Eldridge v ACT Planning and Land Authority
[2020] ACAT 22
•31 March 2020
ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ELDRIDGE v ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY (Administrative Review) [2020] ACAT 22
AT 76/2019
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – application to review development approval of road upgrade and associated construction – impact track development – whether access road is necessary – whether roundabout is appropriate at intersection – effect of development on recreational use of track – statutory criteria
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 68
Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991
Planning and Development Act 2007 ss 128, 129, 148
Subordinate
Legislation cited: Parks and Recreation Zone Development Code (2012)
Cases cited:ACT Rural Landholders Association Inc and Ors v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2014] ACAT 22
Downer Community Association and ACT Planning & Land Authority & Anor [2007] ACTAAT 20
Glass v ACT Planning and Land Authority and Anor [2016] ACAT 96
Morozow v ACT Planning and Land Authority & Ors [2017] ACAT 79Sladic & Anor v ACT Planning and Land Authority; Charter Hall Retail REIT & Ors v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2018] ACAT 38
Tribunal:President G Neate AM
Senior Member A Davey
Date of Orders: 31 March 2020
Date of Reasons for Decision: 31 March 2020
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) AT 76/2019
BETWEEN:
JAMES LIAM ELDRIDGE
Applicant
AND:
ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY
Respondent
TRIBUNAL:President G Neate AM
Senior Member A Davey
DATE:31 March 2020
ORDER
The Tribunal orders that:
The decision of the ACT Planning and Land Authority to approve, subject to specified conditions, Development Application DA201935514 is confirmed.
………………………………..
President G Neate AM
For and on behalf of the Tribunal
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
On 30 July 2019, a delegate of the ACT Planning and Land Authority (the Authority) approved, subject to conditions, Development Application DA 201935514 (the Development Application) for the construction of a new 130 metre access road and a new roundabout intersection on Dudley Street and associated works at Block 1 Section 127 and Block 3 Section 94 Yarralumla in the Australian Capital Territory (the decision).[1] The Development Application was made by Gerard Coffey of Land Release Infrastructure/Transport Canberra and City Services (TCCS).[2] Notifiable instrument N1 2019 described the approval as having been given for “Canberra Brickworks Precinct Access Road and Dudley Street Upgrade project.”[3]
[1] T documents pages 34-39
[2] T-documents pages 1107-1108, 1222-1223
[3] T documents page 67
James Liam Eldridge and his family live near the area that is the subject of the decision. On 30 August 2019, he applied to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of that decision. In summary, Mr Eldridge asked the Tribunal to either:
(a)set aside the decision; or
(b)vary the decision to make the approval also subject to conditions in relation to a positive review by an independent expert of the proposed road design and roundabout, and the approval of a Canberra Brickworks masterplan, within specified periods.
The Authority submitted that the Tribunal should confirm the decision.
The approved development
The approved development under review is the part of a project:
(a)to upgrade Dudley Street in Yarralumla, between the Cotter Road and Novar Street;
(b)to create a new intersection within Dudley Street; and
(c)to provide a new access road from that intersection, north to the southern boundary of the Canberra Brickworks Precinct (CBP) in Yarralumla (the Access Road).
The project is part of a complex major project which commenced about a decade ago for redevelopment of the CBP. The ACT Government sold the lease of the CBP site for development, subject to further approvals,[4] but (after earlier community consultation[5]) made a commitment that there would be no through-access via the CBP into Yarralumla, and that the main access to the CBP for both construction and for the majority of its eventual residents would be off Dudley Street. The implications of the CBP for the approved development under review are considered later in these reasons for decision.[6]
[4] Including development approval under the Planning and Development Act 2007; T documents page 331, paragraph 1.2.2
[5] Exhibit R2 paragraphs 12, 13, 25-28
[6] See paragraphs [37] to [49]
The proposal,[7] to construct an Access Road to the southern boundary of the CBP site, and to upgrade Dudley Street, is mostly on designated land, meaning that the greater part of the project area is subject to the control of the National Capital Authority (NCA), and was the subject of a referral under the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act).[8]
[7] T documents page 51 contains a plan showing the two smaller works areas on Territory Land which are the subject of the DA under review, in relation to the larger part of the project on designated land under NCA control
[8] Under this referral, it was determined that aspects of the proposal affecting Native Temperate Grassland (NTG) and habitat of the Golden Sun Moth (GSM) were controlled activities, with the Commonwealth requiring various conditions for approval (T documents pages 99-104, supported by pages 450-455, 456-459, 460-722); ACT works are required to be consistent with the Commonwealth requirements
Michael McGrath, the Director of Land Release Infrastructure at TCCS, gave evidence in these proceedings that:
(a)an EPBC referral was submitted to the Commonwealth Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE) in August 2017, together with the supporting Offset Strategy Report;
(b)initially, the DOEE did not agree with the offset calculations and habitat rehabilitation as proposed and as outlined in the referral;
(c)consequently, throughout 2017, there were discussions and site visits with the DOEE staff;
(d)after receiving DOEE feedback, and with the support of the ACT Government Ecologist, an updated version of the Offset Strategy Report incorporating rehabilitation works at the construction site was re-submitted; and
(e)in February 2019, DOEE provided EPBC Act approval subject to conditions.[9]
In summary, the relevant approvals under the EPBC Act are already in place, and the NCA has already approved its component of the project.
[9] Exhibit R2 paragraphs 42-45, T documents pages 362 - 374
The other two relatively small areas of the proposal are on unleased Territory land between Dudley Street and the CBP site. They fall within ACT planning and assessment jurisdiction. Only these two small areas are covered by the development application. The first area consists of most[10] of the new road intersection and the short section of new CBP access road as far north as the southern CBP lease boundary. The second area consists of a relatively small sliver of land on the north side of Dudley Street on the approach to its eastern end. The location, shapes and sizes of these two areas, and their relationship to the other components of the proposed development on designated land are shown on a diagram in the Statement of Findings dated 12 September 2019 and signed by Dominic Riches.[11] Development approval from the Authority is required before the work on these two small areas can proceed.
[10] 20% of the roundabout is designated land under NCA control, 80% of it is Territory Land (Exhibit R2 paragraph 63, as corrected during the hearing); Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 73.
[11] T documents page 51
As the Authority’s reasons for decision stated:
Majority of the proposal is located within the designated areas. This assessment and decision only relates to works on Territory Land. The application was approved because it was found to meet the relevant rules and criteria of the Territory plan and section 120 of the Planning and Development Act 2007.[12]
[12] T documents page 18
Given that the single development has to be approved under two separate schemes operating in relation to adjoining parcels of land, it is relevant to note that the Authority’s reasons for decision also stated:
The decision is made with the understanding that conditions imposed by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy under the provisions of the EPBC Act must be complied with. Conditions imposed under the EPBC Act are in addition to those listed in this decision. This decision is not inconsistent with the Commonwealth decision.[13]
[13] T documents page 18
We note also that the entity advice recorded in the Authority’s reasons for decision included the following:
6. National Capital Authority (NCA)
On 30 May 2019 advice was received from the NCA in relation to the proposal. The advice states that Block 3 Section 94 is adjacent to a Main Avenue and is subject to Special Requirements under Section 4.23 of the National Capital Plan.
The NCA has no objections to the proposed road. The section of works located within the NCA’s Designated Area has been lodged as a Works Approval application which was approved by the NCA.
Assessment note: No action is required in relation to this advice.[14]
[14] T documents page 43
The Tribunal heard evidence that, given that works approval has been provided by the NCA as part of this development, the only thing delaying the development as a whole is these proceedings. Consequently:
(a)if the Tribunal were to decide to confirm or vary the decision, the project could go ahead; and
(b)if the Tribunal were to set aside the decision, the project could not go ahead in its current design and Dudley Street would not be upgraded at this point.[15]
The application
[15] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 pages 87-88
In his application for review of the decision, Mr Eldridge said that the reason for applying for review was the “material detriment” to him and his family due to:
(a)the negative impact on Dudley Street (which they use multiple times each day including at peak use time), road safety and efficiency caused by very poor road design that will cause major traffic jams; and
(b)the negative impact on the safety and amenity of the forest reserve/open space (including the Uriarra Track) for recreational users.
As noted earlier, in his application, Mr Eldridge sought orders from the Tribunal:
1.setting aside the decision; or
2.varying the decision to make the development approval also subject to the conditions of:
(a) a positive review (with no significant issues identified) by an independent third-party expert of the proposed road design and roundabout within three months; and
(b) the approval of a Canberra Brickworks masterplan within 12 months.
