Lin Zhang v Mosman Municipal Council

[2017] NSWLEC 1188

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	Lin Zhang v Mosman Municipal Council [2017] NSWLEC 1188
Hearing dates:	31 March 2017
Date of orders:	13 April 2017
Decision date:	13 April 2017
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Martin SC
Decision:	1. The Clause 4.6 variation application by the Applicant in relation to the Floor Space Ratio standard is upheld. 2. Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely upon amended plans and documents referred to in condition 1 of the Conditions of Consent attached and marked “A”. 3. Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the Applicant is to pay the Council’s costs thrown away as a result of the amendment referred to in Order 2. 4. It is agreed that the costs referred to in Order 3 above and ordered to be paid on 15 November 2016 shall be $3000 (exclusive of GST). The Applicant is to pay the Council this amount within 28 (twenty eight) days of these Orders being made by the Court. 5. The appeal is upheld. 6. Development Consent is granted to Development Application No. 8.2016.89.1 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new dwelling house at 8 Glencarron Avenue, Mosman, NSW 2088 (Lot 12 in DP 17847) subject to the conditions annexed marked “A”. 7. The Exhibits are returned.
Catchwords:	DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – consent orders; residential building; resident objections; clause 4.6 variation
Legislation Cited:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ss 97, 97B Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan 2012
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Lin Zhang (Applicant) Mosman Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:	G. McKee (Solicitor) (Applicant) J. Walsh (Solicitor) (Respondent) Solicitors: McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant) Pikes Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2016/321244
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. SENIOR COMMISSIONER: This appeal is brought pursuant to s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EPA Act) for consent orders in relation to the actual refusal by the Mosman Municipal Council (the Council) of development application number 8.2016.89.1 (the DA) in relation to Lot 12 in DP 17847 known as 8 Glencarron Avenue, Mosman ( the Site).

2. The proposed development comprises demolition of the existing dwelling and ancillary structures and construction of a new dwelling house, swimming pool and double garage at the Site.

Site and Planning Context

3. The Site is described as Lot 12 in DP 17847 known as 8 Glencarron Avenue, Mosman. It is located within the Balmoral Townscape (as defined by the Mosman Residential Development Control Plan 2012). The Site is accessed from Stanton Road to the north, and is on the western side of Glencarron Avenue. It is irregular in shape and has an area of 723.9 sqm. The Site presently contains a one- and two-storey dwelling house, garage, surfaced areas and mature canopy trees. The garage encroaches onto the southern side of the neighbouring property located at 6 Glencarron Avenue, identified on the survey plan as “part of access dedicated on DP17847”.

4. Development surrounding the Site consists of dual occupancies and dwelling houses. Four properties adjoin the Site to the north: 30 Stanton Road and 30A to the northeast each comprises a dwelling house; 30B comprises a dual occupancy (divided between the ground and first floors) and 30C comprises a dwelling house. To the south is 6 Glencarron Avenue comprising a dual occupancy divided between the ground and first floors, with the building including a lower ground floor garage. Above the Site and across from the reserve (situated to the west of the Site) are 62 and 64 Moruben Road. The northern side neighbouring properties orient their rear boundaries to the Site whereas the Site and other properties are oriented east-west (see illustration below).

5. The Site and surrounding properties have sight southeast to Balmoral Baths, Balmoral Beach, Middle Harbour, Middle Head and east to Balgowlah Heights headland.

6. The proposed dwelling is permissible with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone (as shown above) under the provisions of the Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012 (the LEP).

7. The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone are as follows:

● To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

● To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

● To retain the single dwelling character of the environmentally sensitive residential areas of Mosman.

● To maintain the general dominance of landscape over built form, particularly on harbour foreshores.

● To ensure that sites are of sufficient size to provide for buildings, vehicular and pedestrian access, landscaping and retention of natural topographical features.

● To ensure that development is of a height and scale that seeks to achieve the desired future character.

