HERDSMAN NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE and TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE

[2006] WASAT 314

HERDSMAN NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE and TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE [2006] WASAT 314

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2006] WASAT 314
Act:	PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)
Case No:	DR:205/2006	Heard:	19 SEPTEMBER 2006
Coram:	MR L GRAHAM (SESSIONAL MEMBER)	Delivered:	23/10/06
No of pages:	18	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	The application for review is dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	HERDSMAN NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE
Catchwords:	Community purpose use Temporary approval Amenity Orderly and proper planning One-to-one service
Legislation:	Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 Metropolitan Region Scheme Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 29(3)(b) Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No 1 cl 5(3)(a), cl 5(3)(e), cl 38(4)(e), cl 38(4)(f), cl 38(4)(g),  cl°48, Sch 1
Case References:	Nil Nil
Orders	The application for review is dismissed,The decision under review is affirmed, subject to variation under s 29(3)(b) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) that the Centre cease to operate at Loc 41 (No 29) Jukes Way, Wembley, on or before 31 March 2007

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : HERDSMAN NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE and TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE [2006] WASAT 314 MEMBER : MR L GRAHAM (SESSIONAL MEMBER) HEARD : 19 SEPTEMBER 2006 DELIVERED : 23 OCTOBER 2006 FILE NO/S : DR 205 of 2006 BETWEEN :

HERDSMAN NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE
Applicant

TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE
Respondent

Catchwords:

Community purpose use - Temporary approval - Amenity - Orderly and proper planning - One-to-one service

Legislation:

Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997

Metropolitan Region Scheme
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 252(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 29(3)(b)
Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No 1 cl 5(3)(a), cl 5(3)(e), cl 38(4)(e), cl 38(4)(f), cl 38(4)(g), cl°48, Sch 1

(Page 2)

Result:

The application for review is dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms Amanda Butterworth (As Agent)
Respondent : Mr Pasqualino Bracone (As Agent)

Solicitors:

Applicant : Allerding & Associates
Respondent : Town of Cambridge

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

1 The application for review by the Herdsman Neighbourhood Centre was lodged against a decision of the Town of Cambridge to only grant temporary approval for the continuation of the community use in Jukes Way, Wembley, to 30 November, 2006.

2 In examining this matter the Tribunal had before it the strong support of users and stakeholders for the continuation indefinitely of the activities of the Centre, and strong opposition from a majority of residents in Jukes Way.

3 In the view of the Tribunal it was concluded that although a number of objections could be overcome by way of improved management practices that the Centre should conduct its full range of services elsewhere, and not be fettered now or in the future by outside influences from residents in Jukes Way to the detriment of its clients.

4 It was also the view of the Tribunal that the residents of Jukes Way should, similarly, not be exposed to a variety of situations stemming from a particular kind of community use that causes them on-going concern, and a loss of amenity that is not consistent with orderly and proper planning in a residential environment.

5 The application for review is dismissed.

Introduction

6 The application for review, dated 20 June 2006, was lodged by Ms S Cutler on behalf of the Herdsman Neighbourhood Centre (applicant) against a decision of the Town of Cambridge (respondent) of 23 May 2006 to grant temporary approval for a six (6) month period only for the continuation of the community purpose use at 29 Jukes Way, Wembley.

7 A review by the State Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) under a local planning scheme is covered under s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA).

8 As it was the objective of the applicant to gain an approval to continue the use indefinitely, the offending clauses of the temporary approval are:

(Page 4)

"(ii)

(a) This temporary approval is granted on the basis that the operations of the Centre will have regard to the amenity of the residential environment in which it is located.

(b) In accordance with (i) above, the activities of the Herdsman Neighbourhood Centre at Lot 41 (No 29) Jukes Way are to close by 30 November 2006."

Subject site

9 The subject site can be described as Lot 41 (No 29) Jukes Way, Wembley, and has an area of 817 square metres.

10 There is an existing single storey building on site that was previously used as a residence and is now used for community purposes. The building faces due west.

