhood character, complement the residential scale of the area and add visual interest to the street.

2 The frontage of buildings and their entries address the street.

3 Garages and car parks are sited and designed so that they do not dominate the street frontage.

Clause 7.7.3 Planning Outcomes: Heritage

1 Heritage buildings and structures are efficiently re-used.

2 New development complements and enhances the significance of a heritage item or place of heritage significance listed in the Orange Heritage Study.

3 Significant landscape features are retained including original period fences and period gardens.

Clause 7.7.6 Planning Outcomes: Visual Bulk

Built form accords with the desired neighbourhood character of the area with:

- side and rear setbacks progressively increased to reduce bulk and overshadowing;

- site coverage that retains the relatively low-density, landscaped character of residential areas;

- building form and siting that relates to land form, with minimal land shaping (cut and fill);

- building height at the street frontage that maintains a comparable scale with the predominant adjacent development form;

- building to the boundary where appropriate

Clause 7.7.10 Planning Outcomes: Visual Privacy

Direct overlooking of principal living areas and private open spaces of other dwellings is

minimised firstly by:

- building siting and layout;

- location of windows and balconies;

and secondly by:

- design of windows or use of screening devices and landscaping.

Guidelines:

Site and building layout ensures windows do not provide direct and close views into the windows, balconies or private open spaces of adjoining dwellings.

Habitable room windows on upper-floor levels (ie, floor level greater than 1.5 metres above predevelopment ground level) within 9 metres from windows of living areas of adjacent dwellings:

are off-set sufficient distance to limit direct views; or

include measures to screen or obscure views between the dwellings (curtains are not sufficient for screening).

Balconies of an upper-floor level (as defined above) within 9 metres of habitable rooms or private open space are permanently screened to reasonably obscure direct views to adjacent rooms and private open space.

(2) Part 13: Heritage

Clause 13.3 Details the considerations for Development and states:

Design of new development should complement heritage character. This can be achieved in three ways: Restoration Works that return the building to its original form and style Respectful Design A “low-key” design approach where heritage building forms, proportions and materials are applied but reproduction of decorative work and detailing is avoided; the design should demonstrate that it is a contemporary building or addition that respects the heritage setting.

…

Interpretive Design Forms and proportions that relate to but do not reproduce heritage features; Good modern architecture is encouraged that fits in to a heritage setting

…

Heritage Features

The following heritage features need to be considered when undertaking respectful or interpretive design:

• building scale and form; including height, width, roof form and pitch, chimneys

• façade features such as verandahs, window sizes and proportions, positioning of doors

• materials and external finishes

• fences

• gardens

Clause 13.4 Development in the Vicinity of a Heritage Item.

1 Development conforms with recognised conservation principles.

(2)Part 15: Car parking

The application of the controls at clause 15.4 generate the demand for the provision of 27 parking spaces on the site. This is achieved by the amended plans.

The traffic experts agree that subject to the following condition the proposed development provides adequate on-site car parking.

There is to be a maximum of 8 staff on the site at any one time.

Access to all services and facilities with in the hotel shall be limited to overnight stay guests only. The conference room, breakfast room and Coffey bar are to be used by overnight stay hotel guests only. These areas are not to be used by the general public. There is to be no advertisement for use of the conference facility, breakfast room and coffee bar by the general public.

These conditions are agreed by the applicant.

22. In supporting its refusal of the application the Council also relies on the NSW Heritage Office publication Guidelines for Infill Development in a Historic Environment.

Public submissions

23. The assessment of the original development application involved public notification to the surrounding neighbourhood in accordance with the Orange Development Control Plan 2004 (DCP 2004). A total of twenty five submissions were received, with a further twenty six lodged after the exhibition. The concerns raised by members of the public in the submissions are summarised as follows:

1. The property contains a significant dwelling designed by Orange architect William Lamrock. The property is listed for its aesthetic value and its association with Lamrock. The impact of the proposal on the heritage item itself should be sufficient for the Court to refuse the application. The development impacts on the original stair, the leadlight window and will result in insufficient curtilage around the building to enable the retention and interpretation of its significance.

2. Potential detrimental impacts on adjoining properties. Specifically from overlooking, overshadowing, light spill, visual bulk, proximity of the proposed driveway and associated vehicular noise, risk of structural damage, loss of sunlight and devaluation of property;

3. Concern about the practicality of relying on a Plan of Management to control the impacts that will arise from the development;

4. The visual bulk and excessive length of the proposed development represents an overdevelopment of the site;

5. Lack of information about landscaping proposed, especially adjacent adjoining properties, and potential impact these trees will have on infrastructure and sunlight in winter to adjoining properties;

6. Increased traffic congestion within Hill Street and Byng Street, including concerns about pedestrian safety;

7. Inadequate parking provided for the use, and management of late arrivals, concern about where coaches would park;

1. Provision for servicing of the hotel, and the impact of early morning deliveries on residential amenity;

2. Waste management;

3. Emergency access;

4. Signage;

5. Impact on adjacent heritage structures during construction;

6. Lack of community consultation or liaison with the proponent;

Whilst residents also expressed concern in relation to previous works undertaken on the site these works do not form part of the proceedings before the Court.