● To encourage residential development that maintains or enhances local amenity and, in particular, public and private views.

● To minimise the adverse effects of bulk and scale of buildings.

History of the Application

8. On 16 May 2016, the Applicant lodged the DA with the Council. The Application originally proposed, in addition to the works noted above, a detached double garage. It was notified on 30 May 2016 and elicited eight objector submissions.

9. The issues raised by the objectors concerned height; bulk and scale; tree loss; view loss; front building line setback; rear setback; traffic and parking; privacy; overshadowing and streetscape impact. There was also concern about an absence of photomontages. The Council’s concerns about the proposed development (since resolved) are reflected in its Statement of Facts and Contentions filed in this proceeding.

10. Further information was sought by the Council from the Applicant on 6 July 2016, as well as a request seeking design revisions to meet some of the objector concerns (specifically, those relating to building height, wall height, floor space ratio, landscaped area, increase to front setback), and to achieve compliance with relevant development standards. On 29 July 2016, the parties met to discuss amendments to the proposal. This resulted in sketch plans being submitted to the Council by the Applicant on 11 August 2016 as a basis for further discussions. The Applicant prepared an amended scheme, but the DA was refused by the Council on 27 September 2016, prior to the Applicant’s submission of amended plans which was to have come forward prior to the date of refusal.

11. A Class 1 application was filed with the Court on 27 October 2016.

12. Subsequently, after Court approval was received for amended plans, an amended application was notified on 23 November 2016 for 14 days, resulting in the receipt of five submissions from or on behalf of seven properties in proximity to the Site. At that time, the issues raised were: height and appearance of the development; front setback; side setback; views; privacy (visual and acoustic); overshadowing; tree loss and landscaping; excavation and construction and with-holding of consent to garage works, subject to preconditions being satisfied.

13. At the request of the parties, the matter was removed from the residential development appeals list and was listed for mediation. The mediation took place on 19 January 2017. There was participation from the parties and their experts, as well as the objectors to the proposal, most of whom had retained their own consultants.

14. Following the mediation, which involved considerable productive discussion and negotiation between the parties and the objectors, a further set of plans was prepared in response to the various suggestions made by the objectors and the Council. Leave was sought from, and granted by, the Court to rely upon these plans. These plans are now the subject of this consent orders hearing.

Amendments Following Mediation

15. As a result of discussions at the mediation, the town planning experts (as to which, see below) note that the following amendments were made to the plans:

→ The height of the upper floor level was reduced, including the roof by 600mm; and the central lower floor level was reduced in height by 555mm;

→ the southern portion of the entry terrace (outside the study) has been converted to a planter, to mitigate privacy concerns;

→ the screen to the southern side of the upper level east terrace has been adjusted to extend to 1.2 m above the terrace level;

→ the recessed wall panel shown at the north-east corner of the building extends for a width of 1 m from the corner and is set back the depth of 450 mm from the main wall face;

→ a recess has been shown to the top of the northern wall 600 mm below the eave;

→ the front set back to the edge of the upper level east terrace has been increased by 500 mm;

→ a 1.6 m high privacy screen on the northern end of the upper level east terrace has been extended to the eastern edge of the terrace;

→ obscure glazing has been noted to the north pantry window and north living room window up to 1.8 m above the finished floor level;

→ the landscape plan has been amended to show the following:

1. Tristianopolous is shown adjacent to north east corner of building

2. Alder tree is replaced with Angophora Costata at 100 L pot size;

→ The design has provided for a 1.6 m high privacy screen to the northern edge of the western terrace adjacent to the pool to provide privacy to the rear yard of No. 30C Stanton Road;

→ the fence is shown to the southern site boundary adjacent to No 6 Glencarron Avenue;

→ a section has been provided illustrating the height of the building above the north-western corner of the existing garage.

