Grand Ideas Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Shire Council

[2006] NSWLEC 452

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Grand Ideas Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 452

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Grand Ideas Pty Ltd

RESPONDENT
Baulkham Hills Shire Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

10503 of 2005

CORAM:

Hussey C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :- Townhouses, flooding/overland flow path, amenity, solar access

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Baulkham Hills Local Environmental Plan 1991
Baulkham Hills Local Environmental Plan 2005
Development Control Plan No. 4 - Town Houses

DATES OF HEARING:

03-04/07/2006

 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 

07/31/2006

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr A Thompson, barrister

RESPONDENT
Ms J Wauchope, solicitor,
SOLICITORS
Maddocks

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hussey C

31 July 2006

10503 of 2005 Grand Ideas Pty Ltd v
Baulkham Hill Shire Council
JUDGMENT

Background

1 This appeal was lodged against council's refusal of a development application for the demolition of 2 existing dwellings and construction of 5 townhouses on a flood affected site at Castle Hill. For the appeal, a number of issues were identified which for convenience can be summarised as follows:

• Flooding: whether the development should be approved having regard to its flood affectation impacts on the locality and surrounding properties,
• Amenity impacts: concerning solar access to the units and utility of courtyard areas,
• Tree protection: impact of drainage works on an existing white cedar tree.

The site

2 The site incorporates Nos. 56 and 58 Castle Street, Castle Hill, (Lots 4 & 5 DP 27586). It is located on the northern corner of the intersection of Castle Street and Carramar Road. It has a frontage of 38.99 m to Castle Street and 45.72 m to Carramar Road. The total area of the site is 1776 sq m.

3 The site falls approximately 2 m to the north from southern corner towards northern corner. The adjoining development at No. 60 Castle Street and No. 57 Carramar Road are single storey dwelling houses.

4 The surrounding area is predominantly low-density residential, comprising detached dwellings and some new townhouse developments.

The proposal

5 The proposal involves the demolition of the 2 existing dwellings on the site. Then it is proposed to construct 5 x 3 bedroom houses, which are 2 storey. Each townhouse is to have a double garage.

6 Vehicular access is to be provided off Castle Street, via a central driveway. Two visitor car parking spaces are proposed off the driveway, near Castle Street.

7 Along the rear (southern) boundary a 6m wide strip of land is reserved for a drainage overland flowpath. It is proposed to pave the surface with porous pavers and fence the flow path and make it common open space property, under the strata title.

8 Additional drainage works are proposed, which comprise an on-site detention tank (OSD) under the driveway. It is also proposed to construct a separate "compensatory flood storage" area under the driveway to provide flood storage area, removed by the proposed development.

Planning controls
Baulkham Hills Local Environmental Plan 1991
Baulkham Hills Local Environmental Plan 2005 (LEP)

9 Under this LEP the site is zoned Residential 2 (a2) and the proposal is permissible with consent. Of relevance in this matter are the following provisions.

10 The aims of the plan, which includes:

(1)(a) with respect to the natural and built environment of the Baulkham Hills Shire local government area, to conserve and enhance the natural and built environment of Baulkham Hills for present and future generations, and …

11 The objectives for development, which include:

2 (2) (i) recognise and implement the principles of ecologically sustainable development, and …
2 (2) (iv) address all natural hazard concerns, including flooding, landslip, subsidence, salinity, tidal inundation, land contamination and acid sulphate soils, and …

12 The zone objectives, which are to ensure that any development carried out:

• 1 (c) (ii), has regard to the privacy of existing and future residents, and …
• 1 (c) (iii), has regard to the transmission of noise between dwellings, and …
• 1 (c) (vi), incorporates landscaping within building setbacks and open spaceareas, and …
• Clause 19: prescribes a minimum site area for townhouses of 1800 sq m.
• Clause 20: allows consent to be granted for development on smaller sites, despite cl 19, if council is satisfied that:
(a) Streetscape
The form of the proposed structures is compatible with adjoining structures in terms of their elevation to the street and building height.
(b) Visual and acoustic privacy
The design and location rooms, windows and balconies of the proposed structures, and the open space to be provided, ensures acceptable noise levels and visual privacy.
(c) Solar access and design
The dwellings are designed to minimise energy needs and utilise passive solar design principles.

