Freshhope Housing Incorporated v Inner West Council

[2020] NSWLEC 1640

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Freshhope Housing Incorporated v Inner West Council [2020] NSWLEC 1640

Hearing dates:

19-20 October 2020 and 19 November 2020

Date of orders:

15 December 2020

Decision date:

15 December 2020

Jurisdiction:

Class 1

Before:

Horton C

Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1)   The appeal is upheld.

(2)   Development consent is granted to Development Application DA D/2019/287 seeking consent for demolition of existing structures and construction of a new six-storey shop top housing development, which includes two (2) commercial premises at the ground floor, a 55-room boarding house, and four (4) short term accommodation dwellings, as well as associated parking and landscaping works at 389 Illawarra Road, Marrickville, subject to the conditions at Annexure A.

(3)   All exhibits are returned, except Exhibit B.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 – boarding house development - heritage significance – cultural significance – interim heritage order – on site car parking provision

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

Texts Cited:

Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Freshhope Housing Incorporated (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
I Hemmings SC (on 19-20 October) and G McKee (on 19 November) (Solicitor)(Applicant)
J Johnson (Respondent)

Solicitors:
McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2019/320496

Publication restriction:

No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: A church building stands at the intersection of Greenbank Street and Illawarra Road in Marrickville. It is the subject of an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the refusal by Inner West Council (the Respondent) of Development Application DA D/2019/287 (as amended) seeking consent for demolition of existing structures and construction of a new six-storey shop top housing development, which includes two (2) commercial premises at the ground floor, a 55-room boarding house, and four (4) short term accommodation dwellings, as well as associated parking and landscaping works at 389 Illawarra Road, Marrickville otherwise known as the former Church of Christ at Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in DP 2595 (the site).

Approach to the proceedings

2. I record here that the proceedings are related to proceedings the subject an agreement filed with the Court under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) on 3 June 2020 relating to an Interim Heritage Order (IHO).

3. In that matter (Interim Heritage Order matter), allocated to me under s 34(1) of the LEC Act for a conciliation conference between the parties, the parties sought to amend the Interim Heritage Order applying to the site under s 25 of the Heritage Act 1977. I presided over the conciliation conference.

4. The Court listed the matter the subject of these proceedings under s 34(4)(b) of the LEC Act and granted the parties an onsite view at the commencement of the proceedings. The parties consented to me hearing the matter.

5. At the onsite view, and in the company of the legal representatives and heritage experts, I was taken inside the church building and to the hall at the rear, and to the rear lane.

6. I was also taken north to the Marrickville railway station, and south as far as the intersection of Illawarra Road and Warren Road where there is a Uniting Church building, church hall and residential aged care development.

7. During the walking tour, I was taken to a location on Greenbank Street from which a direct, frontal view of the church building is obtained. From certain locations in Greenbank Street, a view of the roof to 2 Grove Street, being a building located to the rear of the subject site, is also visible.

8. The proceedings commenced in conciliation conference at 12pm via Microsoft Teams. However, as the parties were unable to reach agreement, I terminated the conciliation conference and moved forthwith to hearing.

Objector submissions

9. Eighteen public submissions in respect of the proposed development are found in Exhibit 2 (folios 1068-1103). Objections are raised in respect of the loss of heritage, bulk, setback, FSR, height, parking, lack of green space and alienation of surrounding properties.

10. Two residents sought leave of the Court to provide oral submissions and the Court granted leave to the following:

1. Mr Peter Olive is a local resident of Premier Street, Marrickville. A written submission from Mr Olive appears in Exhibit 2, folio 1092 which is consistent with his oral submission. In summary, Mr Olive considers:

• The church building makes a considerable contribution to the streetscape,

• Good examples of adaptive reuse are found, for example at the intersection of Warren Road and Illawarra Road, and at Scots Church near Wynyard Square in the CBD.

2. Ms Caroline Antwan is the owner of the adjoining property at 391 Illawarra Road who has grave objections to the demolition of the church building. In her own case, approved works to the site at 391 Illawarra Road retain the existing historic shopfront building. Furthermore, the proposed development will overlook and overshadow Ms Antwan’s site while isolating the corner site to the north of the subject site.