24. The matter commenced by way of an onsite view of the site. A considerable number of objections were lodged to the development application, and the objectors and during the view members of the public were given the opportunity to express their concerns to the Court. The concerns raised by the objectors mirror the issues summarised in the preceding.

Expert Evidence:

25. The Court heard expert planning evidence from Mr John Oultram, for the applicant, and Ms Samantha Polkinghorne for the Council. The experts participated in a joint conferencing process prior to the hearing which sought to address the issues in contention. As a result of the conferencing process they prepared a joint expert report which was tendered as Exhibit 6.

26. The court was provided traffic evidence from Mr Craig McLaren, for the Council, and Mr Michael Logan for the applicant. The experts participated in a joint conferencing process prior to the hearing which sought to address the issues in contention. As a result of the conferencing process they prepared a joint expert report which was tendered as Exhibit 8. Following the on-site hearing the experts prepared an addendum to the report addressing the concerns raised by the residents in relation to the provision of coach parking and the adequacy of carp passing opportunities within the site this report was tendered as Exhibit H.

27. The Court heard expert planning evidence from Mr Jeff Mead, for the applicant, and Mr Gerard Turisi for the Council. The experts participated in a joint conferencing process prior to the hearing which sought to address the issues in contention. As a result of the conferencing process they prepared a joint expert report which was tendered as Exhibit 7.

28. As a result of the joint conferencing process, and the subsequent preparation of their written evidence, the experts have agreed a number of matters in relation to the proposed application. I have reviewed these agreed statements and I am satisfied that they appropriately consider the issues raised by the contentions and the public, as well is the appropriate planning controls and I accept their conclusions.

Is the impact of the proposed development on the heritage significance of Yallungah mansion is acceptable?

29. As a result of the joint conferencing the experts agreed that:

1. the stair is an important element in the existing house and should be retained along with the existing window to the stair landing; and

2. the design is not of excessive bulk and scale and that a contemporary design with traditional roof forms is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood character including the existing dwelling (Exhibit 6).

30. In summary Ms Polkinghorne’s overall assessment of the proposal is that the external form of the heritage item will be retained and remain readable in the round, with the exception of the connection between the new and existing buildings. The proposed internal modifications are acceptable with the exception of the removal of the stair and the stained-glass landing window. The removal of these components has an unacceptable impact on the significance of the heritage item, and as such does not meet the objectives of Clause 5.10 of the OLEP. It is her view that the proposed uses for the spaces in the heritage item provide an acceptable adaptive reuse option… and that the landscape works to the front of the heritage item retain an appropriate setting for the house (Exhibit 6).

31. In relation to the new extension to the extension to the rear it is Ms Polkinghorne’s evidence that the pitched roof form with the upper rooms set into the roof is an acceptable contemporary from in this location in the conservation area. The photomontages do not however demonstrate sufficient separation between the three portions of the building (Exhibit 6).

32. In regard to how the extension connects with the existing building it is her evidence that the ridge height of the new building set well below the main ridge line of the heritage item is a positive heritage outcome, however the current connection between the heritage item and the new development does not provide an adequate transition. The existing eave line is altered in such a way that there is no visual separation between the existing and proposed structures (Exhibit 6). It is her evidence that the proposed building is non-compliant with the DCP at Clause 13.3, which requires new development to complement heritage character.

33. With reference to the Joint Expert report Ms Polkinghorne’s concerns with the proposal on heritage grounds are:

1. the proposed connection between the heritage item and the new building, specifically how it impacts on and at the eaves line, is not acceptable. The current detail interrupts the original eaves line and does not provide sufficient separation between the existing and proposed structures.

2. The proposed works to the existing house are acceptable, with the exception of the following:

• Removal of the stair and stair landing window and the resulting opening up of the rear wall at both levels, and

• Relocation of the opening into R02, the existing opening location should be retained.

3. the new hotel buildings do not provide sufficient separation between the elements to allow them to read as three distinct elements when viewed from Hill Street. (Exhibit 6).

Connection to the existing heritage item

34. In contrast to Ms Polkinghorne, it is the evidence of Mr Oultram that:

The roof to the house is an important element and the link is designed to be as low as possible with an internal springing height of 2100mm to the new side additions at the first floor. The roof will intersect with the rear eave but can be detailed to carry the visible section of the eave (when viewed from the rear) to carry across the lower part of the new roof. The roof will impact on the eave further into the building but this will not be visible from the rear. The new addition over the roof of the rear wing has been setback to allow a portion of roof slope to the side to be retained and the side gable to the main house, and its relationship to the rear wing, will remain apparent. From the front, the intersection of the roofs will not be apparent. (Exhibit 6)

35. in response to the evidence from Ms Polkinghorne, during the course of the proceedings the applicant prepared an additional section showing how the connection between the buildings could be facilitated to allow the retention of the existing roof edge, gutter and barge board, thus not impacting on any heritage fabric (Exhibit N). This amendment was agreed by the experts who in oral evidence stated they were satisfied that the connection, as depicted in Exhibit N, relates appropriately to the existing heritage building.