In his final oral submissions, Mr Eldridge urged this Tribunal to set aside the decision to approve the development:
(a)to avoid negatively impacting road users of Dudley Street and Cotter Road by reducing the safety and efficiency for a road to nowhere; and
(b)to preserve the safe enjoyment of the open space in the area for recreational purposes.[16]
[16] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 131
He suggested that another development application could be made for a better design in combination with the intersections on either side of the proposed development that have been allocated budget to be upgraded.[17] In his view the current road needs upgrading and that should be a high priority. But the design would have to be amended to remove the roundabout.[18]
[17] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 131
[18] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 132
Given the way in which the case was conducted, it is appropriate that the Tribunal answer the following questions in relation to those parts of the proposed development that are subject to the development application, bearing in mind their interrelationship with the other parts of the proposed development on designated land:
(a)Is the access road an integral part of the proposed development, or could it be severed from that development?
(b)If the access road is an integral part of the proposed development, should it be approved, or its design be varied having regard to the impact on the Uriarra Track?
(c)Is the proposed roundabout the best design solution for the proposed development, or would a signalised intersection be preferable?
(d)Was there a conflict of interest when the TCCS provided entity advice to the Authority and the Authority appeared to rely on advice from the TCCS when the TCCS was the applicant for development approval?
The answers to those questions require consideration of written and oral evidence and submissions about traffic and land use matters.
As noted at various places in these reasons for decision, aspects of the project were designed or revised in response to community consultation, especially with the Yarralumla Residents’ Association. Mr Eldridge advised the Tribunal that he is not a member of, and has no association with, the Yarralumla Residents’ Association.[19]
Applicable law
Role of the Tribunal
[19] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 49
Section 68 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACAT Act) provides that, if the Tribunal reviews a decision by an entity such as the Authority, the Tribunal may exercise any functions given by an Act[20] to the entity for making the decision. Under section 68(3), the Tribunal must, by order:
(a) confirm the decision; or
(b) vary the decision; or
(c) set aside the decision and-
(i)make a substitute decision; or
(ii)remit the matter that is the subject of the decision for reconsideration by the decision-maker in accordance with any direction or recommendation of the tribunal.
[20] In this case the Planning and Development Act 2007
The effect of section 68 is that the Tribunal can be said to “stand in the shoes” of the decision-maker,[21] in this case the Authority.
[21] See Sladic & Anor v ACT Planning and Land Authority; Charter Hall Retail REIT & Ors v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2018] ACAT 38 at [59]; Downer Community Association and ACT Planning and Land Authority & Anor [2007] ACTAAT 20 at [5]
In performing that role, the Tribunal has had regard not only to the documentary material before the Authority when it decided to grant approval to the proposed development, but also to oral and written material that was not available to the Authority. In particular, the Tribunal heard from:
(a)Dominic Riches, a delegate of the Authority who works for the Environmental, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate (EPSD);
(b)Michael McGrath, a civil engineer who is the Director of Land Release Infrastructure at TCCS;
(c)Brendan Hogan, Principal Traffic Engineer with AECOM, an international infrastructure firm; and
(d)Benjamin Hubbard, a civil engineer who practised in the area of traffic management and who is currently the Senior Director of Traffic Management for Roads ACT.
Each of those witnesses was asked questions by Mr Eldridge and the Tribunal.
Impact track development
The proposed development was assessed under the impact track provisions of the Planning andDevelopment Act 2007 (P&D Act). The applicable legislative provisions are sections 128 and 129.
Before considering the matters raised by Mr Eldridge it is appropriate to note how the appropriate statutory requirements have been satisfied.
Section 128 (Impact tract–when development approval must not be given) provides that development approval “must not be given” for a development application for a development proposal in the impact track unless specified conditions are satisfied. Some of those statutory conditions (section 128(1)(b)(ii) and (v), (2)) do not operate in relation to the approved development. As the written submissions made on behalf of the Authority indicate, the applicable conditions were satisfied. In particular:
(a)An exemption for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was granted by the Minister for this Development Application on 4 April 2019 (section 128(1)(a)).[22]
[22] T documents page 816
(b)The Development Application was consistent with the Statement of Strategic Directions – Volume 1, Part 2.1 of the Territory Plan (section 128(1)(b)(i)).[23]
[23] T documents page 73
(c)Although the proposal is not for a development that will affect a registered tree, the proposal was forwarded to the Conservator of Flora and Fauna and the comments in response were incorporated into the notice of decision (section 128(1)(b)(iii)).[24]
[24] T documents pages 813-816
(d)The conditions in the EIS exemption have either been addressed or included in the notice of decision (section 128(1)(b)(iv)).[25]
[25] T documents page 74
(e)The comments made by the Conservator of Flora and Fauna were considered and incorporated into the notice of decision (section 128(1)(b)(vi)).[26]
[26] T documents pages 813-816
(f)The Authority’s decision is not inconsistent with the advice given by the Conservator of Flora and Fauna (section 128(3)).[27]
[27] T documents pages 813-816
(g)The Authority received advice from the required entities (listed below) and the approval of the Development Application was consistent with those entities’ advice (section 128(4)):[28]
(i) ACT Heritage[29]
(ii) Conservators of Flora and Fauna[30]
(iii) Deed Management[31]
(iv) Environmental Protection Agency[32]
(v) Evoenergy (Electricity Network)[33]
(vi) Evoenergy (Gas)[34]
(vii) Health Protection Service[35]
(viii) National Capital Authority[36]
(ix) Transport Canberra and City Services.[37]
[28] T documents pages 21-24
[29] T documents pages 171-199
[30] T documents pages 813-816
[31] T documents page 810
[32] T documents pages 723-725, 744
[33] T documents pages 745-761
[34] T documents pages 1040-1051
[35] T documents pages 805-806
[36] T documents page 809
[37] T documents pages 727-728
The Authority’s submission noted that the Development Application failed to comply with the requirements of Icon Water.[38] Accordingly, the approval was granted on a conditional basis, subject to conditions regarding Icon Water’s endorsement of the project.[39]
[38] T documents pages 817-1039
[39] T documents page 15
Those matters were not in issue in this case, and the Authority submitted that, in light of the evidence, nothing in section 128 of the P&D Act would preclude an approval being granted. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicable requirements of section 128 have been met.
Section 129 (Impact track-considerations when deciding development approval) lists the matters which the decision-maker “must consider” in deciding a development application for a development proposed in the impact track. Some of those statutory criteria (section 129(e), (g), (j) and (k)) are not relevant to the approved development. The Authority submitted, in relation to the relevant criteria, that it considered:
(a)the objectives for the zone, namely PRZ1 (the development does not unacceptably affect the landscape or scenic quality of the area, adequacy of open space for other purposes) and PRZ2 (the proposed design and landscaping is compatible with the surrounding landscape) (section 129(a));
(b)the relevant codes, namely Parks and Recreation Zones Development Code (PRZDC) and the Yarralumla Precinct Map and Code (section 129(b));
(c)the suitability of the land for development of the proposed type (section 129(c));
(d)the representations received by the Authority (section 129(d));[40]
(e)advice given by entities in accordance with section 149 (section 129(f));[41]
(f)the probable impact of the proposed development, including the nature, extent and significance of probable environmental impacts (section 129(h));[42]
(g)the offsets policy (the North Mitchell Grassland was identified, and the offset package was developed by reference to the EPBC Act Environmental Impacts Policy) (section 129(i));[43] and
(h)the conditions in the EIS exemption which were addressed or included in the Notice of Decision (noting that a site inspection was undertaken on 16 November 2018 as part of the EIS exemption assessment process) (section 129(l)).
[40] T documents pages 19-21
[41] T documents pages 21-24
[42] T documents pages 68-70, 158-163
[43] T documents pages 375-449
We note that the Authority’s reasons for the decision stated:
An EIS exemption was granted for the proposal by the Minister for Planning and Land Management on 4 April 2019, considering that the expected environmental impact of the proposal has been sufficiently addressed. The EIS exemption identified a range of avoidance, mitigation and management measures to reduce potential environmental impacts arising from construction and operational activities. All mitigation measures identified in the EIS exemption have been incorporated into this decision.
Mr Eldridge did not take issue with the aspects of the case dealing with section 129, other than whether the zone objectives would be met, and relevant codes would be satisfied. Those matters are discussed later in these reasons for decision. The Tribunal has concluded that the other applicable requirements of section 129 were satisfied.
Is the Access Road an integral part of the proposed development, or could it be severed from that development?
At the heart of Mr Eldridge’s application was his contention that the access road is a “road to nowhere” and that the upgrading of Dudley Street could, and should, proceed without it. As noted earlier, his written application suggested that if the decision was not set aside it should be varied to make approval of the development subject to the approval of a CBP master plan within 12 months.
In his written submission dated 18 June 2019 to the EPSD Directorate concerning DA 201935514, Mr Eldridge argued that the development application should be assessed as part of, or in conjunction with a Canberra Brickworks master plan development application “so the suitability and impact can be analysed in light of the particular CBW[44] development specifications it would seek to serve.” He contended that there is a history of planned Canberra Brickworks developments not eventuating. Accordingly, he submitted, it would make sense to progress an access road development application only with certainty of, and conditions to, the actual Canberra Brickworks development going ahead. He concluded:
I do actually view the broader CBW site as a great opportunity to get the balance right between development and better use and celebration of an historic area of our community. Presently, no Canberran can enjoy the CBW because it is locked-up and derelict. I would like that to change. However, I believe that the lodgement of this DA signals a poor start to the whole development and sets the community against a development that – if done right – they could be supporting.