Consent Orders Hearing – Practice Note Requirements

16. In considering the proposed consent orders, the Court’s Practice Note – Class 1 Residential Development Appeals at paragraph 95 provides relevantly:

At the hearing, the parties will be required to present such evidence as is necessary to allow the Court to determine whether it is lawful and appropriate to grant the consent or approval having regard to the whole of the relevant circumstances, including the proposed conditions. The consent authority will be required to demonstrate that relevant statutory provisions have been complied with and that any objection by any person has been properly taken into account. Additionally, the consent authority will be required to demonstrate that it has given reasonable notice to all persons who objected to the proposal of the following:

1. the content of the proposed orders (including the proposed conditions of consent);

2. the date of the hearing by the Court to consider making the proposed consent orders; and

3. the opportunity for any such person to be heard,

or that, in the circumstances of the case, notification is not necessary.

17. The Council advised the Court that the objectors had received notification of the proposed consent orders and were provided the opportunity to be heard at the hearing as required by the Practice Note. Correspondence was furnished in support of this statement.

18. In the event, four objectors made further submissions (set out below) with respect to the amended plans. No objectors sought to be heard at the Consent Orders hearing which was held on 31 March 2017.

Clause 4.6 Application

19. As a threshold matter it is necessary to determine the Clause 4.6 Variation Application. Adopting the approach in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827:

In order for the Court, exercising the functions of the consent authority, to have power to grant development consent to the applicant’s proposed subdivision, it must uphold the SEPP 1 objection to compliance… upholding the … objection is a precondition which must be satisfied before the proposed development of subdivision can be approved on a consideration of the merits: at [36].

20. Clause 4.4A specifies the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) permissible for a building on land mapped as “Area 1” (which includes the Site) with an area greater than 700sqm is 0.5:1 and 0.4:1 for the remaining area. The area of the Site is 723.9sqm, which results in a permissible FSR of 0.497:1. This in turn equates to a maximum gross floor area of 359.6sqm.

21. The DA in respect of the Site is for a development with an FSR of 398.4sqm, which equates to an FSR of 0.55:1. Thus the proposed development exceeds the maximum permitted floor area in the order of 38.8sqm (or 10.8%). That non-compliance is wholly generated by the inclusion of the following spaces in the gross floor area calculation:

− the lift and stairs at the lower and upper floor levels;

− parts of the basement level floor area including the room that will provide access to the rainwater tank and the circulation area beyond the extent of the plotted vehicular swept paths.

22. The Applicant sought an exemption from compliance with this standard through its written application (dated 24 February 2017 – Exhibit A) invoking clause 4.6.

23. Clause 4.6 of the LEP provides flexibility in applying development standards to particular development, and is (relevantly) in the following terms:

4.6 Exceptions to development standards

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)  to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b)  to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

(2)  Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

(3)  Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a)  that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b)  that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

(4)  Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a)  the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i)  the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

(ii)  the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(b) the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

(5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider:

(a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

(c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Secretary before granting concurrence.

24. Clause 4.4A of the LEP does not include objectives detailing the intent of the maximum FSR control. However, Clause 4.4 prescribes the objectives underpinning the maximum floor space ratio applicable to all land in Zone R2 Low Density Residential. The Applicant submits, and I concur, that for present purposes this gap is ameliorated through regard being had to the following FSR objectives for Zone R2 Low Density Residential which are set out at cl 4.4(1)(a) as follows:

1. the objectives of this clause are as follows:

1. for development on land in Zone R2 Low Density Residential or Zone R3 Medium Density Residential:

1. to ensure that buildings are compatible with the desired future character of the area in terms of building bulk and scale, and

2. to provide a suitable balance between landscaping and built form, and

3. to minimise the adverse effects of bulk and scale of buildings, and

4. to limit excavation of sites and retain natural ground levels for the purpose of landscaping and containing urban run-off.

25. The Application made reference to the decision of Preston CJ in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 (at [42] – [48]), citing the five-part test contained therein. It is not necessary for me to repeat that here.