11 In the witness statement of Sue Cutler, Co-ordinator of the Centre, dated 13 September 2006, she describes the layout of the building:

"11. Currently the reception area is located as you enter the front door.

12. To the right of the front door entrance is the main activity area. This room is used as an indoor play area in the winter months and also has been used to host adult courses such as craft, first aid workshops and parenting courses.

13. The centre also has a counselling/interview room. This is usually for one-on-one time and people are encouraged to make appointments in order to be able to schedule time when the centre is not busy.

14. The computer training room accommodates a total of five computers and the classes usually have a maximum of three participants at any time.

15. The main office area accommodates my office and a desk area for other volunteers and students.

(Page 5)

16. The information area/children's play area is a large space and the information area is also used when people 'drop in' for coffee/tea or visit the centre."

12 Outside the building is a shed for the storage of second-hand items that are distributed to needy families and a smaller shed for gardening equipment. A section of the back yard is set aside as the children's main play area.

Legislative framework

13 The subject land is zoned "urban" in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and "residential" in the Town of Cambridge Town Planning SchemeNo 1 (TPS 1). It has a density coding of R 30.

14 The most relevant policy in this matter, as prepared under cl 48 of TPS 1 is:

15 a) 'Non-residential Development in Residential Areas' (Policy 3.8 )

Respondent's position

16 The respondent's position is outlined in the witness statement dated 13 September 2006 of Pasqualino Bracone, a qualified town planner and Manager, Planning Services, Town of Cambridge. He argues:

(a) TPS 1 contemplates a variety of non residential uses in a residential zone. Such uses need to be considered in terms of their potential to disrupt the orderly and proper planning of the area and the expectations of the residents of the area.

(b) The Centre is classified as a 'community purpose' use which is an 'SA' use in a residential zone. 'SA' uses are not permitted unless the Council has granted planning approval after advertising, and it is not considered unreasonable that the concerns of the immediate neighbours be given high importance in the assessment of the matter.

(c) The use of the subject land by the Centre is a use not normally found within a residential area.

(d) The vast majority of owners and occupiers of Jukes Way are opposed to the Centre. In particular there are

(Page 6)

concerns with respect to residential amenity, increased traffic generation, parking congestion and pedestrian safety.

(e) Given the strong community opposition from the immediate area, the use could not be supported, other than on a temporary basis, in order to allow the Centre adequate time to find and relocate to an alternative, permanent location.

(f) The original twelve (12) month approval was done on the basis of a trial period to allow the Council, and the community, time to review the use of the site by the Centre.

(g) At the end of the trial period it was the view of the Council, and the majority of owners and occupiers of Jukes Way, that the use was not appropriate and should not remain. However, the Council was prepared to grant a further six (6) month approval to allow the Centre time to relocate to alternative premises.

Applicant's position

17 The applicant's position is outlined in Appendix B to the application for review dated 20 June 2006. They argue:

(a) The proposed change of use of the existing premises to a neighbourhood centre will not affect the amenity of the locality.

(b) The proposed change of use can be allowed as a discretionary 'SA' use in the residential (R 30) zone.

(c) The Centre was previously located at 6a Jukes Way and operated in accordance with the planning approval for eleven (11) years between 1993 to 2004.

(d) The six (6) month planning approval is totally inadequate and does not constitute a true planning approval.

(e) The Centre should be granted a planning approval without a time restriction.

(Page 7)

(f) The Centre satisfies a legitimate need to provide support facilities within the community.

Planning issues

18 The principal planning issue is:

"Would the continued use of the Centre affect the residential amenity of Jukes Way to such a negative degree that the use should no longer remain in the interests of orderly and proper planning."

Assessment of proposal

Background

19 On 1 February 2005, the Centre relocated from No 6A Jukes Way, in the vicinity of Herdsman Parade, to No 29 Jukes Way, following a generous offer from the landowner to allow the Centre to use the site.

20 On 31 May 2005, the respondent considered an application from the Centre to change the use from "residential" to "community purpose" to allow the Centre to operate. There were forty submissions in favour of the proposal, mostly from individuals using the Centre and associated agencies, and ten objections. The latter were from residents in Jukes Way.