[44] CBW refers to Canberra Brick Works
In some circumstances it might be reasonable to expect the final proposed design of a development to be known in advance of consideration of the secondary impacts flowing from it (such as from its infrastructure). However, the Tribunal notes the evidence of Mr McGrath that for the development of Canberra generally, and in the ACT urban release program in particular, it is standard practice for the infrastructure to be planned, assessed and constructed prior to precinct development.[45] In particular Mr McGrath gave oral evidence that it was a common occurrence for trunk infrastructure (that is, a road and all required services such as power, water, storm water, telecommunications and gas) to be provided to the boundary of major future land developments on land released through the Land Development Agency (LDA), in anticipation of development, to enable those developments to occur.[46]
[45] Exhibit R2 paragraphs 6 and 8
[46] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 pages 70-71
In the case of the CBP, the Tribunal also notes that the proposal for main southern access into the CBP, with no through-road, were aspects of the project that resulted after earlier community consultation.[47]
[47] Exhibit R2 paragraphs 12, 13, 27 and 28
Community consultation in 2017 in relation to the Review of Environmental Factors (REF) for the referral to the Commonwealth under the EPBC Act also included a community information session in which, among a wide range of issues, it was identified that the participants at that session had a preference for this project (that is, the access to the CBP project site and associated road upgrades) to be “completed before the development of the CBP” itself.[48]
[48] T documents page 529
The Authority’s reasons for decision stated, in response to a suggestion that the project should be assessed as part of a CBP master plan development application, that:
It is an undertaking of the ACT Government to have the access road in place prior to the development of the Canberra Brickworks Precinct so that the remediation and construction traffic does not pass through residential streets of Yarralumla. That was to avoid extending existing streets within Yarralumla through to the CBP site.
Mr McGrath gave written and oral evidence to the effect that, although he had not seen the commercial-in-confidence contract of sale for the CBP estate development, he had been advised by the LDA[49] that in light of consultation between the Yarralumla Residents’ Association and a consultative group, it was a condition of the sale that the access road would cater for 80 per cent of the traffic generated on the development (in order to avoid the majority of construction traffic travelling through Yarralumla).
[49] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 pages 69-70, Exhibit R2 paragraphs 19, 28, 29
That condition of sale and the establishment of a new access road became a principal design requirement for the roads project.[50]
[50] Exhibit R2 paragraph 29
The Tribunal was advised that the specific location of the intersection between the access to the CBP and Dudley Street was determined in consultation with the CBP developer, but was constrained by environmental protection considerations, particularly minimisation of disturbance of the habitat of the Golden Sun Moth.[51] The final design option was considered to have the least impact on higher quality environmental areas and have better constructability.[52]
[51] Exhibit R2 paragraphs 15 and 36, Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 81
[52] Exhibit R2 paragraph 24
The Tribunal notes that, although Mr Eldridge referred to the CBP Access Road as “the road to nowhere” (on the grounds that an approved development application does not yet exist for the CBP), none of the community responses argued for the access into the CBP to be located at some point other than as provided for in the development application under review. So, while the Tribunal needs to be satisfied there are reasonable grounds for preferring a roundabout over a signalised intersection (considered below), the proposed position of the intersection was not disputed.
The evidence shows that the approved design provides for an at-grade intersection of Dudley Street and the access road that:
(a)meets the requirements outlined in the Australian Guide to Road Design;
(b)has minimal environmental impact;
(c)is in close proximity to Cotter Road (due to the proposed alignment of the access road) while providing sufficient distance from Cotter Road to provide vehicle storage requirements at the approach to the Cotter Road intersection; and
(d)connects Dudley Street with minimal vertical line difference.[53]
[53] Exhibit R2 paragraphs 17, 36-38, 40
Having regard to the history of the proposed connection to Dudley Street for the CBP, and the practice of infrastructure development for urban land release in the Territory, the Tribunal notes that proceeding to development approval for the access in advance of development approval for the CBP itself is neither unusual nor unreasonable, and, as noted above, in some respects might have been a response to the views of the local community about staging.
There was no issue that Dudley Street needs upgrading. Mr Eldridge made statements to that effect based on his experience and observations. There was written evidence that Dudley Street was originally built to a rural road standard but is currently operating as a major collector road under the Territory Plan’s Estate Development Code. Dudley Street currently carries more traffic than it was designed to cater for, and the addition of traffic generated by the CBP development site (both construction traffic and traffic of future residents) will place further strain on this road. Furthermore, there are safety issues in relation to sections of the existing Dudley Street due to:
(a)the width of the road being less than the required minimum carriageway for a Major Collector Road;
(b)on-road cycling not being catered for;
(c)a horizontal curve near the Cotter Road intersection which is less than the minimum desirable horizontal curve requirement; and
(d)current traffic volumes which mean that the road does not meet certain current design standards.[54]
[54] Exhibit R2 paragraph 18
Therefore, there is a need to upgrade the existing Dudley Street to meet appropriate road standards for current road capacity as well as in conjunction with the development of the new Access Road to the CBP site.
It was conceded by Mr McGrath, as a witness for the Authority, that an upgrade to Dudley Street could be undertaken without inclusion of an access road into the CBP. But he also pointed out that:
(a)the project would then not deliver on one of its primary objectives (which is to provide access so that a development could be constructed);
(b)in the absence of this connection, upgrade of Dudley Street would likely be of lower priority in the overall works program; and
(c)the signalisation of intersections on Novar Street (as called for by the majority of the respondents to the public exhibition of the Development Application) has now been provided for in the ACT budget for 2019-2020.[55]
[55] Exhibit R2 paragraph 51, Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 pages 117, 126
Mr McGrath also gave evidence that the environmental and other constraints on the overall project (including the upgrade of Dudley Street on designated land) and the “very tight area” within which the project work can be done, meant that “quite a complicated staging process” was necessary for its construction. He referred to “a complete interconnected process” (including the relocation of services) to undertake the development, which meant that the upgrade of Dudley Street could not proceed without first constructing the roundabout.[56] He added that in order to provide the connection to the CBP it will be necessary to upgrade Dudley Street.[57]
[56] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 pages 76-79, 90
[57] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 pages 79, 89
Counsel for the Authority also refuted the assertion that the Access Road is a road to nowhere, describing it as part of a multifaceted and complex project to deliver access to the boundary of the CBP development site in preparation for the development of that site. In her submission, building access roads and the trunk infrastructure to the boundary of the development sites for future development is common practice.[58] As noted above, the Tribunal accepts that submission.
[58] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 131
Having considered the evidence summarised above, which we accept, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Access Road is an integral part of the proposed development, and that its location in relation to the CBP and the timing of its construction before the CBP development occurs are appropriate. There is no reason to vary or set aside that part of the decision in relation to the Access Road.
If the Access Road is an integral part of the proposed development, should it be approved, or its design be varied having regard to the impact on the Uriarra Track?
On the basis that the Access Road is an integral part of the development (and that the upgrade of Dudley Street would not occur in the immediate future in the absence of the access road), the issue for the Tribunal is whether the proposed access road should not be approved, or its design should be varied, having regard to its likely impact on the Uriarra Track.
As noted earlier, the proposed location of the access road was finalised having regard to the preferred entrance to the CBP site, engineering and environmental factors, and input from community representatives, particularly the Yarralumla Residents’ Association. Plans included with documents within the T documents show the changes in road designs, and the alternative location for the access road that was considered.[59] The next issue is what effect the access road as designed would have on the Uriarra Track and recreational use of the area near the proposed roadworks.