Significant existing vegetation will be retained and landscaping is incorporated within setbacks and open space areas.
Clause 23 - Development of flood liable land

(1) Consent must not be granted for development of land that, in the opinion of the consent authority, may be subject to flooding, unless the consent authority has taken into account the following aims of this plan:
to reduce the impact of flooding on owners and occupiers and to reduce private and public losses resulting from flooding, whilst ensuring the environment is conserved and protected …

Development Control Plan 4 - Town Houses

13 Section 5 of the DCP sets out the development controls for the site requirements relevant to this proposal, in particular:

a) Section 5.1 which provides details relating to site requirement including minimum site area and reference to the LEP.
b) Section 5.3 which provides setback requirements.
c) Section 5.6 which provides building separation requirements.
d) Section 5.10 which provides details regarding streetscape issues.
e) Section 5.15 which deals with stormwater management and requires that:
• drainage systems are to be designed and constructed in accordance with Australian Rainfall and Runoff 1987,
• drainage easements will be required where the development property does not drain directly into the existing stormwater drainage system or a public road …,
• downstream amplification of existing drainage facilities may be required,
• developments within the Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust must comply with the requirements of the Trust,
• on-site detention may be required,
• the design of drainage systems is to be in accordance with Council’s Design Guidelines for Subdivisions/Developments..

Design Guidelines for Subdivisions/Developments

14 Section 4 deals with drainage design on the basis that drainage systems provide the following:

• a high level of safety for users;
• acceptable levels of amenity and protection from the impact of flooding;

• economy of construction and maintenance.

15 For drainage in urban areas, the guidelines refer to the components of minor systems and major systems. The major system component comprises:

• An overland flow system shall be provided for runoff in excess of the capacity of the pipe system, such that the design flow is carried through the subdivision or development clear of, and with the required freeboard, to allotments.
• Overland flow paths will not be permitted within urban allotments, unless otherwise approved by the Manager.
  

16 Section 4.14 and 4.15 specify drainage system criteria, which includes:

• The minor drainage system shall be capable of controlling flows from frequent runoff events up to and including the ARI’s (average recurrence interval) shown in s 4.08 … .
• The major drainage system in the form of overland flow paths shall be capable of controlling flows which exceed the capacity of minor drainage systems from runoff events up to and including the ARI’s shown in s 4.08…
• The design ARI is 100 years for major systems.
• The product of depth (d) and velocity (V) in the kerb and gutter shall not exceed 0.6 sq m/s (AR&R - 1987) to reduce hazard for pedestrians within the roadway, however, where there is an obvious danger of injury or loss of life, the d x V product should be limited to 0.4 sq m/s.
• Overland flow paths shall not be located in private property.

Baulkham Hills Shire Council – Policy 4.3.1.

17 This policy provides general guidelines for development and subdivision applications.

Floodplain Development Manual - April 2005

The evidence

18 The principal contested issue in this matter concerns the flooding impacts on the site. The parties agreed to Mr A Bewsher, consulting engineer, being the Court appointed expert for this issue. Following his assessment of the proposal, he submitted a final report which became Exhibit “3”.

19 Other expert evidence was presented by:

• Mr A Dean, council’s senior planner (Exhibit 4),
• Mr D Jones, consulting town planner (Exhibit B),
• Mr S Pittendrigh, consulting landscape architect/arborist (Exhibit C).

20 In regard to the drainage issue, Mr Bewsher was provided with background material, which he identified in his statement. Leave was also granted for the applicant’s consulting engineer, Dr Robinson to provide flood modelling details (Brown Consulting) for this catchment area, to facilitate Mr Bewsher’s drainage assessment.

21 From this information, Mr Bewsher has been unable to identify any specific drainage strategies or policies, which apply specifically to the site within in its sub-catchment area. Insofar as council’s Policy No. 4.3.1, dealing with the subject of “ Development Applications and/or Subdivision in Flood Affected Areas”, was tendered as Exhibit 7, its guidelines are of very general nature and of little application in the subject development application because it fails to deal with risk considerations created by overland drainage flows.

22 Likewise, DCP 4 contains the design controls for townhouse development and includes s 4, which deals with stormwater drainage. It refers to and relies on the provisions of council’s subdivision code, which again has limited application to the subject case.