Stair and stair landing window

36. As noted at [29] the experts agree that the removal of the stair and the stained-glass landing window has an unacceptable impact on the significance of the heritage item, and is not in line with the best practice principles of the Burra Charter. The applicant has since agreed to retain the existing stair; however, the stained glass window remains in contention between the parties.

37. The applicant seeks the removal of the stained glass window to create an upper level access via a glazed walkway to the extension from the upper level of the existing heritage building.

38. Ms Polkinghorne objects to the relocation of the stained glass window on the basis that there are other accesses provided within the architectural design. It is her conclusion that the removal is unnecessary and inconsistent with the Burra Charter, article 3.1 which states:

3.1 Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible.

39. In the alternative, Mr Oultram supports the necessity of the removal of the fabric, and proposes that the original window is reinterpreted on the northern wall of the stairwell. It is his evidence that in this location that the impact of the change would not be significant. He argues that the new upper floor glazed connection provides the heritage benefit of providing a unique view of the existing heritage fabric, and an appreciation of the house and its relationship to the stairway void.

40. It is Mr Seton’s submission that the impact on the stained glass window is significant and breaches Councils control at Clause 13.4 (1) which requires development to conform with recognised conservation principles.

Findings

41. Council’s DCP at section 7.7 has the objective, amongst others, to ensure that new development complements places with heritage significance and their settings in a contemporary way. At 7.7.3 the DCP seeks heritage outcomes that achieve the efficient re-use of heritage buildings and new buildings that complement and enhance that significance.

42. I accept the agreement of the experts that the detailed depicted in exhibit N will result in an appropriate connection of the new extension to the existing fabric. I am satisfied that this amendment is superior to the current proposal, and if consent is to be provided to the development it should be amended to reflect this exhibit.

43. In relation to the proposed impacts to the stained-glass window and the original setting of the stair I accept the evidence of the experts that the fabric is significant and the conclusion of Ms Polkinghorne that the impact is not ‘necessary’ for the development. I am satisfied that level 2 of the extension is adequately serviced by stairs and lifts without the upper level link. I find that the walkway connecting the existing heritage building to the first floor level (RL88 3.37) should be deleted. The rear wall of the dwelling, at the landing of the existing stairs, including the stained-glass window is to be retained.

44. With these amendments to the proposal I am satisfied the impact of the proposed development on the heritage significance of Yallungah mansion is acceptable.

Is the impact of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the adjoining heritage items, and the heritage conservation area itself, acceptable?

45. Council raises no contention in relation to the acceptability of the streetscape view or the impact of the proposed development on the Orange Central HCA from Byng Street. The concerns raised by Council focus on the impact on the Orange Central HCA of the view of the proposal from Hill Street.

46. There is no contention raised, or evidence before the Court, that raises objection to the development, in relation to the impact of the proposed works on the adjoining heritage items Galbally Mansion, the Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society hall (HACBS Hall) or the Gladstone Hotel. I note that the Council assessment report provided the following conclusions in relation to the impact of the then proposed development on these items:

… It is considered that the proposed extension will not detract from the significance of the Galbally Mansion, particularly as it is experienced from Byng Street, subject to it meeting the relevant conditions of consent.

… It is considered that the proposed extension will not significantly detract from the HACBS Hall, particularly as experienced from within Hill Street.

… Given the limited changes to the Byng Street frontage of the subject property, it is considered that the proposed use and development would not affect the significance of the Gladstone Hotel.

(Tab 39, Exhibit 4).

However, Council contends that the bulk and scale of the development is excessive when viewed from Hill Street given that there is a lack of separation of the upper levels to demonstrate a series of buildings rather than one continuous element.

47. In her evidence, Ms Polkinghorne identifies that the key views from Hills Street to the proposed extension at the rear of the heritage item are through the gaps between buildings fronting Hills Street. She places particular importance on the view from Hills Street between 81-85 Hill Street. From her analysis of the streetscape, and these viewing locations, she concludes that: firstly the roof form of the proposal is too heavy and solid an element; and that this is a result of the lack of articulation and physical separation provided between the wings of the extension. Given this impact on the streetscape from Hill Street she concludes that the proposal will impact on the significance of the Orange Central HCA. She disagrees with Mr Oultram’s characterisation that the view is ‘of glimpses of the building’ and concludes his evidence understates the impact.