[59] See T Documents pages 212, 213, 491
The Uriarra Track is an unsealed walking path, apparently created and maintained by usage, which extends across undulating land immediately to the north of Dudley Street.[60] The proposed access road from the roundabout to the northern boundary of the approved development would cut across the Uriarra Track. According to the Statement of Findings from EPSD dated 12 September 2019:
The Uriarra track would be impacted by the earthworks and the cut batter for the Access Road. A pedestrian refuge crossing arrangement has been provided on the Access Road to serve the track crossing the Access Road.[61]
At that location, ground works and road construction would result in part of the track being reconfigured and a concrete footpath constructed so that it would cross the divided road and a median strip between the lanes. Plans of the northern part of the access road illustrates where the Uriarra Track would cross it.[62]
[60] See photographs in T documents page 137
[61] T documents page 50, see also page 121
[62] T documents page 801, Sheet Number 20-0000-LA-9101; also Additional Tribunal Documents Sheets 20-0000-CA-0101, 20-0000-CN-0016, 20-0000-CS-0831, 20-0000-CD-0501
The issue arises before the Tribunal because of the adverse effect which Mr Eldridge contends the access road would have on the recreational use of the area generally, and the Uriarra Track in particular. In his written submissions, Mr Eldridge stated:
People regularly use the area for recreation. This forest loop and surrounds is currently a beautiful walk or bike ride without any traffic danger to the people (including children) who regularly use this area for recreational purposes. The proposed design in the DA has this track bisected by the access road and would require users of the track to cross the road without lights or a pedestrian crossing. There is also a crest to the North of the proposed Access Road making it more dangerous because the crest would make it difficult – or impossible – for users of the track to see when vehicles are approaching from the North. Accordingly, the proposal entirely changes the safety, look, feel and purpose of this recreational reserve.[63]
[63] Exhibit A1 page 2
In oral evidence, Mr Eldridge said that people drive to that area and then take their dog for a walk or they go for a walk through the forest. It is “a bit of an urban escape, and open space … in the midst of … some gentle rolling hills and grass and trees.”[64] In his oral submissions he described the area as “quite serene”, being “very far in distance from any roads or vehicles.”[65] He repeated the statements in his written submission[66] and contended that the proposed development “entirely changes the safety look and feel of the recreation reserve”[67] and “will impact on the serenity and the … amenity of the area.”[68] His immediate concern was that there would be “a road that goes to nowhere, and it’s going to be blocked off at either end, right through this space just in case a development application for a Brickworks estate goes ahead,”[69] while bisecting the main trail of the Uriarra Track.[70]
[64] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 26
[65] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 130
[66] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 34
[67] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 34
[68] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 27
[69] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 130
[70] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 pages 130-131
From a personal perspective, Mr Eldridge gave evidence that he has lived in Yarralumla since about June 2017. He takes his children on walks and bike rides in the area of the Uriarra Track about three times each week. He and his family often stop to have a picnic halfway around the loop, which goes to the fence of the golf course and around the back of the development site past the Brickworks fence. Mr Eldridge also recalled exploring the area as a child and teenager, including using BMX tracks (which are no longer there).[71]
[71] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 pages 25-26
According to Mr Eldridge, if the proposed development is not blocked off, he would have to be much more careful with his three children. They would not be able to ride on bicycles some 20 or 30 metres ahead of him as they do at present. He would have to keep them by his side, which would probably stop them riding their bikes. Depending on what trees were in the vicinity, there would be questions about whether he could see cars and whether drivers could see children coming. Consequently, “it wouldn’t be a fluid, free roam in the natural parkland open space. It would now be, watch out, there is a strange road here.”[72] The proposed development would affect “the very look and feel of the area and use of it.”[73]
[72] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 28
[73] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 28
In cross-examination, Mr Eldridge accepted that any development that might cross the Uriarra Track (whether the approved development or some other development in the area) would have an impact on that track.[74]
[74] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 46
Mr McGrath gave oral evidence about community consultation in relation to the subject project and the overall project for the CBP. According to Mr McGrath, it was clear from community consultation that people did not want the construction traffic for the development of the Brickworks to go through Yarralumla roads. Consequently, that construction traffic would come along the road to be provided as part of the subject project. Further, the community did not want to have any disruption to the Uriarra Track. However, to accommodate access from Dudley Street to the Brickworks development it was necessary to cross that track. Adjustments were made to maintain access for the Uriarra Track across the access road by providing footpaths and making adequate provision (to current standards) for connection to existing uses.[75] The work includes providing graded connections from the road to the existing track, a concrete footpath connection, and pram crossings across the road and to a four metre wide central median.
[75] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 pages 74-75
It is apparent from the Review of Environmental Factors prepared by AECOM in October 2018 that detailed consideration was given to four options for including the Uriarra Track in the design and construction of the access road. In summary, that report stated that:
(a)because of the required vertical grade of the proposed access road, the Uriarra Track alignment is located in up to two metres of cut and therefore modifications are required to allow the safe crossing of the access road;
(b)in early designs, the Uriarra Track would have been realigned to take the crossing closer to the proposed roundabout, where the cut would be much lower and site distance and pedestrian safety is improved;
(c)community feedback indicated little support for that design and a preference for consideration of options which maintain the existing alignment of the Uriarra Track as feasible and reasonable;
(d)of the four alignment options that were developed and presented to key community stakeholders at a meeting on 12 September 2017, Option E3 was considered to be a balance between cost and functionality (especially for cyclists) while minimising environmental impact;
(e)Option E3 involves realigning the track around 10 metres to the north with a crossing located where cut depth is reduced closer to the proposed CBP entrance;
(f)Option E3 was taken forward as the preferred option.[76]
[76] T documents page 495
In his witness statement, Mr McGrath referred to changes made to the final design at this location to “facilitate this crossing in a safe and effective manner, and to ensure compliance with the Disability Access Code under the Territory Plan.”[77]
[77] Exhibit R2 paragraph 30
In its written submissions, the Authority referred to:
(a)the February 2018 AECOM Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment report which noted that a pedestrian refuge crossing arrangement would be provided on the access road to serve as a track crossing;[78] and
(b)the October 2018 AECOM Review of Environmental Factors which further addressed the issue of the Uriarra Track modifications and referred to considerations for the placement of the track and placement and style of crossing including environmental impact, other community feedback, functionality and cost.[79]
[78] T documents page 121
[79] T documents page 495
The Authority:
(a)submitted that, as required by section 129(d) of the P&D Act, it considered the contentions raised by Mr Eldridge in his representation when making the decision; and
(b)relied on the analysis provided in the Notice of Decision which stated that the recreational use of the open space is unlikely to be impacted by the Road, and that the access road has been designed to eliminate steep grades and maximise sight distance which would reduce the safety concerns raised by Mr Eldridge.
In oral submissions about urban open space, counsel for the Authority referred to the PRZ1 Urban Open Space Zone requirements, in particular zone objective (e), which reads:
Ensure that development does not unacceptably affect the landscape or scenic quality of the area, adequacy of open space for other purposes, or users, access to open space, or amenity of adjoining residents.
In response to the contention that the development does not meet that provision, counsel submitted that the proposed development does not “unacceptably affect” the adequacy of the open space or the landscape or scenic quality of the area. The area of impact on the overall open space is minimal. The development would not “unacceptably affect” other users of the open space or the amenity of the adjoining neighbours.[80]
[80] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 137
Counsel also submitted that:
(a)the Uriarra Track is not a formal or gazetted path and it can be categorised as a path made and maintained by local use;
(b)although the access road will intersect with the Uriarra Track, the issues of pedestrian safety are an absolute priority and they have been addressed by the design of the Track;
(c)in due course, when cars are using the access road, track users such as Mr Eldridge may need to supervise their children more closely than they may have to do now and, although that may be an impost, it is in no way substantial.[81]
[81] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 137
The Tribunal accepts that:
(a)the process of constructing the access road will interfere with the use and enjoyment of the Uriarra Track by Mr Eldridge, his family and some other people;
(b)in the medium to longer term, the existence of the access road, while blocked to traffic, will not impede the use of the Uriarra Track because the track will continue, in a modified form, across the access road and the median dividing its lanes; and
(c)in the longer term, once the access road is functioning, it will still be possible to use the Uriarra Track, although the serenity of that part of the area and the quality of the experience will be affected, and greater care will need to be taken when crossing the access road.
The Tribunal has concluded that those factors are not sufficient to compel the setting aside of the decision to approve the construction of the access road in the proposed location. Indeed, on the basis that the access road is integral to the overall development, the only issue is whether the affected part of the Uriarra Track will be relocated and constructed appropriately.
The Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the evidence summarised above, the affected part of the Uriarra Track will be relocated appropriately and that the upgrading of the surface of the track will meet safety and other requirements and will ensure that recreational users will continue to have access to it.
Is the proposed roundabout the best design solution for the proposed development, or would a signalised intersection be preferable?
Mr Eldridge expressed considerable concern about the impact on traffic flow of the proposed roundabout. In his submission, the development will worsen the existing road network and traffic will inevitably bank across the roundabout. Drivers will try to get ahead of banked traffic by opting to use the right lane to do a loop around the roundabout. He based his objection to the proposed roundabout on his experience of traffic flow along Dudley Street, and elsewhere in Canberra during peak hour.[82]
[82] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 pages 128-129
Mr Eldridge was one of four community respondents (two of whom were community groups) who made written submissions in response to the public notification of the Development Application.[83] Three of the submissions expressed a general preference for a signalised intersection over a roundabout, without explaining the grounds for reaching that preference, or providing analysis of the alternatives. Most of the submissions also suggested that a higher priority was the signalisation of several intersections on Novar Street (including at the eastern end of Dudley Street).