26. The application lists numerous grounds in support of its application that compliance with cl 4.4A is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the proposed development. These include that the majority of the non-complying floor area is located at basement level, and therefore will not give rise to excessive bulk and scale; the provision of basement level parking set below the built form will improve the presentation of the built form to the street; and the built form will be visually comparable in terms of bulk and scale with surrounding development. I find the arguments persuasive that compliance with the relevant development standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary, thus satisfying the first limb of the test set out at cl 4.6 (3).

27. The Applicant also sets out various environmental planning grounds justifying departure from the control, including inter alia the thorough site context planning that has informed the design process to give rise to a design that will not compromise the low density residential character of the locality. These reasons in my view satisfy the second limb at cl 4.6(3)(b).

28. In their joint expert report, the town planners have concluded that “compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary because there are sufficient environment planning grounds, particular to the circumstances of the proposed development and the subjects site to justify the departure in this case”. They agree that the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of development in the R2 Low Density residential zone and is in the public interest.

29. Based on the evidence before the Court, I am satisfied that in the circumstances, strict compliance with the FSR standard is unreasonable or unnecessary, and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. The development achieves on balance an appropriate environmental outcome having regard to all of the circumstances. Further, I find that the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives for the FSR development standard and development in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, and is therefore in the public interest.

Expert Evidence

30. At the hearing a Joint Expert Report (Exhibit 2) was relied upon incorporating evidence from Ms Katherine Sheppard and Mr Michael Doyle, town planners for the Applicant and Respondent respectively.

31. Their report (details of which are set out in more detail below) concludes that there are no outstanding issues as far as the Council is concerned, and the experts agree on all matters.

32. In general terms, the town planning experts agree that the amendments made to the original proposal have:

1. increased the front setback of the built form to Glencarron Avenue;

2. reduced the visual bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling when viewed from Glencarron Avenue and neighbouring properties by lowering the building, increasing the front setback and providing deep soil screen planting in the front setback;

3. ameliorated the potential for adverse amenity impacts on the neighbouring property at 30 C Stanton Road by relocating the proposed garage from the rear of the property to below the dwelling at basement level (accessed from Glencarron Avenue);

4. Incorporated obscure window glazing, privacy screens, boundary fencing and additional landscaping to mitigate the potential for overlooking opportunities to compromise the privacy of surrounding residences. In addition, the proposed residence including the backyard, rear terrace and swimming pool have been lowered which will assist to maximise privacy (and mitigate direct sight lines) between the private open space areas of the Site and surrounding properties; and

1. enabled retention of the liquidamber tree at the rear of the site.

Contentions Raised by Council

33. The following discussion regarding those matters which were in contention between the Applicant and the Council is drawn from the Joint Expert Town Planners’ Report. The conclusion reached in the report, and confirmed by advocates in the hearing, is that all contentions have been resolved.

Contention 1.1: Zone Objectives

34. The proposal complies with Council’s maximum prescribed building height and number of storeys stipulated at cll 4.3 and 4.3 A of Mosman LEP 2012. There is a variation to the maximum permitted floor space ratio permitted under the Mosman LEP. This is the subject of a clause 4.6 application, discussed further below. The proposed development exceeds the maximum permitted floor area by 38.8 m² (or 10.8%) and that non-compliance is wholly generated by the inclusion of the following spaces in the gross floor area calculation:

− the lift and stairs at the lower and upper floor levels;

− parts of the basement level floor area including the room that will provide access to the rainwater tank and the circulation area beyond the extent of the plotted vehicular swept paths.

35. The majority of the noncomplying floor area is located at basement level and will not give rise to excessive bulk and scale in the built form that could adversely affect the character of the Glencarron Road streetscape or the visual amenity of the surrounding dwellings or an undersized landscaped area.

