Diab v Ashfield Municipal Council - [2009] NSWLEC 1094

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Diab v Ashfield Municipal Council [2009] NSWLEC 1094
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Melou Diab
RESPONDENT
Ashfield Municipal Council

FILE NUMBER(S): 11282 of 2008

CORAM: Hoffman AC

KEY ISSUES: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION :- Demolish existing house, build a two storey house, streetscape, context, scale, bulk, privacy and overshadowing

LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Ashfield Local Environmental Plan

CASES CITED: Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007] NSWLEC 428
Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191

DATES OF HEARING: 10-11/03/2009

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 11 March 2009

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
Mr O Stichter, solicitor
of Otto Stichter & Associates
RESPONDENT
Mr S Patterson, solicitor
and Ms N. Jones, solicitor
of Wilshire Webb

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hoffman C

11 March 2009
11282 of 2008 Melou Diab v Ashfield Municipal Council

This determination was given extemporaneously
and it has been edited prior to publication. The Orders of this Judgment have been amended. See Note at end of document for details.

JUDGMENT

1 This is a Class 1 Appeal No. 11282 of 2008 between Mr M Diab and Ashfield Municipal Council in regard to the refusal of a proposal to demolish the existing house and build a new two-storey house at No. 48 Carshalton Street, Croydon Park.

2 The appeal was dealt with under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act, 1979 and the parties conciliated but were unable to reach agreement. The conciliation was terminated and the parties asked the Commissioner to determine the appeal under s 34(4)(b), taking into account what was seen and heard during the conference.

3 Attending the hearing for the respondent were Mr Patterson, solicitor, Mr M Amy, development assessment officer, Ms A Faulkner, team leader assessments and Ms N Jones, solicitor. Attending for the applicant were Mr O Stichter, Ms Sirikovski, designer, and Mr Mr Diab, applicant.

4 There was an objection from the owner of No. 31 Cromwell Street, but he did not attend. The objection was in regard to the proposed design being out of character with the streetscape and concern for overlooking from the rear upper storey windows of the proposal. As it turned out, the streetscape and appearance of the proposal in its context were the main issues between the parties.

5 When inspecting No. 31 Cromwell, the owner had left the rear gate open for us. I saw No. 31’s garage is in the rear corner of its backyard between the house and any sight line to the subject proposal. Also the western windows of No. 31, said to be the concern of privacy, would only give sight into the high ceiling space.

6 Apart from that, the line of sight from the subject proposal at No. 48 Carshalton is across its own backyard, across the backyard of No. 46 Carshalton, across the garage of No. 31 Cromwell and across No. 31’s backyard. The distance of separation is perhaps 20 to 30 metres and makes any privacy concern de minimus. In addition, there are intervening trees that further obscure any view and in the subject proposal it is only bedroom windows from which the view could be had. The computer nook’s window is a highlight window.

7 I see no reason to impose the council’s draft condition No. 1(b) requiring the bottom panes of the bedroom windows to be fixed and glazed in obscured glass. Issue 4 is therefore determined.

8 The drawings in the appeal were job No. 36233 sheets 1 to 6 dated 7 December 2007, sheets 1 to 8 dated 19 February 2008 and revised shadow diagrams of impacts on No. 50 Carshalton Street, job No. 36233 sheets 1 and 2 dated 5 March, all by Master Plan Homes.

9 As a result of the revised shadow diagrams, it was conceded by the respondent that No. 50 retained three hours of sun to 50% of its rear yard on 21 June and therefore the proposal complies with council’s controls for solar access and issue 3 is no longer pressed.

10 This left issues 1, 2 and 5 at stake.

Bulk and scale:

The proposed garage should not be approved as it does not comply with objective C and cl 3.7 of part C15 of the Ashfield Development Control Plan 20007 as it is not visually subordinate to the scale, form and style of the house and does not respect the scale and character of the streetscape.

The proposed development should not be approved having regard to the matters raised in the submission received by council. :That refers to the privacy objection and streetscape objections of No. 31 Cromwell Street.