48. In the alternative Mr Oultram’s evidence is that the proposed addition has been reduced in scale by reducing the number of bedrooms and decreasing the length of the addition. The addition is divided into three sections with openings between and the central section is stepped back from the north and south wings to amplify the effect of separation and allow the gables to read as separate elements. The introduction of pitched roofs with the first floor rooms set into the roof has considerably reduced the scale of the proposal and introduced a form that is consistent with nearby buildings. The changes considerably alter the appearance of the new buildings when viewed from Byng Street and Hill Street, providing a single storey form (Exhibit 6). It is Mr Oultram’s view that a casual observer will not make the connection that the limited glimpses seen between buildings on Hill Street are a single building.

49. His evidence is that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the Central Orange HCA. In relation to views his Heritage Impact Statement concludes:

The development will not impact directly on significant views as the development site is enclosed by surrounding properties and there is no built development proposed to the front garden.

The new development will be seen in slot views along the drive and from the West but it will not be a prominent element in the streetscape from Byng Street.

The development will be visible from Hill Street over the houses (as they are single storey) and through slot views between them. It is worth noting that the existing house on the subject property is similarly visible and the impact on Hill Street is mitigated by the low height of the development.

This is a common pattern in the area where higher buildings are seen over and beyond single story dwellings to the Street and the proposed development is of a considerably higher quality than some of the later, infill development in the area. It would be unreasonable to expect the development not to be seen and to the casual observer the development could easily be on the next street over. (Exhibit C).

50. During the hearing, the applicant proposed further changes to the development. These are depicted in Exhibit M. The amendment proposes a lower roof forms over the bathrooms at the ends of each of the of the new wings of the buildings. This was proposed by the applicant to seek to increase the visual separation between the forms in response to Ms Polkinghorne’s evidence.

51. Following a review of Exhibit M Ms Polkinghorne’s evidence was that, whilst this option was an improvement, it would not address her concern as the consistency of the roof form and alignment would still result in it being read as one form from the view corridors between the buildings in Hill Street.

52. Mr McEwan submits based on the photomontages before the Court (Exhibit K) there is no one location on Hill Street where an observer could understand the building as a totality in the streetscape. He argues that portions of the building form will exist as a background to the existing building fronting Hill Street. It is his submission that the dominant contributing forms in the Orange Central HCA remain intact and will not be affected by the proposal.

53. Mr Seton submits that Council’s primary position is that the proposal does not preserve the significance of the item or the Orange Central HCA. He argues that one of the special characteristics of the central streets of Orange are the single storey dwellings, and the significant spaces between them. It is his submission that this proposal does not respond appropriately to that character, especially when viewed from Hill Street.

54. In relation to the appropriate articulation of the building form Mr Turrisi states:

The properties facing Hill Street, which abut the subject site, are unique in their subdivision pattern with their depths being quite shallow. This is evident in the above aerial image. The buildings along Hill Street have greater separations between their side boundaries which means the built form proposed on this site will be visible from Hill Street. 2.3.4 Clause 7.7-6 Planning Outcomes – Visual Bulk of the Orange Development Control Plan 2004, stipulates that the proposed built form should accord with the desired neighbourhood characteristics with site coverage that retains the relatively low density character of the area and the landscaped character. As stated, the area is characterised by detached dwellings with the overall bulk and scale

55. It is the primary evidence of Mr Mead that given this Contention relates to the proposal’s relationship with the character of the neighbourhood that is a heritage conservation area (and the heritage dwelling on the site), it is a matter for the heritage experts. That is, the general character of the locality should not be treated with a higher status than as a heritage conservation area. Notwithstanding, in town planning terms it is his evidence that the bulk and form of the proposal is acceptable. It was his oral evidence that the photomontages and site view demonstrate the effect of buildings and vegetation on the visibility of the proposed building from various vantage points on Hill Street. It is his conclusion that any views to the proposed building are broken by existing buildings that sit in its foreground and vegetation on Hill Street, noting that even single storey buildings block the view line from the opposite side of the street where they sit in front of the proposal.

56. Mr Seton submits that the proposed building roof level at RL 88.75 will be significantly higher (between 1.3m and 3.02m) than the existing buildings in Hill Street so will be visible over their existing roof forms, irrespective of the effect of perspective.

57. Mr McEwan submits that visibility of the proposed development in and of itself is not an impact, and that the any impact needs to be considered in the context of the relevant controls and a merit assessment to determine its weight in the determination of the application.

Findings

58. With the benefit of the site view and the provision by the architect of additional streetscape elevations of the proposed development from Hill Street (exhibit K) I accept the evidence of Mr Oultram that that a casual observer will not make the connection that the limited glimpses seen between buildings on Hill Street are a single building. I am satisfied that the form and scale of the proposed development detailed in Exhibit M is acceptable.

59. Whilst the addition is clearly of contemporary architectural detailing, I find that is compatible with the setting of the heritage conservation area and its location within the conservation area. I accept the evidence of Mr Oultram and Mr Mead that the bulk and scale of the buildings is acceptable and that are casual observer would not read the development is inconsistent with the character of the heritage conservation area. I find that whilst the development will be visible in the streetscape it will not have a detrimental impact on the significance of the Central Orange HCA [refer par 20].