21 A decision to grant an approval for twelve (12) months was given through to 31 May 2006, subject to a number of conditions which are broadly reflected below:

(a) hours of operation limited 8 am to 5 pm Monday to Friday during school terms only. Any service activities outside these areas cannot occur more than three times per school term.

(b) a minimum of five (5) car bays to be provided on-site.

(c) hardstand areas for parking shall not exceed 40% of the area in front of the dwelling.

(d) a maximum of four (4) staff/volunteers at any one time.

(e) no more than twenty (20) adults receiving direct services at any one time and no more than four special occasions (community luncheons and celebrations) each year. The

(Page 8)

Town and neighbours to be informed 21 days prior to the event.

(f) existing dwelling to retain a domestic appearance and the property being maintained in a neat and tidy condition.

(g) no storage of furniture or other materials associated with the operations of the Centre at the front of the property (front yard or verge).

(h) no unwanted goods, items or furniture to be left on the verge for pick-up or disposal.

(i) operations to comply with Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

(j) signage to comply with Scheme provisions.

(k) a communication plan for liaison with neighbours, including provisions for dealing with complaints, to be submitted within 28 days to the Town.

(l) The Centre to operate under a service agreement with the Department for Community Development to provide the following:


• Adult skills based training

• Adult courses

• Men's group

• Parenting courses

• Child health nurse

• Playgroup (not child care)

• Placement positions for TAFE/Uni work experience

• Compulsory placement positions for Centrelink customers

• Information/Advocacy/Referral

(Page 9)

• Crisis support

• Emergency relief

• WANILS – Western Australian No Interest Loans Scheme

• One-to-one support services

• Counselling

• Drop-in-service

• Resource library

• Out-of-Centre activities

22 The approval was granted on the basis that the operations of the Centre would have regard to the amenity of the residential environment, that the approval would expire on 31 May 2006, that a new application would be required to continue the use and that a further public consultation period would be required.

23 On 4 April 2006, the respondent received an application from the Centre to continue the use beyond 31 May 2006.

24 During the 21 day advertising period, a total of eleven (11) submissions were received in support of the proposal and fourteen (14) written objections were lodged. A petition with 37 signatures opposing the continued use of the subject land was also received, but this included 14 signatories that had also lodged written objections.

25 On 23 May 2006, the respondent resolved to grant temporary approval for a six (6) month period only, ending 30 November 2006.

Town planning scheme and policy provisions

26 The objectives and intentions of TPS 1 under cl 5 include:

"(3) the general objectives of this scheme are:

(a) to cater for the diversity of demands, interests and lifestyles by facilitating and encouraging the provision of a wide range of choices in housing, business, employment, education, leisure, transport and access opportunities.

(Page 10)

(b) to promote the development of a sense of local community and recognise the right of the community to participate in the evolution of localities.

27 The relevance of [26] above in the context of this review is that it is entirely appropriate for the respondent to plan for a wide range of uses (including a community use) but, in doing so, to recognise the right of the community to participate in the process. This is precisely what has occurred in the handling of the application now under review.

28 In determining an application for planning approval, the respondent is required to have regard to the provisions of cl 38 of TPS 1. These provisions include:

"(4) Without limiting the scope of the Council's discretion to determine an application under subclause (3), the Council is to have regard to:

(e) any submission accompanying or related to the application;

(f) the orderly and proper planning of the locality;

(g) the conservation of the amenities of the locality …"

29 The relevance of [28] above, in the context of this review, is that submissions were lodged both for and against the continuation of the community use in a residential street, and that the issues of amenity and orderly and proper planning are critical to the outcome of this review.

30 This point is further emphasised in cl 1 of Policy 3.8 where it states:

"Non-residential development on sites which abut land, zoned or used for residential purposes, may only be permitted where the nature of the non-residential use will not cause undue conflict through the generation of traffic, demand for parking or the emission of noise or any other form of pollution which may be undesirable for incompatible with residential uses."