[83] T documents pages 807-808, 787-791, 762-786, 734-739, 730-733
Mr McGrath gave evidence that, in the early stages of designing the intersection of the access road and Dudley Street, his team considered a signalised intersection and a roundabout as alternatives. The roundabout was preferred following the design process and consultation with the ultimate owner of the asset, who at that time was Michael Day of Roads ACT in the TCCS.[84]
[84] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 pages 71-72
AECOM was engaged, after an open-ended procurement process, as the professional design consultants to undertake the detailed design of the road surface. That work was done in the context of a brief to design an access road from Dudley Street and the upgrading of Dudley Street in accordance with current safety and other standards. The people working for or engaged by AECOM included engineers with various specialised skills.[85]
[85] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 pages 71-72
The design had to be considered by TCCS, EPSDD and other parts of government (in relation to, for example, heritage, environmental and indigenous matters) for their concurrence.[86]
[86] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 pages 72-73, 87, 89
There was evidence that the roundabout arrangement was preferred over traffic signals because a roundabout would:
(a)provide optimum operational efficiency;
(b)eliminate weaving movement conflicts; and
(c)provide an overall safer and more functional intersection.[87]
[87] Exhibit R2 paragraph 21
In relation to whether the approved design (involving a roundabout) is suitable for the current and expected volumes of traffic, the Development Application included a detailed Traffic and Transport Assessment.[88]
[88] T documents pages 1141-1191, as Appendix G to the Development Application Report
At the hearing the Authority called two experts as witnesses:
(a)Mr Hogan,[89] who had been involved in the original Traffic and Transport Assessment, and subsequent investigations; and
(b)Mr Hubbard,[90] who is the officer who will become responsible for management of the road when it is completed and in operation.[91]
[89] Exhibit R2 attachment B
[90] Exhibit R2 attachment A
[91] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 pages 119-120. Mr Hubbard has a master’s degree in civil engineering and more than 25 years of experience in traffic management: Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 123. Mr McGrath described Mr Hubbard as an independent person who is “our traffic expert within TCCS.” Mr Hubbard is not Mr McGrath’s subordinate: Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 82
They were asked to deal with concerns raised by Mr Eldridge.[92] Both are qualified and experienced traffic engineers. Each had considered a range of realistic scenarios, had applied standard analytical and modelling tools to relevant datasets, and considered the predicted performance of a roundabout both as acceptable and as superior to a signalised intersection. They had also conducted a review of mitigation measures that could be retrofitted if required.
[92] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 74
Mr Eldridge contended that the performance of a roundabout would be problematic, and preferred a signalised intersection, but did not address in what ways the Traffic and Transport Assessment was deficient or provide evidence that the rationale for selecting a roundabout configuration over a signalised one was inadequate.
In order to deal with this aspect of Mr Eldridge’s case, the Tribunal has considered the evidence in relation to:
(a)issues about a signalised intersection;
(b)issues about a roundabout; and
(c)the implications of the proposed installation of traffic signals on Novar and Kent Streets.
First, the issues concerning a signalised intersection were referred to in the notice of decision in relation to the Development Application. An assessment note provided a response to the suggestion in the course of public notification that traffic lights at the intersection of Dudley Street and the new access road would be more effective than a roundabout, particularly having regard to the proximity of that intersection and the intersection of Dudley Street and Cotter Road. The assessment note stated:
Suitability of the proposed roundabout have been assessed and approved by the Traffic Management and Safety Division of Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate (TCCS). The proponent confirmed that a signalised intersection was not considered suitable by TCCS due to the hazardous weaving movement vehicles would be required to undertake from the intersection to the right turn onto Cotter Road.[93]
[93] T documents page 40
When asked by the Tribunal about that assessment, Mr Hogan referred to the various constraints around what could be achieved in the area available for the intersection, including capacity and safety in relation to traffic. In his view, the configuration that would be required to safely conduct all the traffic movements meant that there would be challenges with the installation of traffic signals because there would be conflicting movements within a short time when vehicles would need to change lanes.
When asked by the Tribunal about the assessment note (of which he was not the author), Mr Hubbard stated that there would be an additional hazard if cars were required to turn from the left side land to the right side lane in order to get to the traffic signals. He described the weaving as “completely unacceptable.”[94] In addition, he did not think it would be possible to build a program that made traffic lights work at that intersection. In other words, he thought it would not be possible to have the correct phase, or a reasonable phase, at the intersection to make those lights work. In his opinion, there would not be sufficient distance between the two sets of lights to be able to put signals at the proposed intersection.[95]
[94] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 126
[95] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 126
Second, in light of the unsuitability of traffic signals for that intersection, would the traffic be better accommodated and regulated by roundabout?
In December 2019, Mr Hogan prepared an analysis of the expected impact of queueing from the Dudley Street and Cotter Road intersection on the operation of the proposed roundabout. The analysis was prepared in response to a concern raised that queueing from that intersection and then to the eastern approach to the roundabout will cause vehicles to undertake more aggressive and unsafe vehicle movements. Mr Hogan stated that the movement could occur “as there is an incentive to skip past vehicles queueing in the left turn lane by taking the right turn and then using the roundabout to perform the same movement,”[96] in other words, using a U-turn manoeuvre to queue jump queueing vehicles.[97]
[96] Exhibit R2 Attachment B page 13
[97] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 101
There was an analysis of the ratio of the queue distance over the available storage space (the queue storage ratio) using SIDRA network intersection software. A network model of both the signalised and roundabout intersection was tested with the traffic signals timings at the Cotter Road/Dudley Street simulated by SIDRA. Results for both the 50th percentile (that is, the average case) and the 95th percentile (that is, the worst case) traffic demand were produced for both morning and afternoon peak periods. As the storage distance between the traffic signals and the proposed roundabout is 50 metres, a queue storage ratio of 1 indicates this section is fully used and a 50 metre queue exists.[98]
[98] Exhibit R2 Attachment B pages 14-18
According to that analysis, the queueing for the morning and afternoon peaks were similar. The results show that for the 95th percentile, traffic demand in the morning peak (the period with the least favourable traffic conditions) is such that a queue is likely to form on Dudley Street that will extend from the traffic signals at Cotter Road to the roundabout and then for a peak distance of around 50 metres along Dudley Street. That would result in a queue of seven or eight vehicles. The proposed left turn lane is 80 metres, which can accommodate the expected maximum queue. If the left lane turn capacity is exceeded, that might increase the likelihood of a vehicle undertaking a U-turn manoeuvre. However, Mr Hogan wrote, “as the queueing is accommodated within the nominated lane and the Queue from the roundabout will clear with each signal phase, the risk of multiple U-turn movements is considered low.”[99]
[99] Exhibit R2 Attachment B page 14
Mr Hogan explained the methodology used in preparing the report, including the use of traffic count data and references to the phasing of traffic lights.[100] The data that resulted from the SIDRA analysis was used to determine aspects such as the queueing, the delays, and the level of service.