11. I also record here that three submissions also support the proposed development on what may be described as ‘social purpose’ grounds, received from:

• Mr Phillip Bull

• Shelter NSW

• Churches Housing Inc

The effect of s 63 of the Heritage Act

12. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Johnson, counsel for the Respondent, advised the Court that the parties were agreed at the effect of s 63 of the Heritage Act on the proceedings.

13. In summary, the orders made by the Court in the Interim Heritage Order matter mean that the subject site remains under the protection of an IHO.

14. For clarity, the orders made in the Interim Heritage Order matter are in the following terms:

“(2) Under Section 25 of the Heritage Act 1977, the Court amends the Interim Heritage Order over 389 Illawarra Road, Marrickville including all structures and the garden (the site). The Interim Heritage Order will lapse upon the occurrence of the earliest of the following:

(a) 8 July 2020, unless the Council resolves, before that date, to list the site as an item in the Heritage Schedule to the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP); or

(b) The Council resolving not to list the site as an item in the Heritage Schedule to the MLEP; or

(c) Fourteen days after the upholding of the appeal, by the granting of development consent, in proceedings 2019/00320496.”

15. Section 63 of the Heritage Act provides, relevantly:

63   Determination of application

(1)  Except as provided by subsection (2), the approval body may determine an application for approval by granting approval to that application, either unconditionally or subject to conditions, or by refusing approval.

…

(2)  Where:

(a)  an application for approval is made to demolish the whole of a building or work, or

(b)  an application for approval is made which would, if it were approved, necessitate the demolition of the whole of a building or work,

the approval body shall determine that application by refusing approval.

…

16. Subsection 63(2) of the Heritage Act prohibits the grant of consent where an application is made for the demolition of the whole of a building, as is proposed in this case.

17. The parties, by agreement, sought for the Court to hear the matter in the time allocated in the list, but to reserve its decision until the Respondent, being the Council, has considered listing the subject site consistent with order (2)(b) of the Interim Heritage Order matter.

18. Pending that outcome, it is commonly held by the parties that the subject site, being the subject of a planning proposal to list the site for its local heritage significance in the Inner West Local Environmental Plan, is imminent and certain and so is a mandatory relevant consideration under s 4.15(1)(a)(ii) of the EPA Act.

19. At the conclusion of the hearing, I did not reserve my decision but instead adjourned the matter for a date to be fixed sometime around 17 November 2020 for brief submissions on two aspects of the case, being:

1. The draft without prejudice conditions of consent that were served late in the day at the commencement of closing submissions.

2. The impact, if any, of the decision by the Respondent, at its proposed meeting of 10 November 2020 in respect of the subject site.

20. On 23 October 2020, the parties sought for the matter to be listed at 9am on 19 November 2020.

21. On 18 November 2020, the Respondent advised by Court communication that the Council had decided, at its meeting on 10 November 2020, not to list the subject site as a heritage item and as a consequence of this, the Respondent withdraws the contentions in respect of heritage significance.

22. I accept that as a result of the Council’s decision, the IHO in respect of the subject site is now expired and has no effect.

The site and its context

23. The site has a frontage to Illawarra Road of 25.145m, and a depth of 32.395m having a total site area of 765.5m².

24. The site is surrounded by two storey shop top housing development, single and two-storey commercial premises, and single and two storey detached dwellings from the Victorian and Federation periods.

25. The site is located within the B2 Local Centre zone in accordance with the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP), in which shop top housing and boarding house development is permitted with consent.

26. The objectives of the B2 zone are in the following terms:

•  To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

•  To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

•  To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

•  To provide housing attached to permissible non-residential uses which is of a type and scale commensurate with the accessibility and function of the centre or area.

•  To provide for spaces, at street level, which are of a size and configuration suitable for land uses which generate active street-fronts.

•  To constrain parking and reduce car use.

The contentions

27. The background facts and contentions of the matter as identified by the Respondent are contained in the Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions, filed with the Court on 29 September 2020 (Exhibit 1).