Does the application have a detrimental impact on the amenity and privacy of adjoining properties?

60. Council contends that the application will have detrimental impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties. In particular the Council argues that:

1. the balconies to the rooms facing the Western boundary will have an acoustic impact on adjoining residents;

2. the operation of the car park and the driveway will impact on adjoining residents and create noise disturbance and light spill from headlights;

3. the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the privacy of adjoining properties due to the proximity to the boundary and the 2 - 3 storey nature of the proposal.

Residents raised these issues and also raised concern about the practicality of the plan of management as a means of controlling any impacts from the development.

61. At the conclusion of the joint conferencing of the planning experts they conclude:

the experts are in agreement that the amended architectural plans are acceptable with the exception of the following points of difference which are discussed in the report:

a. Whether the design of the proposed void areas over the main lobby and secondary (southern) lounge are acceptable in terms of building bulk;

b. Whether additional articulation is required on the western façade at the upper level between Rooms 14 and 15, and, 16 and 17 by widening these insets;

c. Whether the balconies to Rooms 1 to 4, and, 9 to 12 should be modified;

d. Whether a Plan of Management is required prior to determination of the application;

62. A Noise Impact Assessment has been prepared by the applicant, and tendered as Exhibit F. The report concludes that the development will comply with the relevant amenity criterion in the Environmental Protection Authority’s Industrial Noise Policy subject to the following recommendations:

1. installation of a screen to the side of the car park and driveway to the location detailed in Figure 3 of the Noise Impact Report, which is to be constructed of solid material to a height of 1.8 m;

2. the limiting of high noise generating activities on the balconies during sensitive periods, such as night-time;

3. provision of a means of contact with hotel staff to manage excessive noise complaints;

4. loading and delivery is being managed as proposed, namely:

1. a small rigid vehicle will deliver food during normal operation hours at a maximum of twice a week;

2. laundry delivery and pick up would occur every second day after 10 am;

3. Garbage collected a maximum of twice a week after 10 am;

4. no deliveries on the weekend.

Balconies

63. It is the evidence of Mr Turisi that the balconies on the Western elevation are elevated above natural ground by between 900 mm and 2 m. He therefore concludes that an acoustic fence will not assist in providing protection to the amenity of adjoining neighbours. It is his conclusion that the balconies are of a size that would allow guest to recreate on them, and that it is likely and foreseeable that such a use will create noise impacts to the adjoining neighbour at 60 Byng Street.

64. Mr Turisi raises concern as to the efficacy of controlling this impact through a plan of management and seeks the deletion of the balconies from units 1 – 4 and 9 – 12.

65. In the alternative Mr Mead argues that the balconies provide additional utility to the hotel rooms and given their dimensions (1.5 x 3 .6 m) are unlikely to accommodate large-scale entertaining. In assessing the impact on 60 Byng Street he notes that balconies 1 – 4 are setback 5.5 m from the side boundary and are adjacent the rear tennis court of the neighbouring property. He argues that any impact from these balconies should be given less weight. In relation to the balconies of room 9 – 12 he states:

the nearest point of the balconies is approximately 20 M from the South – eastern corner of the dwelling at 60 Byng Street and is separated by a proposed 2m high lapped and To boundary fence, existing and proposed vegetation (Exhibit 7).

66. It is Mr Mead’s conclusion that this fencing and the plan of management would be satisfactory to manage any acoustic impact from the development.

67. In submissions, Mr Seton argues that the plan of management does not provide any physical impediment to the use of the balconies and the most certain means of mitigating the impact on the neighbours is to delete the balconies from rooms 1 – 4 and 9 – 12.

68. In oral evidence, the planners gave consideration to the use of time delay locks or other means of restricting access to the balconies at night-time. Whilst they retained their primary position in relation to the balconies, they agreed such a condition would have utility. In closing, Mr McEwan advised the applicant would be willing to accept such a condition.

Vehicular noise and light spill

69. During the on-site view residents expressed concern about the impact of traffic movements adjacent the eastern boundary of the site. The acoustic report provided by the applicant assesses this impact and requires the inclusion of an acoustic fence along the boundaries of number 64 and number 67 Hill Street, and the end of the first disabled space shown on the plans adjacent 85 Hill Street. In reading the acoustic report it is not clear why a similar impact, and therefore screening, is not required where vehicles are also capable of passing adjacent 81 Hill Street and the remaining length of boundary at 85 Hill Street.

70. Residents also raised concern in relation to light spill from headlights, in particular into 75 Hill Street. This concern was assessed and considered by the planning experts. They agree mitigation is appropriate and agree that a screen could be placed generally at the rear of the three easternmost spaces in front of the proposed landscaping to act as a barrier to light spill additional to the boundary fencing and landscaping. This would be in the form of a perforated screen or similar to a height of 3m.

Plan of management

71. The applicant seeks to manage the impacts of the development in part by a plan of management. A draft plan of management was tabled with the Court as Exhibit E.