[100] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 pages 101-105
There was evidence that if drivers were to use the roundabout in particular ways to “slingshot” their way around any traffic queue, certain design changes could be made. Although they would not be design features ordinarily seen at such a roundabout, all three would comply with road safety legislation and could be retrofitted to the constructed roundabout if “unlikely aggressive and unsafe vehicle movements” or the “full loop” occur.[101]
[101] Exhibit R2 paragraphs 59 – 61, Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 89
According to Mr Hogan, a roundabout has better capacity and free flow movement, particularly in the morning peak. When a lot of moving traffic is entering, vehicles entering a roundabout need to give way to their right. The expected ingress of vehicles to a residential area at that time is quite low (estimated at about 20 per cent of vehicle movements). Some would be coming along Dudley Street and others along Cotter Road. Vehicles approaching from Cotter Road to continue onto Dudley Street are relatively unopposed in the morning peak within a roundabout because there is very little traffic continuing from Dudley Street across into the new access road. The improved capacity of a roundabout reduced the need for weaving movements in a signalised configuration.[102]
[102] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 pages 116-117
Mr Hogan described how AECOM was asked by the ACT Government to provide some additional information about the expected likelihood of U-turn desire movement and produced Attachment B to focus on that issue.[103] The report included queue storage ratio graphics and associated commentary to clarify the expected impacts. Options to mitigate those impacts were provided.[104]
[103] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 109
[104] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 115
Mr Hogan explained that the SIDRA modelling incorporated peak hour traffic counts undertaken at 15 minute intervals between 8:00am and 9:00am.[105] The data came from an independent survey in Australia in 2014, which was revisited in 2017 with a growth factor applied so that the data was accurate when the analysis was undertaken.[106] The largest figure was derived from modelling for the presence of development traffic and the proposed augmented network, including the roundabout.[107] The modelling was based on 80 per cent of extra vehicles coming out of the CBP development to access Dudley Street via the Access Road. In the afternoon, the ratio of 80 per cent was applied for traffic returning to the development.[108]
[105] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 109
[106] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 110
[107] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 113
[108] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 114
Mr Hogan agreed that the modelling showed that, on average at the end of a red-light cycle, the traffic would bank between the Cotter Road intersection and the roundabout (a distance of about 50 metres, including approximately seven or eight vehicles). On the 95th percentile the traffic would extend beyond the roundabout.[109]
[109] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 pages 110-111, 118
The tables of statistics from the SIDRA analysis on which the report signed by Mr Hogan was prepared, were not attached to that report but were provided to Mr Hubbard.[110]
[110] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 115
Mr Hubbard gave evidence that he had been asked to prepare a report in relation to the report undertaken by AECOM to make sure that what Mr Hogan had done “was credible,” that is, that the work made sense and there was not “something glaringly wrong with it.”[111] He used the SIDRA results used by Mr Hogan which he analysed in relation to such things as the degree of saturation, queue lengths and the delay, and the levels of service to make sure they were “sensible” numbers and that they were all “acceptable.” He explained each of the scenarios set out in his report, including the delay on Dudley Street and the queue that would occur in the morning and afternoon peak hours.[112] Working with the figures for the worst queue over the distance between the Cotter Road and the proposed roundabout, Mr Hubbard concluded that the impact of introducing a roundabout on Dudley Street was “likely to be minimal.” Other circumstances (including the leg coming from the CBP via the Access Road) would have short queues.[113]
[111] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 120
[112] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 pages 120-121
[113] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 pages 121-122
In his calculations, Mr Hubbard added 10 metres to the 50 metres referred to by Mr Hogan to allow for the addition of the roundabout to the existing road, so that he could make a fair comparison between what is existing and what is proposed. Mr Hubbard made it clear that the additional 10 metres was not an area where cars would queue. Indeed, he proceeded on the basis that “nothing queues within that space.”[114] When calculating the difference between scenarios, he noted that:
(a)when scenario 1 (existing circumstances) is deducted from scenario 3 (proposed situation with roundabout/access road and including development traffic), the difference is up to five vehicles; and
(b)when scenario 2 (existing situation with development traffic) is deducted from scenario 3 (proposed situation), the difference is up to three vehicles.[115]
[114] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 124
[115] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 127
In response to the concern noted earlier, the lane arrangements at the east leg of the roundabout were reviewed separately from the traffic analysis to identify what changes could be introduced to improve the conditions for left-turning traffic, the heavier of the two westbound traffic movements approaching the roundabout from the east. Given the predominant left-turn movement, three options were considered to favour this movement whilst making the through movement subsidiary. In summary:
(a)Option 1 would introduce chevron markings to direct the main movement to the left-turn lane and make it the priority over the through movement to the CBP development, with the barrier line separating the through and left-turn lanes being extended by approximately 20 metres;
(b)Option 2 would replace the chevrons with an island and shorten the through lane, compared with Option 1, preventing traffic accessing the through lane over the chevrons and enhancing the subsidiary nature of the through movement (while creating a potential collision risk with the physical barrier). The barrier line separating the through and left-turn lanes would be extended by approximately 20 metres to provide a shorter (compared with Option 1) entry into the through traffic lane to discourage queue jumping into the left-turn lane from the through lane;
(c)Option 3 would introduce a C1 line for deflection to direct the main movement to the left-turn lane and make it the priority over the through movement to the CBP development. It would also extend the barrier line separating the through and left-turn lanes by approximately 20 metres.[116]
[116] Exhibit R2 Attachment B pages 19-22
Mr Hogan said that the three options “look to force traffic into the left lane” as the priority or main lane to try to reduce the attraction of undertaking the bypass queue jump or U-turn type procedure.[117] He noted that the three options, whilst enhancing the predominant left-turn movement over the lesser through lane movement, are not usual lane arrangements.[118]
[117] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 106
[118] Exhibit R2 Attachment B page 19
Third, in response to a question from the Tribunal about the implications of signalising three intersections along Novar Street, Mr Hogan said that the key factors relating to the signalisation of Kent/Novar Street were:
(a)safety considerations for active travel users in light of an expected growth of active travel through there; and
(b)a concern about uncontrolled right turn movements from Denison Street and from the Adelaide Avenue offramp turning to go across the Kent Street bridge.
Both of those involve concerns about sightlines and safety.
The possible implications of those developments for the proposed roundabout on Dudley Street will depend on the design of the signalised intersection. If there is a left slip, motorists could turn left at a give way line to the left of the intersection, without signals. Consequently, because the largest volume of traffic moves left into Dudley Street and then approaches the roundabout and Cotter Road, the signalised intersection would have a negligible impact on it.[119]
[119] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 pages 117-118
Mr Hubbard described the proposal to signalise the intersection at the roundabout intersection at the eastern end of Dudley Street at Novar Street as giving “a better opportunity for people to get out.”[120] The upgrades of Novar and Kent Streets will also improve movement.
[120] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 126
In the context of that evidence, the Tribunal has to consider Mr Eldridge’s submissions that the approved development:
(a)will create traffic jams and reduce the safety and efficiency of the road; and
(b)is against criterion 25 in the PRZDC, which is in place to ensure the existing road network can accommodate the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the road.[121]
[121] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 128
He contended that the approved development will worsen the existing road network. For example, traffic will inevitably bank across the roundabout when traffic heading west on Dudley Street is banked waiting for traffic lights to cross the intersection to Cotter Road. Traffic entering the roundabout from the Canberra Brickworks site will want to turn right. Other drivers will try to get ahead of banked traffic by opting to take a right lane towards the Access Road and do a full loop around the roundabout when heading west on Dudley Street towards Cotter Road.[122] He submitted that the documents prepared by Mr Hogan and Mr Hubbard show that it is “a failed design,” with both of them speaking about how traffic would bank up to and beyond the roundabout. He contended that one “can imagine when that roundabout comes to a standstill that’s going to cause a flow-on effect and chaos.”[123]
[122] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 128
[123] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 129
In his submission, the issues have been known to him for some time and had been put in his first submission to the Authority. He was critical of the analysis and response which focused on one of the factors about which he is concerned, namely the predicted behaviour of motorists choosing to turn right to avoid the queue near the roundabout. He queried why there was no analysis of traffic coming out of the Canberra Brickworks development along the Access Road to the roundabout which will be affected by traffic streaming from the Cotter Road. He contended that traffic will bank onto Cotter Road with a flow on effect causing standstills past the Cotter Road and Scrivener Dam intersection.[124]
[124] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 129
Further, he contended that the option to have no road at all did not appear to have been considered. In other words, there had not been any analysis of whether it would be safe to have any intersection or any road there at all.[125]
[125] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 129
The contention of Mr Eldridge that a roundabout would not be effective was not accompanied by any expert analysis or other evidence, and there was no effective challenge of the testimony of the expert witnesses for the respondent.
In oral submissions, counsel for the Authority reiterated that the access road is part of a multifaceted and complex project to deliver access to the boundary of the CBP site in preparation for the development of that site, and that the building of access roads and trunk infrastructure to the boundary of development sites for future development is common practice. Counsel urged the Tribunal to take account only of submissions supported by evidence before the Tribunal and, in particular, contended that minimal weight should be given to the anecdotal evidence provided by Mr Eldridge and to concerns which, although genuinely held, are not borne out by modelling undertaken by the experts.[126]
[126] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 pages 132-133
Counsel referred to documentary evidence about public consultations concerning the project generally and specific design issues, including in relation to a roundabout or signalised intersection and traffic modelling and impact.[127]
[127] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 pages 135-136
The Tribunal has considered the material before the Authority as well as the additional material provided in evidence at the hearing.
Although the Tribunal accepts that Mr Eldridge holds firmly to the view that the design is a very poor and failed one, the Tribunal is not satisfied that his view is supported by the written and oral evidence of experts in the field. Rather, the Tribunal is satisfied that the material before the Authority, as supplemented by material only available to this Tribunal, supports the conclusion that a roundabout is preferable to a signalised intersection at the proposed location.
Finally, the Tribunal notes that the affected land is in the PRZ1 urban open space area and that the PRZDC applies.[128] Criterion 25 in the PRZDC provides “The existing road network can accommodate the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the development.” Criterion 25 relates to the Part B of the PRZDC which provides the general development controls applicable to the Urban Parks and Recreation Zones (PRZ1 – Urban Open Space and PRZ2 – Restricted Access Recreation Zones).
[128] T documents pages 1109-1110
Given the evidence referred to and accepted above, it is difficult to see how to conclude that the approved development is against Criterion 25. To the contrary, it would appear that the approved development will ensure (or approach) a road network which can accommodate the existing amount of traffic and the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the development of the CBP. The approved development will not generate traffic. The approved development will accommodate the increased volume of traffic, particularly traffic to and from the CBP.
As noted earlier, in the alternative to the Tribunal setting aside the decision, Mr Eldridge sought a variation of the decision to make any approval subject to, among other things, a positive review (with no significant issues identified) by an independent third party expert of the proposed road design and roundabout within three months. On the basis of the material referred to above (and subject to the resolution of the conflict of interest issue considered below), the Tribunal is not satisfied that such a variation of the Authority’s decision is necessary or would serve any practical purpose.
Alleged conflict of interest
A key concern to Mr Eldridge, to which he devoted much of his cross-examination of witnesses and oral submissions, was an alleged conflict of interest arising from the TCCS’s role as applicant for the Authority’s approval and as an entity providing advice to the Authority about whether the Authority should give development approval to the Access Road, new roundabout intersection and associated works.