28. However, as a consequence of the Respondent’s decision not to proceed with the heritage listing, and the subsequent withdrawal of the heritage contentions, the parties agree that the only matter for the Court to consider is the provision of onsite car parking which the Respondent contends fails to provide sufficient car parking on site.

29. The parties agree that the proposed development complies with the 20m building height control at cl 4.3 of the MLEP, and the FSR control at cl 4.4 of the MLEP.

30. While I accept the substantial agreement of the parties in respect to the contentions, I note that the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (Affordable Housing SEPP) apply to boarding house development, in which there are a number of matters on which I must be satisfied to enliven the grant of consent under the Affordable Housing SEPP.

31. It is agreed by the parties, and I am satisfied, that the standards at cl 29 of the Affordable Housing SEPP which, if met, cannot be used as grounds for refusal, are in fact achieved apart from cl 29(2)(e) in respect of car parking which I consider further at [40]-[68].

32. I am also satisfied that the proposed development achieves those standards at cl 30 of the Affordable Housing SEPP which must be satisfied in order to permit the grant of consent.

33. Clause 30A of the Affordable Housing SEPP requires that the consent authority, or the Court on appeal, must not consent to development unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

34. On the basis of the report prepared by the Architectural Excellence Panel (Exhibit B, tab 27), and careful review of the architectural plans at Exhibit A, I consider the proposed development is compatible with the character of the local area. For completeness, I note that Drawings DA3031-3033 verify that certain windows to No 2c Grove Street property receive sunlight as identified in the Architectural Excellence Report, and in accordance with Section 2.7.3, Control C of the MDCP.

35. In arriving at this conclusion, I also take into account the general form and character of development in the vicinity viewed during the onsite view, and recent development on the corner of Warren Road and Illawarra Road that Mr Olive identifies in his objection to be a good example (Exhibit 2, folio 1092).

36. Finally, I note the Statement of Environmental Effects (Exhibit B, tab C) identifies the continuation of active frontages to Illawarra Road and the fine grain mirroring of arched windows to the upper levels of existing shopfront buildings as examples of the careful consideration of existing elements of visual character and I accept that this character is evident in the proposed development.

Expert evidence

37. The Court was assisted by experts in traffic and transport, and heritage.

38. In traffic and transport, Mr John Kiriakidis was engaged by the Applicant and Mr Joe Bertacco was engaged by the Respondent. The joint report prepared by the traffic and transport experts was marked Exhibit 3.

39. In heritage, Mr Graham Brooks and Ms Natalie Vinton were engaged by the Applicant, and Mr Niall Macken was engaged by the Respondent. The joint report prepared by the heritage experts was marked Exhibit 4.

Car parking

Car parking rates are disputed

40. The experts agree that the shortfall of parking onsite, when considered against the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (MDCP) is 20 car spaces for the boarding rooms, 2 dedicated parking spaced for the retail units and 1 space for the parking of service vehicles.

41. When considered against the Affordable Housing SEPP, the shortfall is 4 car spaces for the boarding rooms.

42. The proposed development includes eight onsite car spaces in a ground floor carpark, three of which are proposed to be carshare vehicles, and one is dedicated for the use of a caretaker or manager.

43. In general terms, Mr Kiriakidis considers the provision to be sufficient firstly considering the close proximity to the rail and bus transport, secondly on the basis of a survey of occupants on car ownership and thirdly, given the unusual shape of the site. These are all factors warranting a decrease in parking provision.

44. Mr Bertacco is of the view that he has applied appropriate discretion in arriving at car parking rates for the site, which factor in the proximity of the site to the Marrickville railway station, and the prevalence of carshare options in the local area.

45. Section 2.10 of the MDCP deals with Parking. The site is within Parking Area 1, which is defined in Section 2.10.4 of the MDCP in the following relevant terms:

“Parking Area 1, where car parking is most constrained, is defined as:

…

• 200 metres around railway stations; and

• All business zones within the major centres of Marrickville, Dulwich Hill and Petersham.”

46. Objective 1 at Section 2.10.1 is in the following terms:

“O1 To balance the need to meet car parking demand on-site to avoid excessive spillover on to streets, with the need to constrain parking to maintain the Marrickville LGA’s compact urban form and promote sustainable transport.”