23 Notwithstanding this, Mr Bewsher noted that council’s consulting engineers SKM have recently completed a drainage investigation of this catchment area. This has identified significant flooding problems in the catchment area and on the subject property. However, at this stage no strategies to address the flooding problem have been adopted by council.

24 Accordingly, Mr Bewsher made the following preliminary points:

• the flood modelling (Brown Consulting) utilised the SORBEK model, into which the SKM design discharges were imputed;
• there are some difficulties in interpreting the extent of flooding due to the accuracy of the ground level survey information;
• the modelling has ignored the existing boundary fences and these are likely to have an important influence on flood behaviour;
• the proposed development is unlikely to adversely affect flow behaviour on the immediate upstream properties Nos. 55 and 57 Carramar Road.

25 From this initial assessment, Mr Bewsher made the following findings:

• the subject site is almost totally inundated in a 100 year flood event. It lies at the intersection of 2 flowpaths, which originate upstream in Castle Street and Larool Crescent.
• the applicant proposes to concentrate flows to the rear of the property into a narrower and deeper floodway area. Boundary fencing of the floodway area will be of a flow-through type.
• the provision of the new fencing is critical to the assessment on the developments flooding impacts.
• the width of the floodway cannot be made any narrower, nor can its capacity be impeded.
• the minimum floor levels of the proposed dwellings should be set 0.5 m above the 100 yr flood levels after allowing for blockages (say 50 %) of the flow-through fencing.
• the floodway will be inundated frequently, probably more often than every five years on average. The amenity of the area will be reduced by such flooding and the potential wetness and flood debris that may result. Much of the floodway area will also be unsafe in major floods however, access is to be restricted by using childproof gates. Most of the floodway will need to be managed by the body corporate to ensure no sheds or obstructions are introduced.
• the amenity of the private courtyards on the western side of Units 4 and 5 will be reduced by flooding, although the depths will be shallow and the hazard will be low. However, high hazard conditions and significant depths and velocities will occur in northern portion of the Units 3 courtyard. (Part of this area is in the floodway).

26 It is apparent from Mr Bewsher’s assessment that the following three components of the drainage system are critical in this case:

a) On-site intention (OSD) arrangements to contain any increased rate of runoff due to the new medium density development. Such arrangements to satisfy the Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust (UPRCT) requirements.
b) Maintenance of the floodplain storage area. This concern arises because the existing dwellings on the subject land are less dense and elevated, which allows some ponding, on the site and a flood storage area in the order of 280 cu m. As the proposed development is predominantly slab on the ground, with more impervious area, some of flood storage area is removed.
Consequently the applicant proposes compensatory storage area under the driveway, which is separate to the OSD tank. This storage area varies in depth from approximately 450 mm to 900 mm.
c) The floodway, which is 6 m wide and located adjacent to the rear common boundary with No. 57 Carramar Road. The floodway is to be contoured (including a cut of up to 300 mm) to accommodate the 100 yr ARI and surfaced with porous pavers.

27 With regard to the OSD storage area under the driveway, the applicant's proposal to provide a volume of 67 cu m, generally satisfies council practice and the UPRCT OSD handbook requirements, according to Mr Bewsher. Although he notes that some adjustment to the holding volume may be allowed by excluding the floodway area and also allowance made for restrictions on discharge from the tank and affects due to backwater flooding.

28 In my assessment, it appears that this component, as a stand-alone item, could be satisfactorily designed and this could be covered by conditions of consent.

29 The next component concerns, the additional "compensatory flood storage" (CFT) area, that Mr Bewsher considers is necessary for consistency with council’s OSD policy. Even though the loss of flood storage area may be relatively small on an individual lot development basis, Mr Bewsher considers the cumulative effect of other similar development to be unacceptable.

30 Consequently, he initially concluded that insufficient CFT area was provided on the site and this was unacceptable and contrary to best practice. However, in cross examination, he conceded if the under driveway storage area was further excavated, then sufficient storage could likely be provided. But an important consideration in the design of the CFT is access for maintenance, where the depth of the structure is less than 500 mm, as in the subject case.