This aspect of Mr Eldridge’s application raises two issues for the Tribunal:
(a)Was there a conflict of interest of the type alleged by Mr Eldridge?
(b)Even if there was such a conflict of interest, does that mean that the Tribunal cannot confirm the decision?
The alleged conflict of interest was identified in Mr Eldridge’s application for a review of the decision. He sought, in the alternative to an order setting aside the Authority’s decision, a variation of the decision subject to the condition of a positive review (with no significant issues identified) by “an independent third-party expert” of the proposed road design and roundabout within three months. He did so because “as Transport is the applicant in this DA there is a conflict of interest in Transport reviewing their own application.”
In summary, the import of his questions and submissions was that Mr Eldridge contended that:
(a)TCCS has “significant actual and perceived conflict of interest in its roles” as the applicant for development approval and the entity that provides road design approval on its own development application for its own design;[129]
(b)in effect, the Authority received responses from concerned members of the public and, not knowing how to respond to them, sent them to TCCS to make the decision;[130]
(c)the Authority has exacerbated the existing conflict with TCCS by simply getting TCCS to respond to concerns about the Development Application (in the form of entity advice) and to write the corresponding section of the Authority’s reasons for decision and notice for decision and, as a consequence, the Authority has not genuinely considered significant concerns raised with it;[131]
(d)TCCS and the Authority continue to ignore the significant conflicts of interest, and interchangeably put forward the same views (as evidenced by the application to joint TCCS as a party to these proceedings and, when that was refused, by the Authority filing the same witness statement as would have been filed by TCCS);[132] and
(e)consequently, Transport has been allowed to be the judge of their own cause.[133]
[129] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 pages 32, 36-37, 131
[130] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 35
[131] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 pages 33, 37-38, 65
[132] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 33
[133] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 38
In broader terms, Mr Eldridge contended that, because a layman can see that adding a roundabout to the proposed road will put traffic at a standstill, the fact that the Authority has approved the Development Application “goes to some broader concerns of mine about some conflicts of interest.”[134]
[134] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 30
As evidence to demonstrate the basis of his concerns, Mr Eldridge referred to particular items of correspondence. The documents and related events or circumstances are summarised below in chronological order.
Mr McGrath gave evidence that the role of his team in the Land Release program is to ensure that the major trunk infrastructure[135] to the boundaries of future land developments is in place to enable those developments to occur. That team was briefed to commence designing and planning this project in the 2015-2016 financial year when the team was part of the Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate (CMTED).[136]
[135] Trunk infrastructure includes the road and services such as power, water, storm water, telecommunications and gas: transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 70
[136] Exhibit R2 paragraph 9
In January 2017, the Land Release Infrastructure team engaged AECOM to provide detailed design services for the Access Road and Dudley Street upgrade project. That included the intersection required to connect the new access road with the existing Dudley Street.[137] In the design development, AECOM used the relevant design standards and guidelines.[138]
[137] Exhibit R2 paragraphs 20, 35
[138] Exhibit R2 paragraph 23
Mr Hogan was involved with the project from investigation of the location and layout of the intersection along Dudley Street as part of AECOM’s engagement.[139]
[139] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 101
When the initial design options for the project (including a roundabout at the intersection of the Access Road and Dudley Street) were prepared they were discussed with the ultimate asset owner, Michael Day (Manager Traffic Signals, Roads ACT, TCCS). He was the person within TCCS who approved road design and looked after traffic assessments.
On 9 March 2017, Jane Peters (Technical Director – Civil, AECOM) sent Mr Day plans showing the horizontal geometry for the Brickworks Access Road and Dudley Street intersection “following our communications and your inputs over the past two weeks for your endorsement.” Mr Day was asked to confirm “that we have incorporated your comments and your acceptance of the concept design so we can progress with the PSP design documentation.” Mr Day replied by email that day stating that the “concept looks okay to me.”[140]
[140] T documents pages 109-113
Since June 2018, the Land Release team has been located in TCCS. Mr Day’s team and Mr McGrath’s team were separate from each other within the large agency of TCCS.[141]
[141] Transcript of proceedings at 9 January 2020 pages 70, 72-73
The Development Application was accepted on 13 May 2019.[142] On 20 May 2019, an officer of Access Canberra on behalf of the Authority sent an email to TCCS in relation to the Development Application requesting, pursuant to section 148(1) of the P&D Act, “that you consider the above-mentioned development application and provide any written advice no later than 15 working days after the date of this notice”.[143]
[142] T documents page 1119
[143] T documents page 728
By email dated 21 June 2019, a Senior Project Coordinator with TCCS replied stating that the Development Application had been assessed in regard to capital works and the TCCS supported it. It expressly provided “Nil” additional comments or advice.[144]
[144] T documents page 727
On 21 June 2019, a customer service officer at EPD sent an email to the applicant, Gerard Coffey (Senior Project Manager, Land Release Infrastructure, TCCS) advising that the public notification period for the Development Application had closed and attaching for his information a copy of all representations received by the EPD during that period. It continued:
The assessment of your application will now be finalised taking into consideration the representations that have been received. You will be advised in writing of the decision as soon as the DA has been determined.
If you require any further information please contact [telephone number supplied].[145]
[145] Exhibit A1 Attachment A
Mr Coffey replied soon afterwards by email to Linda Ren at the Authority.
Hey again.
Do I need to do anything with these?
Ms Ren replied by email:
Hi, it would be good if you can provide response to the issues raised in the representations. I haven’t started assessment of the representations yet but I assume some of the issues I would not be able to answer.[146]
[146] Exhibit A1 Attachment A
On 24 June 2019, Mr Coffey sent an email to Ms Ren with an attached table of issues and responses. He invited Ms Ren to “Feel free to request any clarifications.”[147] The document, headed “Canberra Brickworks Precinct Access Road and Dudley Street Upgrade – comments register,”[148] listed the issues raised in submissions from three individuals (including Mr Eldridge), the Yarralumla Residents’ Association and the Inner South Canberra Community Council. Ms Ren replied that day that she was going home as she was unwell but “Will get back to you on my return.”
[147] T documents page 88, Exhibit A1 Attachment A
[148] T documents pages 89-98
On 3 July 2019, Mr Coffey sent an email to Ms Ren providing, as requested, documentation relating to how the preferred roundabout intersection arrangement was determined. His email also referred to a meeting with Mr Day on 22 February 2017 and attached minutes confirming the preferred arrangement that was circulated and the concept roundabout design was endorsed.[149]
[149] T documents page 108
In support of his submissions, Mr Eldridge also pointed to the following part of the entity advice recorded in the Authority’s reasons for decision:
Transport Canberra and City Services (TCCS)
On 21 June 2019 advice was received from TCCS in relation to the proposal. The advice states that the proposal is supported.
Assessment note: No action is required in relation to this advice.[150]
[150] T documents page 41
As noted earlier, Mr McGrath outlined how the design was verified as suitable and safe and was signed off by “various parts of government.”[151] When asked by counsel for the Authority about the role of the proponent for the application, Mr McGrath stated:
What we will do is try and balance all of those conflicting requirements of government and get a design, which can be readily understood by the contractor and readily built by the contractor, which will then provide the best value for money for the government. … What I’m trying to do is make sure that whatever is provided is done in a safe and efficient manner, both for the users and for the people who have to deliver that project.[152]
When asked by Mr Eldridge whether Transport was giving design approval for its own road, Mr McGrath said that the design “goes to the relevant part of TCCS, who will be the ultimate asset owner and they then verify that it is correct.”[153]
[151] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 87
[152] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 89
[153] Transcript of proceedings 9 January 2020 page 87
Some questions were also raised about the review by AECOM of the proposed development. Mr Hogan agreed that AECOM designed the road that it was asked to review, and that he was involved in the original team doing that design. He was part of the design team that helped to resolve the best location and suitability of the intersection. But Mr Hogan did not agree that he was reviewing his own work and referred to a peer review process within the company to consider aspects of the design. He described a multidisciplinary team with various inputs and constraints about considerations. That team includes people that are not involved in the design who conduct an independent review or checks and can raise questions at the end of an internal workshop. That peer-reviewed system is seen to be best practice in organisations of this type. Accordingly, Mr Hogan stated that the road design was not his design. Rather, he looked at options that were presented and outlined the results of those options to help inform the design team.[154]
[154] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 pages 107-108, 116, 118
Mr Eldridge submitted that the Tribunal should “consider quite deeply” the context in which the decision was made. He queried:
(a)the extent to which the Authority examined the Development Application, given the context and conflicts of interest;
(b)the review of a “slight bit of the work” by Mr Hogan who was “not an independent” because he was “the person who did the work” being reviewed; and
(c)the “clear, actual and perceived conflicts of interest” in TCCS’s roles as the applicant for development approval and the authority providing road design approval for their own road design, as well as providing the Authority’s responses to concerns raised about the application (rather than providing clarification in relation to those concerns) and “even writing the decisions for” the Authority.[155]
[155] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 pages 130-131
Counsel for the Authority made oral submissions in response. In relation to the earlier emails between Mr Day and Mrs Peters,[156] counsel observed that the correspondence was in March 2017, some years before the Development Application was lodged. It concerned a narrow issue regarding the horizontal geometry for the Brickworks Access Road and Dudley Street intersection. It sought confirmation from Mr Day that his comments had been incorporated and that he accepted the design.[157]
[156] T documents pages 109 - 113
[157] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 134
Counsel for the Authority submitted that there is no evidence to suggest any conflict of interest. Rather, consistently with common practice, the Authority sent to the proponent copies of representations about the proposed development. The purpose of that was to seek clarification in relation to issues that had been raised, which were beyond the scope of the Development Application and which the Authority could not answer. In her submission, there is nothing sinister or inappropriate in that.