47. Car parking rates for boarding house development are set out at Table C1 in Section 2.10.5 of the MDCP in the following terms:

“1 parking space per resident employee and 0.5 parking spaces per boarding room.”

48. The car parking rates for boarding house development is identical across Parking Areas 1, 2 and 3, according to Table C1, despite the approach to parking rates, at Section 2.10.4 including the following statement:

“Consistent with the principle of applying the greatest constraint to car parking within accessible areas, parking provision rates differ across three Parking Areas as follows.”

49. According to Mr Bertacco, the car parking rates at cl 29(2)(e)(i) of the Affordable Housing SEPP already factor in the location of a site within an accessible area and so any further reduction in car parking fails to achieve the ‘balance’ set out in objective 1 at [46].

50. However, the Applicant considers the definition of ‘accessible area’ at cl 4(i) of the Affordable Housing SEPP, being 800m walking distance of a public entrance to a railway station, to be a more general catchment than the 200m distance that determines the catchment of Parking Area 1 of the MDCP.

51. A second mitigating factor, according to the Applicant, is that the proposed development provides vehicular parking of another sort that is not recognised by the parking rates in the MDCP.

52. Eleven motorcycle parking spaces are provided on the ground floor. However, the introductory sentence to Section to 2.10 of the MDCP provides for cars and bicycles only, as follows:

“This section of the DCP guides the provision of car and bicycle parking and their design for private developments.

…”

53. Mr Bertacco observes that a motorcycle can park in a car space, but to the Applicant, this fails to account for the effective increase in parking provided for a number of modes of transport.

54. A third mitigating factor, according to the Applicant, is that the proposed car parking is consistent with guidance provided by the Integrating Land Use and Transport Policy (Integrated Transport Policy) cited in the MDCP (Exhibit 2, folio 110) at Principle 8 which is to manage parking supply. The objective of that principle is:

“To use the location, supply and availability of parking to discourage car use. Prominent, plentiful, cheap and unrestricted parking encourages people to drive; public transport becomes a less attractive alternative. Large parking areas are often unsightly and reduce amenity. They can be difficult or dangerous to cross on foot, and may impede access from public transport stops to destinations.”

55. Good practice is identified by the Integrated Transport Policy to include:

“• Provision and management of parking is related to land use, with maximum provision rates identified;

• Parking provision is constrained in commercial centres with good access to public transport; …”

Carshare scheme is disputed

56. The Applicant proposes a carshare scheme within the car parking spaces shown on the ground floor plan.

57. Mr Bertacco acknowledges there is a role for carshare schemes in managing demand for vehicles, but is best applied when there is a minor shortfall in numbers, and is not appropriate when it is ‘in place’ of car spaces. Furthermore, the area is already well serviced by car share options.

58. The Respondent considers carshare to be an inappropriate mode of transport for residents whose employment may require the carrying of tools or other equipment, or be involved in shift or ‘on-call’ work.

59. According to the Applicant, the Council’s own approach at Section 2.10.2 of the MDCP identifies carshare as a hallmark of contemporary car parking policy:

“Traditional car parking policies aimed to meet demand, whereas contemporary policies balance this against the need to constrain car ownership/use and promote sustainable transport.

…

Contemporary policies also meet current demand and allow for future demand for bicycle parking and parking for carshare and environmental vehicles.”

60. Furthermore, the Respondent’s own approach to car parking rates supports the use of carshare schemes as justification for reduced parking, including relevantly at Section 2.10.4:

“Justification for providing car parking at a rate lower than that specified in this section of the DCP could include:

…

4. Includes management regimes to minimise car use, such as workplace travel plans or on-site carshare schemes;

5. Provides a business or social service

…”

61. According to Mr Kiriakidis, a survey of occupants of Nightingale developments who are also members of the chosen carshare provider, GoGet, suggests there is strong data that GoGet users own no vehicle after subscribing.

62. Residents of ‘Nightingale’ developments are also surveyed on their car ownership prior to occupation so that the terms of car use are understood and residents opt in with ‘eyes wide open’.