Contention 1.2: Front Setback

36. The increased front setback, the reduction in the height of the dwelling and the additional screen landscaping in the front and side setback areas will combine to ensure that the built form will not dominate the Glencarron Avenue streetscape or the outlook from neighbouring properties. The planners agree that there are particular complexities arising from the irregular subdivision pattern along Glencarron Avenue and Stanton Road, and that the amendments made represent an appropriate attempt at maintaining the rear outlook from number 30 A Stanton Road in the context of the irregular subdivision pattern.

Contention 1.3: Building Height

37. The 600 mm reduction to building height addresses Council’s previous concern that the building would rise high above the street and would appear as three storeys when including the lower ground floor garage door. The building height and number of storeys are compliant with Council’s controls.

Contention 1.4: Floor Space Ratio

38. The majority of the noncomplying floor area located at basement level will not give rise to exist excessive bulk and scale in the built form that could adversely affect the character of the Glencarron Road streetscape.

Contention 1.5: Solar Access

39. With the 600 mm reduction to building height, the building reasonably preserves sunlight to 6A Glencarron Avenue. The privacy fence built along the common boundary between number 6 and number 8 and Glencarron Avenue has been kept as low as practicable to minimise the shadows it will cast across number 6A Glencarron Avenue. The town planners understand that the owners of number 6A and 6B Glencarron Avenue are satisfied with the fence design and have provided landowners’ consent to the demolition of the garage. [That consent has been sighted by the Court – see [42] below.] The fence has been designed and the fencing materials selected in collaboration with those owners together with their consultant town planner, who have each confirmed their support for the proposal.

Contention 1.6: Privacy

40. Amendments have been made to the plans to mitigate the potential for the privacy of neighbouring properties to be impacted by the proposed development. These include lowering the height of the proposed dwelling; designing a stepped fence for the common boundary between numbers 6 and 8 Glencarron Avenue; converting the southern portion of the entry terrace from useable terrace space to a planter; adjusting the screen to the southern side of the upper level of the east terrace to prevent direct sightlines towards numbers 6A and 6B Glencarron Avenue; extending a privacy screen on the northern end of the upper level east terrace to prevent overlooking into number 30A Stanton Road; and including obscure glazing to living room windows to prevent overlooking into neighbouring properties.

Contention 2: Contentions that may be addressed by Conditions

41. The requirement for a dilapidation report in respect of neighbouring properties is addressed by proposed condition 9, while the requirement for pool equipment to be inaudible from neighbouring properties is addressed by proposed condition 77.

Contention 3: Additional required information

42. All additional required information requested by the Council has been provided to it, resulting in satisfaction of this contention. This includes owners’ consent for works on 6 Glencarron Avenue, which consent from each of the owners at 6A and 6B Glencarron Avenue has been sighted by the Court. That consent has been provided on the condition that the development proceed in accordance with the plans identified in the draft consent order and condition 1 of the draft Development Consent conditions.

Concerns of Objectors

43. Four submissions were made on the amended plans the subject of the proposed consent orders. These submissions were made following notification of the proposed consent orders hearing. These submissions are set out below.

44. Mr Costa of 6B Glencarron Avenue confirmed that he had no further objections, was happy with the consent orders and did not wish to be heard.

45. Mr David Liddy, Solicitor, responded on behalf of Mr and Mrs Hudson of 3 Glencarron Avenue. Mr Liddy confirmed that after he had gone through the changes and amended drawings with his clients, there was nothing that adversely impacted them.

46. Mr Liddy also responded on behalf of his clients Mr and Mrs Feyder of 30C Stanton Avenue. He confirmed that his clients had had their concerns addressed, provided that the drawings that had been the subject of his instructions were included in the approval. His clients were content not to attend the hearing. I note that as the Court has been advised that the plans and drawings the subject of this consent orders hearing were those which were the subject of consultation, this proviso is satisfied.