11 The applicable statute and the controls are cl 2 of the Ashfield Local Enviromental Plan and the Residential 2A zone. The respondent put that cl 2 is important in retaining and enhancing the identity of Ashfield as an early suburb and containing the first garden suburb in Australia, being Haberfield. The latter is on the National Estate and is a designated conservation area. It was put by the respondent that much of the residential development control plan is aimed at retaining and enhancing the identity of Ashfield.

12 The applicant’s evidence is that Carshalton Street is not a conservation area and two-storey houses are permitted in it. A heritage item house at No. 53 Carshalton exists, but no issues in regard to it are put. The council heritage expert, Mr Moore, in his memo in evidence on the original design of the proposal, puts that the older homes in the street are nearly all one-storey and the council has approved some two-storey with rooms in the roof design that Mr Moore says suits the established character. Mr Moore says the full two-storey newer houses are unresponsive to the character and scale of the street. He is concerned about the possible future of the redevelopment at No. 50 Carshalton, although I think the shadow diagrams show its ability to redevelop is protected adequately.

13 Mr Moore says the garage in the front façade of the proposal is disruptive as is the scale and bulk of the house.

14 The applicant says Mr Moore’s comments were considered by the applicant and the design of the proposal has been amended to set the main front façade of the house back about three metres behind the front setback and the garage about 1.7 metres behind the front setback. The living room is single storey and it projects forward of the main façade to sit on the front setback line with a bay window and a multi-faceted roof above. This gives articulation to the house that breaks up its bulk and scale to fit with the existing single storey houses in the street.

15 I was taken on a walk along Carshalton and Arthur Street and we did see Cromwell, as I mentioned previously. I saw that the older houses are predominantly single storey, but the newer houses are all two-storey. By newer I mean probably in the last ten years. Although there are some designed with rooms in the roof, others are full two-storey but all have considerable articulation in the front façade as does the proposal.

16 One matter of concern to the respondent is the choice of brick and tile roof colours by the applicant. They are in the sandstone to cream brick with dark roof tiles. The respondent put that dark red bricks and Marseilles pattern roof tiles in a terracotta colour are more typical in the street and cited a newer two-storey example of these materials at No. 59 Carshalton.

17 I agree with the respondent that for quality of streetscape, the more traditional red brick and terracotta colour roof tiles are more appropriate and condition 1C should be imposed.

18 In regard to the overall design at the street front, I have considered the development control plan cl 1 context and cl 3 aesthetics. One must bear in mind that Carshalton is not a conservation area and two-storey houses are permitted and the newer houses are two-storey. It is a streetscape in transition, a composite if you like, that will over time have an effect on the streetscape that is not necessarily imitative of the older houses but compatible in scale and sympathetic in architectural composition.

19 During the hearing, the applicant offered several changes to the façade to further accommodate the council’s concerns. The garage entry door would be recessed back to the line of the main façade so that it would be three metres approximately from the front setback and recessed underneath the master bedroom balcony. This would make the garage much less obvious in the façade.

20 The balcony would be supported by columns on the two outer corners. The ground floor garage roof would be run along the north elevation and returned across the street elevation along the front of the master bedroom balcony to join up with the entry porch roof. This would further break up the bulk and scale of the side and front facades as seen from Arthur Street and Carshalton. The porch roof runs into the projecting living room and bay window roofs, emphasising the single storey ground floor elements with the second storey façade set 3 metres further back. The applicant also offered a second gable in the upper roof on the south side to attract the eye away from the garage door.

21 Internally, the movement of the garage back into the building and the resultant relocation of the ground floor bathroom are not major changes that would require re-notification of the proposal, nor are the changes to the front façade such that they would require re-notification as they are improvements to the design and they are changes that can be achieved by conditions and they are not such that would make the proposal substantially a different development

22 There is diversity in the streetscape already and, in an area that is not a conservation zone, the questions in my mind are:

23 There is no issue by the respondent that any of these numeric controls were exceeded and in most cases the design was less than the standard maximum allowed.