63. In support of which, the Applicant relies on the ‘Nightingale Draft Green Travel Plan’ (Green Travel Plan) (Exhibit B, tab 11) that is to be adopted in the Plan of Management as part of the terms of residency. The aims of the Green Travel Plan are as follows:

“Nightingale Housing exists to revolutionise the way we live together. We believe that homes should be built for people, not profit., Our cities and communities deserve beautiful, equitable, well-built apartment designed for real life. Our strong focus on all aspects of sustainability extends to how we all more around our cities day to day, and the short and long term impact of these movements. Nightingale Housing aims to lead by example, reorienting the housing market to focus on delivering exceptional outcomes in multi-residential housing for owner-occupiers, rather than investors.

The objective of this Green Travel Plan is to reduce the carbon emissions and negative street amenity impacts generated by private car ownership. All Nightingale projects have embedded sustainable transport principles in their DNA, and aim to achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions over the lift of the building. A sustainable approach to transport will also improve local air quality, street amenity and reduce household living costs.

Nightingale buildings all incorporate design and management initiatives to encourage cycling, walking, car sharing, and public transport by offering incentives and providing greater ease of use.”

64. Among the building management initiatives, the Green Travel Plan states that all residents are required to complete an annual survey to determine the applicable levy managed by the owners committee management portal. In summary, residents who do not own a car, pay no levy. Those who do own a car and do not otherwise pay for private, off-street parking, are levied the sum of $500 per car which is transferred into a GoGet account in their name, or on to a public transport smartcard in their name.

65. I note that the Green Travel Plan forms part of the proposed Plan of Management dated 19 October 2020, and that the manager’s responsibilities include, at Section 3.1 of the Plan of Management:

“Oversee the implementation of the Green Travel Plan, the carparking onsite including the 3 Goget car share spaces.”

66. For the following reasons, I accept that the proposed development provides sufficient parking for cars and other modes of transport:

1. Firstly, I accept that the site is within close proximity of the railway station, which is serviced regularly by trains.

2. Secondly, I accept that some recognition is deserving of the alternative modes of transport such as motorcycles, scooters and 31 bicycle spaces that are accommodated on the ground floor of the proposed development.

3. Thirdly, I acknowledge the particular mechanisms adopted by the Applicant to manage the expectations of residents upfront in the form of a survey that is given effect in the Plan of Management, and by the imposition of a levy in certain circumstances. Understood together, these mechanisms would seem, in my view, capable of encouraging choices in modes of transport that do not rely on private car ownership.

67. For similar reasons as those set out at [66(3)], I also accept that the mechanisms devised by the Applicant, together with the stated responsibilities of the manager being to implement the Green Travel Plan, are suited to the oversight of a carshare scheme in this circumstance.

68. In arriving at this conclusion, I note that the carshare vehicle(s) would be located on the ground floor and be easily accessible to both residents of the boarding house, and surrounding properties, and because I consider Council’s MDCP, at Section 2.10.4 to nominate onsite carshare schemes as justification for a reduction in carparking numbers.

69. That said, during the hearing it was identified by the Respondent that a secure access door on the ground floor could provide a means of access to GoGet subscribers, if operable by GoGet member access cards, to the communal outdoor area on Level 1 unless the door is relocated.

70. The parties accept that the secure access door can be readily relocated to avoid unintentional access from GoGet subscribers who are not residents of the boarding house.

71. In order to resolve the issue identified by the Respondent in submissions, the parties advised the Court on 26 November 2020 via Court Communication of the following condition which I adopt:

“Condition: Prior to the issue of the construction certificate, the proposed security gate on DA-0201 Floor Plan Ground Floor is to be relocated 1.9m to the east of its current location.”

Other considerations

72. In respect of cl 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55), I note that the Applicant relies upon a Preliminary Site Investigation Report filed with the Class 1 Application, and cited on p22 of the Statement of Environmental Effects (Exhibit B, tab C). I also note that a Detailed Site Investigation is found at Exhibit B, tab 10(c), which recommends a remedial action plan and classification of waste removed from the site. These matters are reflected in conditions of consent.