31 According to Mr Bewsher, this maintenance question could be addressed in a number of ways, including provision of multiple pits with dimensions approximately 900 mm x 900 mm. Mr Bewsher also noted however that this type of storage structure was uncommon.

32 In my assessment of this component, it appears that the volume could be designed to an adequate capacity, however, the operational efficiency in terms of regular maintenance and visual impacts, particularly in relation to the multiple cleaning pits on the driveway, is a negative aspect rather than a positive one, in my opinion.

33 The main concern however, relates to the floodway component of the drainage system. From Mr Bewsher's evidence, I understand that it is critical the neighbouring fences be altered (and maintained) to provide flow-through conditions. Also, the 6 m floodway area is to be maintained clear of obstructions.

34 On this basis, the unimpeded floodwaters would be carried within the floodway and with velocities in the range of 2 – 4 m/s. This then results in a depth x velocity (d x V) ratio in the order of 1.4 sq m/s.

35 As this d x V ratio is a commonly adopted standard (reference Australian Rainfall & Runoff) and it is the standard referred to in council’s drainage design guidelines for assessment of personal safety in floodwaters, the usual maximum prescription is 0.4 sq m/s for safety reasons.

36 I understand from Mr Bewsher's evidence, that this degree of exceedance of the d x V ratio is one reason he does not consider it desirable to place the subject development in such close proximity to the floodway. Although he conceded that the enclosure of the floodway by fencing would improve safety considerations. Notwithstanding this, he questioned whether the amenity of this area was appropriate for a new medium density development. I have consequently considered this aspect in conjunction with the planning evidence.

37 Apart from the drainage issue, the other planning issues concern the amenity of courtyards for Units 3, 4 and 5. Also, the solar access for Unit 2 was considered unsatisfactory by Mr Dean.

38 Unit 3 is located on the north-western corner and towards the lowest part of the site, adjacent to the proposed floodway. In so far as the courtyard will be physically separated from the floodway by a pool fence (with security gate), nevertheless it is still part of the floodway and subject to relatively high velocities in the order of 2 – 4 m/s, where the d x V ratio is in the order of 1.4 sq m/s. Accordingly this is classified as a high hazard flood area.

39 Mr Dean says that from a planning viewpoint, it is inappropriate that the common area and part of Unit 3 private open space is located within a high hazard flood way. These areas will not serve as functional safe places for recreation of residents or visitors.

40 The courtyards of Units 4 and 5 will also be subject to regular inundation, which Mr Dean considers will result in damp conditions that have poor amenity for the outdoor living spaces, which is unacceptable.

41 Against this, Mr Jones says that as the inundation of the courtyards would be infrequent and limited in duration and they are unlikely to be actively used during the storm period, then the extent of the impact is not likely to be of such significance so as to significantly compromise the amenity of the courtyards and warrant refusal to the development application.

42 The issue of restricted solar access to Unit 2 arises because of its location on the south eastern side of the development. The relevant control provides:

Objectives
i) To provide outdoor living space that is an extension of the dwelling for the enjoyment of residents.
ii) To provide private outdoor living space that receives a reasonable quantity of sunshine during all months of the year.
ii) To provide a service space for clothes drying.
Development Controls
d) "Town house developments are to be designed to ensure that at least 80% of units have a private open space that receives direct sunlight to 50% of the required courtyard area between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. on 21 June. For the remaining 20% of units 50% of each private open space area is to receive direct sunlight for 3 hours between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. on June 21."

43 According to Mr Dean's evidence on the courtyard of Unit 2:

• at 9 a.m. on June 21 the entire private open space will be in full sun,
• by midday 70% of the private open space will be in shadow,
• at 3 p.m. less than 0.5 sq m of the private open space will receive direct sunlight.

44 From this, he concludes that:

"the outdoor private open space will not receive direct sunlight to half of its area for a duration of three hours in mid winter. The private open space, if approved, would be a cold, wet infrequently used area in mid winter providing limited amenity of the occupants of the unit. It is considered unacceptable that the occupants should forego an outdoor area that receives a reasonable quantity of sunlight during all months a year."