24 Mr Amy’s evidence is clear in that he sees the only solution as one that incorporates rooms in the roof for the second storey so that the house presents as single storey from the street. This is based on the opinion that the development control plan on context and aesthetics compel one to the conclusion that single storey houses is the best response to the context of the streetscape.

25 The respondent relies on Veloshin v Randwick City Council and Project Venture v Pittwater City Council to say the proposal is not in harmony with the streetscape context. The applicant says that in fact these cases assist the applicant’s position because they reinforce the development control plan 3.1(c) that being in harmony does not require imitation. And, the proposal being not in a conservation area, and in more than complying with the numeric controls, and having numerous newer two-storey houses in the street versus the older one-storey houses, is the expected outcome of the implementation of the applicable controls.

26 There is a change of streetscape character in motion and it is already a composite of old and new. The proposal with the changes offered is not “in your face two-storey”. It has broken down its scale with strong single storey elements in the front façade and a recessive garage that does not dominate the front elevation.

27 Overall, I agree with the applicant’s evidence subject to the amendments offered being incorporated except for the second gable. It is my opinion that the garage door being recessed back to the main front wall of the house and underneath the master bedroom balcony and the ground floor garage roof being extended across the balcony to join the porch and living room roofs will render the garage a minor element in the façade. The articulation in the street façade emphasising the one-storey parts of the house, combined with using materials of red brick and terracotta colour Marseilles tiled roof, are sufficient in my opinion to achieve acceptable compatibility with the context of a sympathetic aesthetic with the streetscape.

28 Therefore, the orders of the Court are:

___________________

K G Hoffman
Commissioner of the Court
ljr

Annexure ‘A’

Conditions of Consent

Melou Diab v Ashfield Council

DA 2008.60.1

48 Carshalton Street CROYDON PARK 2133

Description of Work as it is to appear on the determination:

Demolition of the existing single-storey dwelling-house and garage and construction of a two-storey dwelling-house with garage.

A General Conditions

(1) Approved plans stamped by Council

The development must be carried out only in accordance with the plans and specifications set out on the following drawings prepared by Masterton Homes:

(i) Sheet No. 1/6 Issue 5 – Site Plan - dated 13 May 2009;

(ii) Sheet No. 2/6 Issue 5 – Floor Plan - dated 13 May 2009;

(iii) Sheet No. 3/6 Issue 5 – Floor Plan - dated 13 May 2009;

(iv) Sheet No. 4/6 Issue 5 – Section - dated 13 May 2009;

(v) Sheet No. 5/6 Issue 5 – Elevations (Front and Rear) - dated 13 May 2009;

(vi) Sheet No. 6/6 Issue 5 – Elevations (Left and Right) - dated 13 May 2009;

(vii) Schedule of External Finishes for Job No. 36233, dated 22 April 2009; and

(viii) Any supporting documentation received with the application, except as amended by the conditions specified hereunder.

B Design Changes

(1) Amended plans to be submitted

Amended plans and specifications incorporating the following amendments are to be submitted with the application for a construction certificate

(a) The driveway is to be concrete paved. The paving is to be natural off-white, pale grey or with a red-tinted finish. Bright white concrete is not permitted. This is to preserve the streetscape appearance.

C Conditions that must be satisfied prior to issuing/releasing a Construction Certificate

(1) Damage deposit/footpath, road, kerb and gutter

A Damage Deposit of $7,000 is to be submitted prior to the release of the Construction Certificate covering repair and/or replacement of adjoining footpath, road shoulder, road pavement, kerbing and guttering both outside the subject site and the surrounding area. This is to be paid to Council and may be refunded subject to satisfactory completion of construction or demolition.

This Damage Deposit covers unforeseen damage to the above property by construction vehicles, skip bins, construction methods etc. Note: Should repair works or maintenance be required on Council land, a Road Opening Permit must be obtained before those works take place.