73. Clause 6.5 of the MLEP requires that the consent authority, or the Court on appeal, consider certain things in respect of aircraft noise and occupant amenity. On the basis of the Acoustic Report prepared by Wilkinson Murray dated August 2019 and contained in the Class 1 Application and cited on p10 of the Addendum to the Statement of Environmental Effects (Exhibit B, tab 7), I note the development is acceptable subject to glazing requirements.

74. I am satisfied that the proposed development is below, and will not penetrate, the Obstacle Limitation Surface applicable to the Kingsford Smith Airport in accordance with cl 6.6 of the MLEP.

75. Finally, I am also satisfied that as no part of the boarding house is located at street level, the proposed development complies with cl 6.15 of the MLEP. Those functions of the proposed development that are located on street level fronting Illawarra Road are set out at Section 1.4 of the Plan of Management as follows:

“Fresh Hope propose the following uses of the ground floor, street facing - community spaces, known as Community Room and Community 2 – Training cafe. These spaces are around activating the ground floor area within the Illawarra Road streetscape so as to have a positive community impact and engagement.

The community spaces will include but not be limited to the following uses:

1. Life skills and employment training facilities and a Café Training Space

2. Wrap around community support services for the affordable housing residents and the wider community

3. Bookable community spaces including Wi-Fi, hot desks, phones, printers

4. Community Hub – bookable and rentable community space/s for a gallery, creative space, book club, meeting room, community groups, etc

5. Training Hub – creating spaces for employment training initiatives in arrange of activities to support youth to older generations gain meaningful employment, skills and support through to qualifications in a range of education and tertiary education opportunities

6. Social Enterprises and Entrepreneurial/ Innovation Hub for the local community to fine safe, welcoming and creative spaces with support from Fresh Hope’s staff and resources.

…”

76. For the reasons set out above, I have determined that the proposed development warrants the grant of consent. However, as the conditions of consent reflect the parties’ dispute in respect of carparking, it is necessary to resolve the form of these conditions.

77. The Applicant also proposes three further conditions which it says are part of its commitment to respect the tangible and intangible heritage of the site.

Conditions of consent

78. In respect of Condition 5, the Applicant substitutes two of the seven car parking spaces for two vehicles associated with the proposed carshare scheme for resident use.

79. The Applicant proposes Condition 22(a) to require no less than 10 archival-quality printed images to be produced, and displayed throughout the development to ensure a visual connection with the former built heritage of the site is maintained.

80. The Applicant also proposes two conditions, at Condition 49A and 49B, which it submits ensure a connection with the intangible heritage of the site as a place where, historically, support and services to the community have been provided.

81. I note the Respondent raises no objection to the conditions proposed by the Applicant, other than Condition 5 which is the subject of submissions.

82. I accept and adopt the Applicant’s conditions of consent.

83. Finally, for the reasons set out at [69]-[71], and in accordance with s 4.17(1)(g) of the EPA Act, the Court seeks to give effect to the agreement of the parties that the secure access door labelled ‘security gate’ that is currently located between the ground floor car park entry and the building entry lobby should be relocated to the east of the entry to the ground floor car park.

Orders

84. The Court orders that:

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. Development consent is granted to Development Application DA D/2019/287 seeking consent for demolition of existing structures and construction of a new six-storey shop top housing development, which includes two (2) commercial premises at the ground floor, a 55-room boarding house, and four (4) short term accommodation dwellings, as well as associated parking and landscaping works at 389 Illawarra Road, Marrickville, subject to the conditions at Annexure A.

3. All exhibits are returned, except Exhibit B.

……………………

T Horton

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (328142, pdf)

**********

Amendments

15 December 2020 - Pursuant to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 36.17, the slip rule, by the Court’s own motion, amend the cover sheet of the judgment to correctly cite the dates on which the Applicant was represented by the respective legal representatives.

Pursuant to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 36.17, the slip rule, by the Court’s own motion, add the word ‘shop’ before the word ‘top’ in order (2) to correctly reference ‘shop top’ housing and correct a typographical error.

Pursuant to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 36.17, the slip rule, by the Court’s own motion, amends order (3) to retain Exhibit B.

Decision last updated: 15 December 2020