45 With respect to this issue, Mr Jones says that the courtyard receives good solar access for 2 hours up to 11 a.m. with the variation arising from the progressive reduction in solar access in the third hour from 70% to 35% of the courtyard area. Accordingly he considers the solar access to the courtyard represents a minor departure to the DCP provisions, which is not of great significance.

46 The other remaining issue concerns possible impacts on the existing Melia azedarach (white cedar), which is located in the flood way. The concern arises because of the proposal to excavate the floodway and surface it with porous pavers. This matter has been assessed by Mr Pittendrigh, who determined that providing the excavation depth does not exceed 300 mm in the Critical Root Zone, then the risk to this tree is acceptable. This can then be covered by conditions of consent.

Conclusions

47 The relevant planning framework includes the subject site within the Residential 2(a2), where townhouse development is permissible with consent. Clause 23 requires that consideration be given to the impact of flooding of property, prior to the issue of any consent.

48 The associated DCP 4 contains detailed design controls for the town house development, which includes a minimum site area of 1800 sq m and adequate drainage and flood protection.

49 It is clear from these planning controls that they are endeavouring to provide opportunities for new townhouse development that responds to the site constraints, which have high amenity and enhance the natural and built environment. In my assessment, the threshold issue of flooding in this case, directly impacts on the standard of amenity of the residents of the proposed development, because of the necessity for a significant overland flow path through the site.

50 In the first instance, I appreciate the applicant has made significant attempts to address the flooding issue in the unfortunate situation where the council has no approved drainage strategy for this catchment. In the absence of such strategy, I then rely on Mr Bewsher’s assessment of various policy options to assist in the determination of this issue.

51 In adopting this course of action, I assume that ultimately some appropriate drainage strategy will be adopted, which complements the 1991 and following 2005 LEP’s provision for substantial areas to be redeveloped as medium density and makes allowance for any increased rates of stormwater runoff. Otherwise, continual piecemeal decisions will be necessary, which likely prejudice an efficient and ecologically sustainable drainage system.

52 Mr Bewsher’s main assumption is that the existing pipe system is inadequate and likely requires upgrading, together with an overland flow path, so that the risk to persons safety and property is within acceptable community expectations. The inadequacy of the existing drainage system is indicated on Fig. 3.3 of the Brown report, which shows the subject property is near the confluence of two main drainage flows and is subject to inundations in the order of 0.51-0.93 m, during the critical flood event.

53 Therefore this flood inundation has to be controlled and diverted away from the area proposed for the medium density dwellings. This is to be achieved on the site by the provision of the rear 6 m wide floodway. However, there is no compelling evidence, which provides reasonable confidence that this floodway will conveniently form part of the ultimate drainage system, thereby satisfying orderly development requirements. Of further concern, Mr Bewsher says the proposed 6 m width is a minimum.

54 From the evidence presented to the Court, it appears to me that the proposed drainage arrangements are unsatisfactory because:

• The protection of this development is dependent on the fencing and maintenance of the floodway as common property, which is unusual, if not a unique feature of the overland flow path in this catchment.
• The flows in the floodway are of relatively high velocities in the order of 2 – 4 m/s which result in a d x V ratio of 1.4 sq m/s that significantly exceeds desirable maximum of 0.4 sq m/s for personal safety. In my assessment, the provision of the surrounding fence does not satisfactorily overcome this problem, where council's stated policy is to avoid overland flowpaths on private property. Accordingly I consider the safety risks are unreasonable, in a new medium density development.
• The design flows are based on the assumption of no fencing obstructions. In reality however, new flow through fences have to be erected and maintained, along the common boundaries with No. 57 and also No. 60 to achieve the design flows. But there are no agreements from the adjoining properties to achieve this outcome. The existing boundary fence with fence No. 60 is a substantial lapped and capped paling fence, backed by a row of conifers. This structure provides an effective barrier to prevent direct overland flows. The essential flow through fence would most likely change the existing overland runoff characteristics by a slight increase in the d x V ratio, which may not be acceptable to the downstream owners, if they do not intend to develop their properties within the foreseeable future. The absence of neighbourhood agreements to this essential feature is a negative aspect of the proposal in my assessment.
• The inclusion of the courtyard of Unit 3 substantially within the floodway is unsatisfactory in my opinion. Considering that it will be inundated on a "frequent" basis, according to Mr Bewsher, on whose opinion I rely and subject to unsafe velocities flows, I do not consider this represents a high level of amenity or safety for a new medium density development. Furthermore, I do not consider the safety concern is adequately addressed by the provision of security locks on the family room doors leading to this courtyard area, so as to restrict access in critical storm events.
• The position and levels of courtyard for Units 3, 4 and 5 will result in their regular inundation and likely reduction in amenity, as stated by Mr Dean. I rely on his opinion that this amenity is unsatisfactory in a new medium density development.