In relation to entity advice, counsel noted that the Authority must obtain advice from a number of entities after a Development Application is lodged. TCCS is one such entity because of its expertise in the field. The Development Application was assessed regarding the capital works. The application was supported and there were no additional comments or advice provided. The fact that TCCS’s advice must be sought pursuant to the legislation does not make for a conflict of interest simply because it is also the project proponent. In any case, counsel submitted, TCCS is a large government department with numerous separate teams, each of which performs distinct and separate independent roles. The serious allegation of conflict and impropriety was not substantiated in any of the documents before the Tribunal and, she submitted, should be rejected by the Tribunal.[158]
[158] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 134
Counsel also submitted that a comparison of the notice of decision[159] and the proponent’s responses to issues raised in submissions from individuals (including Mr Eldridge) and organisations [160] shows that the Authority did not engage in “a cut and paste job” and the Tribunal could be satisfied that due consideration had been provided to the responses.[161]
[159] T documents pages 39-41
[160] T documents pages 88-98
[161] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 138
Finally, counsel observed that Mr Hogan gave evidence about the peer review through AECOM which is viewed as industry best practice. He also gave evidence that the road design was not his design. In counsel’s submission, it was not inappropriate for Mr Hogan to undertake the review and there was no conflict.[162]
[162] Transcript of proceedings 10 January 2020 page 135
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Tribunal notes that Mr Eldridge’s concerns appear to highlight some practical difficulties when:
(a)one government agency is preparing a public works project for approval by another government agency; and
(b)the project proponent has technical expertise, or access to the technical expertise, to design and review the project and reply to queries or representations (for example from community groups) about the project.
However, the logical consequence of what Mr Eldridge seemed to be contending was that a government agency could not, or should not, provide the Authority with technical information in relation to its project, and that the Authority would always have to seek independent technical advice in relation to such a project.
The Tribunal understands the basis for the submissions made by Mr Eldridge about the appearance of a conflict of interest in the roles of the TCCS as both the project proponent and advising entity in relation to the approved development. The Tribunal also understands his concerns about the role of AECOM in providing technical advice about a project designed by it. However, those concerns do not provide a basis for setting aside the decision to approve the Development Application.
As explained below, it is not necessary for this Tribunal to express a concluded view about whether the concerns expressed by Mr Eldridge have a sound basis in evidence. However, we are satisfied that:
(a)the communications in 2017 between people in CMTED, AECOM and TCCS about the initial stages of the project were appropriate and did not involve the Authority;
(b)the communications between the TCCS and the Authority in relation to the Development Application were not inappropriate, and the TCCS provided an appropriate response to the request by the Authority;
(c)what the Authority did with the response was a matter for the Authority, and it is apparent that the Authority did not simply repeat verbatim what TCCS provided;
(d)the Authority was obliged by section 148 of the P&D Act to seek entity advice from TCCS. In that context, the provision of that advice by TCCS did not raise an inherent conflict of interest. Nor should the Authority have disregarded any such advice. Rather, the Authority could and should have given the advice the weight it merited in all circumstances;
(e)the work undertaken by AECOM for TCCS at various stages of the project involved a sufficiently broad range of people with relevant technical expertise and included people not directly involved in the design of the project. It was subject to industry standard quality assurance processes. Accordingly, it was appropriate for TCCS to engage AECOM at various stages and for the Authority to rely on expert evidence from AECOM in these proceedings.
Nor does the Tribunal accept Mr Eldridge’s contention that because a layman can see that adding a roundabout to the proposed road will put traffic at a standstill, the fact that the Authority has approved the Development Application supports a concern about a conflict of interest. Mr Eldridge did not call expert evidence on the roundabout issue. The expert evidence provided to and on behalf of the Authority is considered earlier in these reasons. The modelling clearly illustrates that traffic will bank up at certain times in specific conditions (primarily during peak hours when the lights are red at the nearby intersection). The technical evidence shows that a roundabout is the preferable means of dealing with the projected increase in traffic. None of that supports Mr Eldridge’s contention that there was a conflict of interest which provides a basis for the Tribunal to set aside the Authority’s decision.
It is also appropriate to note that:
(a)although the Development Application was prepared and lodged by TCCS, the project has broader significance than road upgrading, particularly in relation to the CBP; and
(b)the project (or, more specifically, that part of it for which the Authority’s approval was required) raised numerous issues beyond those of concern to Mr Eldridge and, in making its overall decision about the Development Application, the Authority considered each matter with the appropriate level of analysis of technical and other material.
Although we have considered and expressed views about Mr Eldridge’s concerns, it was not strictly necessary to do so. The Tribunal has periodically explained that when reviewing an administrative decision, it is not concerned with prior process but with determining the correct or preferable decision on the evidence before it. In Downer Community Association and ACT Planning & Land Authority,[163] the ACT Administrative Appeal Tribunal said:
4.The applicant’s representative drew attention to a number of matters which he contended showed that the respondent had been pressured by the party joined to arrive at a decision favourable to it and had given inadequate consideration to the matter.
5.We do not need to dwell on this contention. On the hearing of an application for review of decision the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker. It is not necessarily the Tribunal’s concern to determine whether the respondent was right or wrong or whether it followed correct procedures or whether those procedures were flawed or deficient. Its principal function is to determine what, on the evidence before it, is the correct or preferable decision for it to make.
[163] Downer Community Association and ACT Planning & Land Authority & Anor [2007] ACTAAT 20
Those observations were made with reference to the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 but have been adopted and applied in the Tribunal’s review of decisions made under the P&D Act.[164]
[164] See, for example, Glass v ACT Planning and Land Authority and Anor [2016] ACAT 96, Morozow v ACT Planning and Land Authority & Ors [2017] ACAT 79 at [29]-[30], ACT Rural Landholders Association Inc and Ors v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2014] ACAT 22 at [43]
Although the legal position is clear, it might not be entirely satisfying if:
(a)the material on which the Authority relied was shown to be flawed or of little merit because it was prepared in the context of a relationship between the Authority and a project proponent that led to the proponent providing inadequate technical information; and
(b)that was the only material available to the Tribunal.
That is not the case here. Whatever the reasons for Mr Eldridge’s concerns about the relationship between the Authority and TCCS, the Tribunal is satisfied that the technical material before the Authority was sufficiently rigorous and comprehensive to provide a secure basis for the decision. Significantly, the Tribunal also had the benefit of additional oral and written evidence from Mr McGrath, Mr Hogan and Mr Hubbard, and the opportunity (along with Mr Eldridge) to question the witnesses and to test their evidence. That material, summarised earlier in these reasons for decision, provides additional technical support for the provision and allocation of the proposed Access Road and support for the provision of a roundabout rather than traffic signals at the intersection of the Access Road and Dudley Street.
For the reasons outlined earlier, the Tribunal is satisfied that the approved project is the appropriate means of meeting the requirements for access to the CBP area and dealing with other current and foreseeable future traffic needs on Dudley Street. Mr Eldridge’s concerns about the apprehended relationship between TCCS and the Authority, and the role of AECOM in the development and assessment of the project, provide no reason to set aside or vary the decision of the Authority.
Conclusion and orders
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal has concluded that Mr Eldridge has not provided any ground on which the decision to approve the Development Application should be set aside or varied, and that the proposed development is appropriate in the circumstances for which it was designed.
Consequently, the decision of the Authority to approve, subject to specified conditions, Development Application DA20135514 is confirmed.
………………………………..
President G Neate AM
For and on behalf of the Tribunal
HEARING DETAILS
FILE NUMBER: | AT 76/2019 |
PARTIES, APPLICANT: | James Liam Eldridge |
PARTIES, RESPONDENT: | ACT Planning and Land Authority |
COUNSEL APPEARING, APPLICANT | N/A |
COUNSEL APPEARING, RESPONDENT | Ms K Musgrove |
SOLICITORS FOR APPLICANT | N/A |
SOLICITORS FOR RESPONDENT | ACT Government Solicitor |
TRIBUNAL MEMBERS: | President G Neate AM Senior Member A Davey |
DATES OF HEARING: | 9 and 10 January 2020 |
6
5
6