72. Council contends that the plan of management is inconsistent with the evidence of the experts, and requires amendment to reflect the recommendations of the acoustic report. In particular Council seeks the following amendments:

3.1: a reduction in the capacity of the premises to reflect a maximum number of guests of 44.

3.2: the requirement for guests of the conference facility to tour also be guests of the hotel.

4.2+5.10: to be amended to require a manager to be within the site at all times

4.8: restrict the service of food and beverages to hotel guests

4.11 to be amended to align with the recommendations of the acoustic report.

8.5 to be deleted so that only hotel guests within the accommodation are able to be on the premises between 10 pm and 7 am

10.1 to be updated to itemise the acoustic report provisions as part of the plan of management.

73. The applicant generally accepted the amendments sought by the Council to the draft plan of management and argues the changes are capable of resolution by directions if the Court is supportive of the proposal.

74. Council also raises concern with the management of late check ins. It argues these have the potential to create unacceptable impacts on the adjoining residents. Mr Meads evidence is that late check ins would be managed through a key drop box process which would allow guest to gain access to their accommodation without requiring reception to be open. He also argues that such a late check in box could be located at the front of the site to allow vehicle idling to not occur adjacent number 64 Hill Street.

75. Mr Seton submits that such detail should be provided to the Council for comment and be before the Court prior to determining the application.

Visual privacy

76. Following the joint conferencing the planning experts agree that the only point of difference between them in relation to visual privacy is whether the West facing balconies, and views from the upper level access way, impact the privacy of 60 Byng Street.

77. Given my finding at [43] regarding the deletion of the upper level access way this removes any potential overlooking from this location. The remaining issue in contention in relation to visual privacy therefore is the balconies adjacent the Western boundary.

78. Mr Turisi seeks the inclusion of a louvred screen to the Western boundary balconies to ensure the maintenance of privacy between the proposed hotel use and the existing residents.

79. In the alternative it is Mr Mead’s evidence that:

the balconies to rooms 9 to 12 are less than 1.5 M above ground level and therefore in my opinion pursuant to the DCP controls do not require specific privacy mitigation measures to be implemented. These balconies are 5.5 M from the common boundary and sit between proposed landscaping in addition to the screening provided by to existing large trees adjacent the boundary. A to M high lapped and Boundary fence is proposed. The balconies are a minimum of approximately 20 m from the dwelling on No.60 Byng Street. Due to the separation from the dwelling at No. 60 and the nature of existing and proposed landscaping, it is my opinion that these balconies would not present any significant visual privacy concern. Whilst in my opinion not necessary, the edge of the balconies could be treated with screening to further minimise any potential for adverse visual privacy impact.

The balconies to rooms 1-4, whilst elevated above natural ground, are over 40 m from the dwelling on 60 Byng Street and are adjacent to a tennis court, deep in the rear yard of the adjoining property. With the proposed setback of 5.5m, proposed 2m high boundary fencing, existing and proposed landscaping, in considering the use of the part of the adjoining yard, these proposed balcony is do not present an unreasonable privacy impact (Exhibit 7).

Findings

80. It is clear from the consideration of the submissions and the evidence of the experts that the impacts of the proposed development, especially in terms of acoustics are of concern to residents and will be substantially affected by how the use proposed in managed. The experts differ in the weight and certainty they place on the effect of the plan of management. In considering the different evidence of the experts and the characteristics of the locality and the proximity of adjoining residential development I find:

1. It is appropriate to require the recommendations of the acoustic report to be replicated as conditions of consent. In particular in relation to:

1. the provision of the screen within the carpark (adjacent 75 Hill Street);

2. the construction of an acoustic barrier to the eastern boundary; and

3. providing appropriate controls to the use of the external balconies fronting the western boundary.

81. In relation to the acoustic barrier on the basis of the evidence before the Court I can find no reasoning that supports the limit of the extent of the acoustic barrier to the midpoint of the boundary with 85 Hill Street. With reference to the site plan there are other similar locations that allow for the passing, parking and movement of vehicles with a consistent setback of residential to those where an acoustic fence has been determined to be required, where the fencing is not nominated. In the absence of such evidence, I make directions for the provision of an addendum to the acoustic report to be provided to the Court that details the reasoning, or the extension of the acoustic fence to the full extent of the eastern boundary of the subject site.

82. In relation to the balconies, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to provide additional controls on their use at night time to limit the impact on the adjoining neighbour. I accept the evidence of Mr Mead that any impact from balconies 1-4 should be given less weight given their distance from the dwelling at 60 Byng Street. For these balconies I am satisfied it is appropriate to require time delay lighting and controls through the plan of management to restrict their usage between 10pm and 7am.

83. In relation to the balconies, for units 9-12 I am satisfied that it is appropriate to apply condition on any consent requiring the locking of these balconies between 10pm and 7am to ensure that their use will not create noise impacts to the adjoining neighbour.