47. Mr Wilkinson of 1/30B Stanton Road made two requests for minor modification to the application: firstly, that the dilapidation report be extended from only “buildings and improvements” to include “trees 7/8/9/10 on our property”. Further, he sought a clause in the buildings/dilapidations conditions that provides for replacement of similar type/size trees in such an event.

48. Secondly, with respect to clause 48 – “no parking on or damage to Council roads or footpath” – Mr Wilkinson sought inclusion of the small grass Council reserve at the rear of the property, due to the risk of damage from rubbish, tradesmen, delivery vehicles and the like.

49. Council responded through its lawyers to Mr Wilkinson on 28 March 2017 in the following terms:

1. Clause 9 – Dilapidation Report

Council only requires dilapidation reports for buildings not vegetation.

Further Council does not have the power to require replacement of vegetation or trees on adjoining properties.

Having said this, the Council’s arborist is satisfied that the work should be able to be carried out without any damage to your trees/vegetation.

2. Clause 48

Council has amended this condition taking into account your comments and a copy of the amended condition is attached.

50. I note that proposed condition 48 provides relevantly, that “[n]o construction vehicles…waste, machinery or related matter shall be stored on the road, footpath or unnamed reserve adjoining the site…” (emphasis mine).

51. With respect to the concern regarding trees, the Court was advised that two arborists had attended the mediation and potential tree impacts were considered. Subsequent to the sending of the correspondence of 28 March 2017 extracted above, the Court was advised that the solicitor for the Council had been advised by Mr Wilkinson that he did not wish to be heard. Accordingly I am satisfied that this concern has been resolved.

Conclusions

52. In my view, the clause 4.6 variation application is well-founded, and the application for variation is granted. Accordingly the non-compliance with FSR is no bar to the granting of development consent.

53. The Council is of the view that the proposal as submitted to the Court is acceptable, and that each of its contentions has been dealt with satisfactorily. The objectors are satisfied save for the one matter raised by one objector with respect to potential impact on trees, which matter has been resolved to the extent that it can, noting that the Council’s arborist is satisfied that the work should be able to be carried out without damage to trees located on the property described as 1/30B Stanton Road.

54. Based upon the evidence presented to the Court, there is no reason why development consent for this proposal ought not be given. The parties have satisfied the Court that the concerns of the objectors have been met.

55. I accept that the amendments to the proposal have addressed Council’s original contentions of concern in relation to the proposal.

56. In considering the amended plans and documents and agreed conditions of consent, and taking into consideration the issues raised by the objectors, I am satisfied that it is lawful and appropriate to grant consent to the proposal, having regard to the whole of the circumstances.

57. While not a relevant matter for my consideration, it is pleasing to note that the outcome described by the parties has arisen from the parties’ taking advantage of a process designed to encourage a just, quick and cheap resolution of the dispute. It is also noted that the apparent willingness of the parties to negotiate, and the constructive participation of the objectors, have led to a negotiated outcome.

Orders

58. The orders of the Court are:

1. The Clause 4.6 variation application by the Applicant in relation to the Floor Space Ratio standard is upheld.

2. Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely upon amended plans and documents referred to in condition 1 of the Conditions of Consent attached and marked “A”.

3. Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the Applicant is to pay the Council’s costs thrown away as a result of the amendment referred to in Order 2.

4. It is agreed that the costs referred to in Order 3 above and ordered to be paid on 15 November 2016 shall be $3000 (exclusive of GST). The Applicant is to pay the Council this amount within 28 (twenty eight) days of these Orders being made by the Court.

5. The appeal is upheld.

6. Development Consent is granted to Development Application No. 8.2016.89.1 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new dwelling house at 8 Glencarron Avenue, Mosman, NSW 2088 (Lot 12 in DP 17847) subject to the conditions annexed marked “A”.

7. The Exhibits are returned.

________________

Rosemary Martin

Senior Commissioner of the Court

321244.16 Annexure A (C) (144 KB, pdf)

Amendments

13 April 2017 - Conditions added

Decision last updated: 13 April 2017