31 The matters of traffic, parking and noise are all relevant to this review.

(Page 11)

32 The definition of a "community purpose" is also relevant and is defined in TPS 1 (Sch 1 – definitions) as:

"community purpose: means the use of land or buildings designed or adapted primarily for the provision of educational, social and recreational facilities and services by organisations involved in activities for community benefit."

33 The activities of the Centre provide for educational, social and recreational services for the benefit of the community, and clearly the Centre can be categorised under the "community purpose" definition. The operation of the Centre in a community context does, however, need further explanation.

Operation of the Centre and community benefit

34 The operation of the Centre is best described in the witness statement of Ms S Cutler:

" 5. Herdsman Neighbourhood Centre Association Incorporated has been operating as a not for profit multicultural family support service in the Wembley/Glendalough area for 20 years. During this time the Centre has been widely accessed by people living in and around the community. The Centre's staff and management committee have developed and maintained strong links with other community groups/organisations in the metropolitan area.

6. As a not for profit multicultural support service, the Centre is strongly committed to providing a service that is fair, equitable, low cost. Inclusive and non judgmental in its approach. The Centre is committed to developing programs and services that are focussed on empowering people to take control of their own lives.

7. The Centre provides a number of services. One of these services is adult based training such as computer internet training and adult personal development or lifeskill courses designed for people in the local community. A playgroup is also held at the Centre for local community members, which is held for 2 hours once a week. Cooking and craft courses are also offered. An adult craft group is held once a week. The skills based courses that

(Page 12)

the Centre offers is beneficial for assisting to minimise the effects of social isolation that some of the members who attend these courses feel. Participants are able to share skills and make new friends in a friendly and relaxed environment."

35 It is clear, in evidence before the Tribunal, that the community benefit of the Centre has been acknowledged by such organisations as Learning Centre Link, Yahnging Aboriginal Corporation, Djooraminda (Centrecare Services) and the Rotary Club of Cambridge, and there is no dispute between the parties on the value of the facility.

Planning and amenity issues

36 The principal planning and amenity issues are outlined in the report to Council dated 23 May 2006 which is included as attachment PB 7 to Mr Bracone's witness statement. The issues include:

(a) The use has a negative impact on the residential character and amenity of Jukes Way and is devaluing property.

(b) Several trailer loads of furniture have been left in view of the street.

(c) The verge of the subject land is clogged with cars.

(d) Traffic averages twelve (12) parked cars per day, excluding taxis and foot traffic, during the past 12 months.

(e) The gardens are a disgrace and have not been maintained.

(f) The signage is unsatisfactory in appearance.

(g) The business attracts strangers to the street and exposes residents to unwanted attention.

(h) The Centre should be relocated to a commercial area or close to a shopping centre and/or on a main street.

(i) The site is not suitable for a growing business which will require more helpers and supervisors.

(j) Ongoing fears for the safety of children, residents and property due to increased non residential pedestrians and traffic.

(Page 13)

37 Although the question of noise has been raised by several objectors, this is not a consistent complaint and the matter is covered in the conditions of approval at [21(i)] above.

38 On the matter of the negative effect of the use on nearby property values, the information before the Tribunal is anecdotal only, and there is no published statistical data or evidence on which the Tribunal can rely. This aspect will not be pursued further.

39 Other matters such as the attention to the lawns and garden are satisfactorily dealt with in the management plan attached as Sc 4 to the witness statement of Ms S Cutler. An information sheet, to be developed in consultation with the Town, is also included in the plan to enunciate a code of behaviour for members when dealing with the residents of Jukes Way.

40 On the question of second-hand household items and furniture being deposited on the verge and front lawn of the subject site, the management plan explains that the Centre will continue to provide a second-hand household item service to be stored on site, but until more suitable storage arrangements can be secured, the Centre will no longer accept donations of furniture. This approach was confirmed in the evidence of Ms Cutler:

"It's just our aim to be able to get other off-site premises where we can run and reintroduce the second-hand furniture, as we actually believe it's quite an essential service".