84. In relation to visual privacy, I accept the evidence of Mr Turisi and find that it is appropriate for the balconies off Units 9-12 incorporate screening to ensure that the privacy of the adjoining neighbour within their property and their gardens is appropriately protected. Such screening should be indicated in the amended architectural plans.

85. In relation to the potential impact of deliveries and servicing the applicants proposed schedule, detailed at paragraph [62(4)] I find that these parameters should be incorporated as conditions of consent to ensure the operation of the use is clear and certain.

86. I accept the agreement of the planners that a performance condition is appropriate and necessary to ensure that light spill from the development, and it’s associated vehicular movements is managed [refer par 70]. I find such a condition should be incorporated in any consent for the development.

87. In considering whether a plan of management is appropriate for a particular use or situation the Court has established a number of considerations in Renaldo Plus 3 Pty Ltd v Hurstville City Council [2005] NSWLEC 315 at [54]. I accept the submission of the Council that the draft Plan of Management is in part inconsistent with the development proposed and find that it should be updated detailed at [72] prior to determination. The Plan of Management should also be updated to incorporate a late check in procedure that is accordance with the oral evidence of Mr Mead at [74].

88. Subject to these amendments sought in the Directions, in the circumstances of this case the I find that the answers to these questions outlined in Renaldo Plus 3 Pty Ltd v Hurstville City Council are as follows:

1. Do the requirements in the Management Plan relate to the proposed use and complement any conditions of approval?

To be addressed by Directions

2. Do the requirements in the Management Plan require people to act in a manner that would be unlikely or unreasonable in the circumstances of the case?

No

3. Can the source of any breaches of the Management Plan be readily identified to allow for any enforcement action?

Yes

4. Do the requirements in the Management Plan require absolute compliance to achieve an acceptable outcome?

No

5. Can the people the subject of the Management Plan be reasonably expected to know of its requirements?

Yes

6. Is the Management Plan incorporated in the conditions of consent, and to be enforced as a condition of consent?

Yes

7. Does the Management Plan contain complaint management procedures?

Yes

8. Is there a procedure for updating and changing the Management Plan, including the advertising of any changes?

Yes

89. As such I find that the draft plan of management, in concert with the directions at [X] and the findings of this judgement will be an appropriate means of controlling the impacts of development on residential amenity.

Costs

90. Given the substantive changes to the proposal that have occurred during the proceedings the respondent has asked the Court to consider whether an order for the payment by the applicant of those costs of the consent authority that are thrown away as a result of amending the development application of is applicable (s97B of the Act).

91. Section 97B of the EPA Act relevantly provides:

97B Costs payable if amended development application filed

(1) This section applies to proceedings if the Court, on an appeal by an applicant under section 97 allows the applicant to file an amended development application (other than to make a minor amendment).

(2) In any proceedings to which this section applies, the Court must make an order for the payment by the applicant of those costs of the consent authority that are thrown away as a result of amending the development application.

92. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the applicant sought and was granted leave to rely on amended plans (Exhibit A) subject to an order for costs under s 97B of the Act. The council experts have undertaken significant assessment of these plans before the Court proceedings commenced. During the proceedings further amendments were made, making a proportion of this assessment and evidence redundant. The applicant argues that the amendments result in the cost of this assessment being “thrown away”.

93. In Cachia v Manly Council (No. 2) [2009] NSWLEC 1107 the Senior Commissioner pointed out that for Section 97B to be of effect, two steps are necessary:

Firstly, that the Court allows the applicant to file an amended development application.

Secondly, that the amended development application not constitute 'a minor amendment'.

94. The decision Pepper, J in Futurespace Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council (2009) 169 LGERA 153 [42] articulates the principles that may assist in determining whether amendments are minor, as follows:

(a) first, the question of what is ‘minor’ is one of fact and degree (Cachia at [25] and the first Groeneveld at [14]);

(b) second, regard must be had not to the number of amendments, but to their cumulative or overall effect in the context and location of the proposed development (Cachia at [26], the first Groeneveld at [14] and the second Groeneveld at [29]);

(c) third, where a significant re-assessment of the development application is required by the proposed amendments the amendments are unlikely to be classified as minor (the first Groeneveld at [15] and [19]);

(d) fourth, merely because the amendments do not involve a change in concept does not mean that they are not minor (the first Groeneveld at [17] and the second Groeneveld at [31]);

(e) fifth, merely because the amendments do not raise an entirely new issue does not mean that they are not minor (the first Groeneveld at [17] and the second Groeneveld at [30]);

(f) sixth, merely because the amendments are responsive to issues raised by the council or narrow the issues in contention between the parties is not relevant to the determination of whether they are minor;

(g) seventh, the fact that the amendments do not require re-notification is an irrelevant consideration in determining whether or not the amendments should be classified as minor (the first Groeneveld at [16] and the second Groeneveld at [32]); and

(h) eighth, an absence of evidence by the consent authority that costs will be incurred or work will be undertaken by it in relation to the proposed amendments may be taken into account but is not determinative (the first Groeneveld at [17]).