  55 For these reasons, I am not satisfied that proposed drainage and flood prevention arrangements are satisfactory to merit approval of this development application. In addition to this, the evidence indicates to me that there are other associated unsatisfactory aspects of the proposal, which contribute to its refusal.

56 As I have stated previously, the objectives of the controls are for new town houses to have a high level of amenity and also enhance the neighbourhood. But the private outdoor recreation space of Unit 2 does not adequately comply with the DCP’s direct sunlight requirements. Insofar as I accept that some discretion can be exercised, nevertheless I rely on Mr Dean's opinion that the deficiency is unacceptable in the circumstances of this case, where a redesign or smaller development could most likely achieve the desired standard of amenity. I consider this a negative aspect of proposal.

57 I have also considered the likely amenity impacts from the proposed use of the paved floodway. The Court was informed that this would be common property, controlled by a body corporate, for the use of all residents. But reference to the building plans shows that Unit 2 has its family and meal rooms (northern) windows on the edge of the floodway. Likewise Unit 3 has its blank (northern) living room wall on the edge of the flood way. On balance, it appears to me that recreational use of the floodway would most likely interfere and restrict the use of these abutting rooms, thereby reducing their privacy and amenity. I therefore consider this a negative aspect of the proposal, which does not enhance the amenity of the development.

58 Another associated element concerns the inability to landscape the rear setback area i.e. the 6 m floodway. It is common planning practice that buildings are setback from the boundaries for various reasons, which include the opportunity for landscaping to improve visual impacts and privacy. Clause 20 of the LEP refers to this, as does DCP 4, which requires all setback areas to be landscaped and maintained to a high standard. Accordingly, the floodway constraint effectively prevents this requirement being satisfied and I consider it is a negative aspect of proposal. Presumably, a less intense development, incorporating an appropriate floodway, could provide a suitable landscaped setback to all boundaries.

59 In summary then, this application is subject to the provisions of LEP 2005, which prescribes a minimum area of 1800 sq m for townhouse development. The subject site is deficient in this area (1776 sq m) and therefore the development is subject to the qualifications in cl 20.

60 Having considered the evidence, the submissions I persuaded to accept Ms Wauchope’s submission that this proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and therefore the cl 20 discretion, should not be exercised. The visual and acoustic privacy of the open space of Unit 3 is unreasonably compromised by the necessity of the open fencing required by the floodway, which then frequently inundates the courtyard reducing its utility and amenity. Also the privacy and amenity of Unit 2 is likely to be unreasonably compromised by common use of the floodway. The necessity for the floodway also severely compromises the cl 20 (d) landscaping requirement within setback and open space areas.

61 In the ultimate however, I do not consider that this proposal represents orderly development, as required by the s 79C considerations, because the site is subject to significant flooding problems, which are not adequately addressed in my opinion. I am not satisfied that the creation of an isolated section of a paved overland flow with a private property, which requires boundary fencing for safety protection because of the relatively high velocity of flood waters, resulting in a d x V of 1.4 sq m/s satisfactorily represents appropriate public interest considerations.

62 Furthermore, the balance between the private interests of developing the subject property at proposed density against the public interest of overall safety in flood events and the requirement for alteration and maintenance of adjoining neighbours fences to allow a more direct overland flows has not been satisfactorily established in my opinion. Accordingly I do not consider that the provisions of cl 23 of LEP 2005, has been adequately satisfied and therefore the application should be refused.

Court orders

63 The orders of the Court are:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. Development application No. 2229/2003/HB/A for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of 5 townhouses at 56 and 58 Castle Street, Castle Hill, is refused.
3. The exhibits may be returned except for 3, 4, 7, A and D.

___________________

R Hussey
Commissioner of the Court

rjs