41 The question of on-street parking and vehicular movement being a danger to children has been raised by some of the objectors and the Tribunal would accept that there is a need for increased vigilance whenever traffic movement exceeds the norm; whether it be in a residential street, such as Jukes Way, or in a commercial area. The question of the number of vehicles and their movement to and from the Centre is also an issue between the parties.

42 In the witness statement dated 11 September 2006, of Maxine Daniell, a resident at 27 Jukes Way, the parking problem is explained in this way:

"On a weekly basis the Centre say that only 4 or 5 cars attend, but we have found that this is not the case. Most days there are 10 cars and other times 18 or more."

(Page 14)

43 In a letter of objection, dated 1 May 2006, from S and S Crawford, of 17 Jukes Way, and included as part of PB 5 to Mr Bracone's witness statement, the complaint is made that the parking problems are worst on Tuesdays and Thursdays with up to 18 vehicles being parked. Photos attached to the objection dated 7 November 2005 (a Monday) show up to ten vehicles parked at the front of the subject land and on the verge.

44 In the witness statement of Ms AJ Butterworth, a qualified town planner with Allerding and Associates (Town Planning Consultants) for the applicant, she explains that if visitors park on the road pavement they are requested by staff to move their vehicles as soon as practicable, and that to address concerns about parking, particularly on a Thursday morning, that classes will be rescheduled to ensure that only one class is operating at any one time.

45 In her evidence, Mrs Butterworth includes photographic evidence at AJB 6 to her witness statement dated 13 September 2006 showing up to seven vehicles parked at the front of the property and on the verge on a Thursday morning. It is assumed that this number could fall if single classes only were held on Thursdays.

46 In her evidence, Ms Butterworth argues that the typical accepted standard number of vehicle trips for a residential dwelling is eight to ten vehicle movements per day, or 56-70 vehicle movements per week for a residential dwelling. These figures were not disputed by Mr Bracone under cross-examination.

47 Ms Butterworth further argues that if the vehicle movements of the Co-ordinator and volunteer administration staff are added to the statistical data at Sch 6 to Ms S Cutler's witness statement, it would amount to between 60 to 80 vehicle movements per week. At an average of 70 movements per week, this would equate to 10 movements per day, which is ordinarily expected from a single house.

48 From an analysis of the statistical data by the Tribunal, between Monday 21 August and Friday 8 September, it does appear to support the claim by Ms Butterworth on vehicle movements. However, an analysis of the data also shows that on August 24 2006, between 10.15 am to 11 am there were six (6) vehicles parked, and five(5) vehicles parked between 12.15pm and 2.00pm. Again, on the 31 August 2006 between 10.05am and 11.00am there were seven (7) vehicles parked.

49 From the information before the Tribunal it appears that although an argument can be sustained that the average number of vehicle movements

(Page 15)

per day or week may well equate to a statistical average for a normal residence (or even less over the whole year when for twelve (12) weeks the Centre is not used), it is the large number and concentration of vehicles at certain times that nearby residents find so offensive.

Potential growth of Centre

50 In the application for planning approval dated 3 April 2006, the attached document titled "Service Description" argues:

"The growth the Centre has accomplished reflects the growing needs of the community and, in particular, the last six (6) years the number of clients and other community services accessing the Centre has increased substantially."

51 However, in answer to a question from Mr P Bracone on the likely increase or decrease in services, Ms S Cutler answered:

"The ultimate aim of the Centre, and its obviously dependent on funding, etcetera, but the ultimate aim would be to separate the courses and services to have the 'one-to-one' services running off site. So while we are at 29 Jukes Way we will not increase any of the services which are run from there."

52 The difficulty the Tribunal has with this response is that it is clear from answers by Ms S Cutler to questions at the hearing that the services provided by the Centre are being advertised, that clients are never turned away, and that such items as blankets or food parcels are provided free of cost following 'one-to-one’ interviews with clients.

53 Unless there was a change of approach by the Centre towards its clients, which would be a most unfortunate and undesirable outcome, the Tribunal can see no valid reason why the demands by the community for the services provided will not increase over time.