95. Since the Court provided leave to the applicant for amended plans, a number of design changes that have been made to the plans in order to deal with issues raised the Council. These include the following

1. Amendments to the roof profile of the extension;

2. Redesign of the roof connection of the proposed extension with the existing heritage building;

3. Incorporation of additional ameliorate changes to the proposal to respond to the contentions in relation to visual and acoustic privacy; and

4. The retention of the existing stair and amendment to the connection between the existing building and the extension.

96. In Marinkovic v Rockdale City Council [2007] NSWLEC 71 the CJ considered at [22] the reasonableness of amendments by an applicant during a class 1 proceeding and states:

22 There should be a capacity for an applicant in class 1 proceedings before the Court to amend its application to respond to evidence, including evidence of a court appointed expert, and to address concerns of the court that is hearing the appeal. A respondent council should expect that an applicant might need to respond in this way. That is to say, such amendments should be seen to be part of the usual process of conducting a class 1 appeal in this Court. The mere making of an amendment is not by itself a circumstance that always makes it fair and reasonable to make an order for costs.

23 Of course, there must be some limit placed upon this capacity to respond to evidence and to the Court’s concerns by means of an amendment.

97. In these proceedings I find that the amendments proposed by the applicant are minor and are consistent with what is stated in Marinkovic v Rockdale City Council at [22] as being part of the class 1 appeal process and as such I propose no order as to costs.

Conclusion

98. In determining this matter I have carefully considered the evidence and objections, the submissions and undertaken a detailed view. Having carefully considered the joint expert report and final submissions, I am satisfied in my s79C evaluation that this amended proposal warrants approval.

99. Pursuant to cl 5.10(4) and considering the effect of the proposed development on the heritage item, the adjoining items and the conservation area I am satisfied that, subject to the directions, the effect on the conservation area and the effect of the development on the heritage item itself is acceptable.

Directions

100. The applicant is to amend the proposal to:

1. Update the development application, ensuring that the documentation is internally consistent, to:

1. Delete the proposal removal of the stained glass window and the upper level connection to the addition from the existing heritage building;

2. Amend the architectural details of the proposal to be consistent with Section H-H in Exhibit N to ensure that no existing heritage fabric in the roof of the existing building is impacted by the works;

3. Amend the architectural documentation of the proposal to be consistent with Exhibit M;

4. Include screening to balconies as required at [84];

5. Update the plan of management for the development to address the findings at [87 & 88] to the satisfaction of Council;

6. Any other changes detailed in the judgement.

2. The applicant is to file an addendum to the acoustic report to address the findings at [81] and update the landscape plan for the development to show the proposed acoustic fence treatment. The landscape plans is to provide additional detail of the deciduous plantings to the eastern boundary of the development to address the submissions from the public.

3. The applicant is to file and serve the amended plans and an updated BASIX certificate (if required) no later than 21 June 2017.

4. The respondent is to file, no later than two weeks after the filing of amended plans, amended consolidated conditions of consent, including:

1. any agreed conditions outlined in the expert reports tendered in the proceedings;

2. the agreed amendment to the heritage condition contained in Exhibit 10; and

3. updating the revision numbers of the amended architectural drawings and supporting materials in condition 1

5. Orders will be made in chambers.

101. In accordance with the terms of the directions in my judgement of June 1 2017 the parties have provided me with the amended documentation in accordance with par. [100]. I am satisfied that the amended plans, acoustic report and updated conditions of consent accord with my findings and accordingly I make orders in chambers as follows:

102. The orders of the Court are:

1. The applicant is granted leave to rely on amended plans;

2. The appeal is upheld;

3. Consent is granted to Development Application No. 329/2015(1) for alterations and extension to an existing heritage mansion to provide boutique hotel accommodation, conference room, kitchen and dining facilities, on-site car parking and landscaping at Lot 3 & 4, & 1, DP 758817 & 1085463, 956418 subject to the attached conditions.

4. The exhibits are returned with the exception of Exhibit 2 and the Class 1 application dated 16 June 2016.

…………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

183468.16 Dickson - Noise Impact Assessment (1.16 MB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson (C) (253 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Finalised POM - 21 June 2017 (491 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - 62 Byng St 77 Hill St - Landscaping_INTERNAL PLAN (4.35 MB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A702_C (458 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A701_E (235 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A700_E (457 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A163_C (138 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A162_B (322 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A161_E (493 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A160_H (607 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A150_i (2.59 MB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A103_K (610 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A102_Q (613 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A101_X (4.37 MB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A100_W (526 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A090_C (107 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A081_C (679 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A080_C (352 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A003_C (229 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A002_D (286 KB, pdf)

183468.16 Dickson - A001_E (1.09 MB, pdf)

Amendments

11 July 2017 - Orders made in accordance with the terms of the directions from 1 June 2017

Decision last updated: 11 July 2017