Bank Guarantees are accepted in lieu of any Council security deposit/bond subject to the following:

w A charge equal to the value multiplied by the current “overdue rates interest charge” be levied, per month or part thereof, with a minimum charge of three months is to be paid upon lodgement.

w Any remaining charge is to be calculated at the prevailing "overdue rates interest rate" for each month or part thereof beyond the original three months that the Bank Guarantee was held, and paid prior to its release.

w Any costs incurred in the acceptance, administration or release of such Bank Guarantees be on-charged to the entity claiming the release of such Bank Guarantee, and that these amounts be paid prior to its release.

w At the time of lodgement, Council will seek verification of the Bank Guarantee. Please provide contact details for the branch (phone number and officer) to assist with verification of the bona fides of the Bank Guarantee.

Until all items above are completed, no documents or usage sought from Council by the party lodging the Bank Guarantee can be issued. Please allow a minimum of 2 business days for this process.

(2) Long service levy

Compliance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 – payment of the long service levy under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 (or, where such a levy is payable by instalments, the first instalment of the levy) – is required. All building works in excess of $25,000.00 are subject to the payment of a Long Service Levy at the rate of 0.35%. 0.35% X $282,501 = $989.

(3) Home Building Act 1989 Insurance

Compliance with Part 6 of Home Building Act 1989 is required. A copy of either the Builder’s Indemnity Insurance OR a copy of the Owner-Builder’s Permit shall be submitted to Council.

(4) Services adjustment or relocation

The applicant shall meet the full cost for Telstra, Sydney Electricity, Sydney Water or Natural Gas Company to adjust/relocate their services as required. The applicant shall make the necessary arrangements with the service authority. (For information on the location of these services contact the “Dial before you Dig” service on 1100.)

Documentary evidence from the public utility authorities confirming that all of their requirements have been satisfied shall be submitted to council with the Construction Certificate under Section 68 of the Local Government Act, 1993, for construction of the development

(5) Structural engineer’s details

To ensure compliance with the provision of Section B of the Building Code of Australia structural engineer’s details of all structural elements shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of work, including:

(6) Tree Planting / Removal

The applicant shall meet the full cost for the removal of the existing Council Bottlebrush street tree which is located in the nature strip directly in front of the site.

At no cost to Council and again at the applicant’s expense a new tree of similar species shall be replanted. The location for the replacement planting shall be determined by Council’s Tree Technical Officer.

A Bond or Bank Guarantee for the amount of $1,500 shall be lodged with Council prior to the release of the Construction Certificate. This bond shall be released 6 months after the tree has been planted, providing the tree has been successfully retained in a healthy and vigorous state (which shall be to the satisfaction of Council’s Tree Technical Officer).

D Conditions that must be complied with before work commences

(1) Notice of Commencement – Notification of Works

Work must not commence until the Principal Certifying Authority or the person having the benefit of the development consent has given Notification in Writing to Council no later than two days before the building work commences.

(2) Requirement for a Construction Certificate

In accordance with the provisions of Section 81A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the erection of a building and/or construction works must not commence until:

(a) detailed plans and specifications of the building have been endorsed with a Construction Certificate by:

(i) Council; or

(ii) an accredited certifier; and

(b) a principal certifying authority (PCA) has been appointed and the Council has been notified in writing of the appointment, and

The documentation required under this condition shall show that the proposal complies with all development consent conditions and the Building Code of Australia.

Note: If the principal certifying authority is the Council, the appointment will be subject to the payment of a fee for the service to cover the cost of undertaking building work and / or civil engineering inspections.

WARNING: Failure to obtain a Construction Certificate prior to the commencement of any building work is a serious breach of Section 81A(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. It is a criminal offence that attracts substantial penalties and may also result in action in the Land and Environment Court and orders for demolition.

(3) Inspections required by Principal Certifying Authority

If Council is selected as the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) inspections will be required and fees must be paid for in advance. The fees are only valid until 30 June 2009 following which the charges will be reassessed. If additional inspections are required, an additional fee is payable for each inspection. A minimum of 24 hours notice is required to be given to Council to obtain an inspection. Work is not to proceed until the works or activity covered by each inspection is approved.