An alternative site

54 At its meeting on 23 May 2006, the Council considered an amendment to the recommendation. The amendment, which was lost, proposed that an investigation be undertaken to find a more appropriate location for the Centre.

55 In the view of the Tribunal, if the application for review was not upheld, such an initiative by the respondent, in liaison with agencies which refer clients to the Centre together with the Department for

(Page 16)

Community Development, could prove a most valuable exercise in the interests of all stakeholders. The applicant would, in any event, need some time to relocate.

Conclusions

56 The application for review was lodged against a decision of the respondent to grant temporary approval for a six (6) month period only to continue the community purpose use at No 29 Jukes Way, Wembley. The temporary approval is due to expire on 30 November 2006.

57 Prior to the consideration of the matter by the respondent in May 2006, a number of letters of support and letters of objection were received during the public advertisement period.

58 In examining the various objections from nearby residents, the Tribunal is satisfied that a number of these such as the proper maintenance of lawns and gardens, signage and the way in which a small number of the Centre's clients have related to the residents in Jukes Way could be overcome. However, the issue of the parking of a large number of vehicles on the subject land, and the safety of the movement of these vehicles, remains an unresolved matter from the perspective of the residents.

59 From the statistical information presented to the Tribunal, it would appear that although an argument can be sustained by the applicant that the average number of vehicle movements per day or week to and from the subject land may well equate to a statistical average for a normal residence, it is the large number and concentration of vehicles at certain times that nearby residents find so offensive.

60 In the view of the Tribunal, the matter as it now stands between the Centre and the nearby residents is highly unsatisfactory.

61 On the one hand, you have a community Centre trying to provide important and worthwhile services to its needy clients, but having to modify its operations and restrict its growth in order to satisfy aggrieved neighbours. Such actions as having to no longer accept donations of large furniture, contemplate moving the important 'one-to-one' service for blankets, household items and food parcels off-site, and reschedule classes to limit on-site parking should not have to occur.

(Page 17)

62 Again, the staff at the Centre are being forced to monitor clients parking in the street in order to minimise adverse reaction from residents. Such an imposition on limited staff resources should also not be required.

63 On the other hand there is almost total opposition from the residents in Jukes Way, and the situation appears to have got to the point where some residents have, or continue, to monitor what is occurring on the subject land on a daily basis. Again, for genuine and concerned residents, they should not have to occupy their time and thoughts in this way.

64 In the view of the Tribunal, the most important issue in this review is that of residential amenity. Amenity is defined in TPS 1 (Sch 1 – definitions) in this way:

"amenity: means the expectations of those living and working in an area about the quality of their environment including its pleasantness, character, beauty, harmony in the exterior design of buildings, privacy and security."

65 In that sense it must be said that the amenity expectations of those residents living in Jukes Way has not been assisted by the presence of the Herdsman Neighbourhood Centre in their midst.

66 Just how reasonable those expectations are is a matter of judgment, but their views on their own residential amenity must be accorded considerable weight.

67 On balance, the Tribunal believes that the Centre should conduct its full range of important and worthwhile services elsewhere, and not be fettered now or in the future by outside influences to the detriment of its needy clients.

68 On the other hand, the residents of Jukes Way should not be exposed to a variety of situations stemming from a particular kind of community use that causes them ongoing concern, and a loss of amenity to the degree that is not in the interest of orderly and proper planning within a residential environment.

69 Desirably the Centre should relocate to a more suitable site, possibly adjacent to a commercial centre and close to public transport, and should be assisted in that regard by the Town of Cambridge, the Department for Community Development and those stakeholders who recommend the services of the Centre to their clients.

(Page 18)

Orders

70 For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Tribunal are as follows:

1. The application for review is dismissed.

2. The decision under review is affirmed, subject to variation under s 29(3)(b) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) that the Centre cease to operate at Loc 41 (No 29) Jukes Way, Wembley, on or before 31 March 2007.

I certify that this and the preceding [70] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

___________________________________

MR L GRAHAM, SESSIONAL MEMBER