(4) Building location - check survey certificate

To ensure that the location of the building satisfies the provision of the approval, a check survey certificate shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority either prior to the pouring of the ground floor slab or at dampcourse level, whichever is applicable or occurs first, indicating the: -

(i) location of the building with respect to the boundaries of the site;

(ii) level of the floor in relation to the levels on the site (all levels are to be shown relative to Australian Height Datum);

(iii) site coverage of the buildings on the site.

(5) Sydney Water approval

The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements and if further requirements need to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped. For Quick Check agent details please refer to the web site: see Your Business then Building & Developing then Building & Renovating or telephone Sydney Water 13 20 92.

(6)
Public Liability Insurance – Works on Council/public lands

The applicant or any contractors carrying out approved works on public or Council controlled lands with consent shall have public liability insurance cover to the value of $10million and shall provide proof of such cover to the principal certifying authority prior to carrying out the works and annually for the period of time for which works are being carried out on Council or public lands.

(7) Site Controls

Sediment and erosion controls must be in place before work is commenced on the site. The control strategies must be consistent with the technical requirements set out in the Sydney Coastal Councils’ Stormwater Pollution Control Code for Local Government.

Material from the site is not to be tracked onto the road by vehicles entering or leaving the site. At the end of each working day any dust/dirt or other sediment shall be swept off the road and contained on the site and not washed down any stormwater pit or gutter.

A sediment and erosion control plan must be prepared and identify appropriate measures for bunding and siltation fencing. Any such erosion and sedimentation controls shall also include the protection of stormwater inlets or gutter systems within the immediate vicinity of the site.

The sediment and erosion control measures are to be inspected daily and defects or system failures are to be repaired as soon as they are detected.

E Conditions that must be complied with during construction or demolition

(1) Building materials - storage/placement on footpath/roadway - Council approval

All building materials shall be stored wholly within the property boundaries and shall not be placed on the footpath, grass verge or roadway without prior written approval of Council.

Bulk refuse bins shall not be placed on the grass verge, footpath or roadway without Council permission. Application forms and details of applicable fees are available from Council’s One Stop Shop telephone 9716 1800.

(2) Signs to be erected on building and demolition sites

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

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

(b) showing the name and address of the contractor for the building work and the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours; and

(c) showing the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority appointed for the building works.

(2) Any-sign shall be maintained and not removed until work has been finished.

(3) Demolition/excavation/construction – hours of work

Demolition, excavation and construction work, including loading and unloading of materials and machinery, shall be restricted to between the hours of 7.00am to 6.00pm, Monday to Saturday inclusive. Work is prohibited on Sundays, and on public holidays.

(4) Demolition requirements/standards

Demolition is to be carried out in accordance with the following:

(a) Australian Standard 2601 and any requirements of the Workcover Authority.

(b) The Waste Management Plan submitted with the Development Application.

(d) Any demolition on the site is to be conducted in strict accordance with, but not limited to, sections 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 3.1 and 3.9 of the AS 2601 - 1991, demolition of structures. The following measures must be undertaken for hazardous dust control:
i Hazardous dust must not be allowed to escape from the site or contaminate the immediate environment. The use of fine mesh dust proof screens, wet-lead safe work practices, or other measures is required.
ii All contractors and employees directly involved in the removal of hazardous dusts and substances shall wear protective equipment conforming to AS 1716 Respiratory Protective Devices and shall adopt work practices in accordance with WorkSafe Requirements (in particular the WorkSafe standard for the Control of Inorganic Lead At Work (NOHSC: 1012, 1994) and AS 2641, 1998).
iii Demolition is not to be performed during high winds that may cause dust to spread beyond the site boundaries without adequate containment.

(e) All lead contaminated material is to be disposed of in accordance with the NSW Environment Protection Authorities requirements.

(f) Construction and demolition waste, particularly timber, bricks and tiles, concrete and other materials need not be disposed of- they can be recycled and resold if segregated properly from any hazardous waste contamination.

(5) Fire Detection/Alarm System installation and certification

Smoke alarms must be installed in dwellings in accordance with Clause 3.7.2.3 of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and AS 3786 on or near the ceiling in -

(a) any storey containing bedrooms -

- between each area containing bedrooms and the remainder of the dwelling, including any hallway associated with the bedrooms

(b) any storey not containing bedrooms.

Smoke alarms must be connected to the consumer mains power and have a stand-by power supply.

The licensed Electrical Contractor shall on completion of the installation of the smoke alarm system, submit to the Principal Certifying Authority a certificate certifying compliance with AS 3000 and AS 3786:1993.

(6) BASIX Requirements

The new works shall be constructed in accordance with, and comply with the undertakings given on the BASIX (Building Sustainability Index) Certificate as obtained from the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. For more information visit .

(7) Footpath, kerb and gutter reconstruction

The public footpath and verge outside the site shall be completely reconstructed to the requirements of Council’s Works & Infrastructure Department at the applicant’s expense. This work shall be carried out prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate.

(8) Footpath, kerb and gutter protection

The applicant is to take all precautions to ensure footpaths and roads are kept in a safe condition and to prevent damage to Council’s property.

Vehicles entering and leaving the site must only cross the footpath where it is adequately timbered and strapped. Pedestrian access across this footpath must be maintained in good order at all times during work. Any damage caused will be made good by Council at Council’s restoration rates, at the applicant’s expense.

(9) Vehicle access driveways

The existing vehicular access driveway shall be removed and a new vehicular access driveway shall be constructed in accordance with Council’s standard drawing and specifications. The driveway shall be located a minimum of 1.0m clear of any existing stormwater pits, lintels or poles and 2m clear of any trees within the road reserve. No utility service opening such as Telstra, Sydney Electricity, Sydney Water or Natural Gas Company shall be permitted within 0.5m of any vehicular access driveway.

This work shall be carried out prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate.

(10) Road opening permit – Council controlled lands

A road opening permit shall be obtained for all works carried out in public or Council controlled lands. Contact Council’s Engineering Services for details.

(11) Stormwater runoff – collection/discharge

Stormwater runoff from all roof and paved surfaces shall be collected and discharged by means of a gravity pipe system to, Council’s street drainage system.

(12) Building Code of Australia

The proposal must be constructed in accordance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

(13) Plans to be available on site

The Council stamped approved plans, Development Consent and Construction Certificate shall be held on site to be produced unobliterated to Council’s officer at any time when required.

(14) Encroachment on Council property prohibited

No portion of the proposed structure, including gates and doors during opening and closing operations, shall encroach upon Council’s footpath area.

F Conditions that must be complied with prior to installation of services

nil

G Conditions that must be complied with before the building is occupied

(1) Approval to use/occupy building

The building or any part thereof must not be used or occupied until an Occupation Certificate has been obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority. An application form is required to be completed and a fee lodged at the final inspection prior to the occupation.

H Conditions that are ongoing requirements of development consents

(1) Approved use

The premises shall not be used for any purpose other than that stated in the Development Application, i.e. dwelling-house without the prior consent of the Council.

I Advisory Notes

nil

___________________

ljr

21/05/2009 - compliance with Orders 2 and 3 - Paragraph(s) conditions

CITATION:	Diab v Ashfield Municipal Council [2009] NSWLEC 1094 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Melou Diab RESPONDENT Ashfield Municipal Council
FILE NUMBER(S):	11282 of 2008
CORAM:	Hoffman AC
KEY ISSUES:	DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION :- Demolish existing house, build a two storey house, streetscape, context, scale, bulk, privacy and overshadowing
LEGISLATION CITED:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Ashfield Local Environmental Plan
CASES CITED:	Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007] NSWLEC 428 Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191
DATES OF HEARING:	10-11/03/2009
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	11 March 2009
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Mr O Stichter, solicitor of Otto Stichter & Associates RESPONDENT Mr S Patterson, solicitor and Ms N. Jones, solicitor of Wilshire Webb