LOVE and CITY OF JOONDALUP
[2006] WASAT 69
•22 MARCH 2006
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES
ACT: TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 1928 (WA)
CITATION: LOVE and CITY OF JOONDALUP [2006] WASAT 69
MEMBER: MR J JORDAN (MEMBER)
HEARD: 15 DECEMBER 2005
DELIVERED : 22 MARCH 2006
FILE NO/S: DR 577 of 2005
BETWEEN: ANTHONY LOVE
Applicant
AND
CITY OF JOONDALUP
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning – Development refusal – Child care centre – Residential zone – Residential use adjoining – Preference for nonresidential uses adjoining – Location on access road – Actual use of road – Compliance with noise regulations – Impact on amenity of neighbours – Application of policy
Legislation:
Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA)
Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA), reg 8
City of Joondalup District Planning Scheme No 2, cl 6.8.1, cl 6.8.2, cl 6.8.2(a), cl 6.8.2(c)
Metropolitan Region Scheme
Result:
The application for review of the respondent's refusal to grant planning consent for the proposed child care centre is dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Mr Patrick Burke
Respondent: Mr Stephen Allerding
Solicitors:
Applicant: Hardy Bowen
Respondent: As Agent
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Ingram v Western Australian Planning Commission [2003] WASCA 77
Re Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Summary of Tribunal's decision
Mr Anthony Love applied to the City of Joondalup for planning approval to demolish two houses and build a child care centre for 56 children on the corner of Ocean Reef Road and Marybrook Road, Heathridge. The land is zoned Residential and has houses adjoining on both the western and northern boundaries.
The City of Joondalup refused the application. The City considered that noise from the children and cars moving to and from the site would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring houses. The City also said the development would be in conflict with its policy preference for child care centres to be located adjacent to non‑residential uses, such as shopping centres.
Mr Love argued that the child care centre can be developed and operated to meet the requirements of the noise regulations in a locality already noisy because of the traffic on Ocean Reef Road. He said vehicles attracted to the site would not have an adverse impact.
Examination of the proposed development reveals that the extent to which developmental and environmental items might be addressed is not sufficient to fully overcome the amenity impact on this residential locality. The Tribunal has found that in the circumstances of this proposal this is not an instance in which to set aside the policy.
The Tribunal therefore decided to refuse the application.
Introduction
Synergy WA Pty Ltd and Tonic Holding Pty Ltd own Lot 61 and Lot 62 in Heathridge. Lot 61 and Lot 62 (subject land) are two of six residential lots in a street block bounded to the south by Ocean Reef Road, the east by Marybrook Road, the north by Templemore Drive and to the west by Norlup Place. Three lots front Marybrook Road: Lot 62 on the corner at the junction with Ocean Reef Road, Lot 61 abutting to the north and Lot 60 abutting to the north again. To the rear, facing Norlup Place, which is a cul‑de‑sac at the Ocean Reef Road end, are Lot 57 and Lot 58 with a common rear boundary with the subject land and Lot 59 at the rear of Lot 60. Each lot in the street block contains a single house.
The subject land is at the southern edge of a triangular shaped "cell" bounded by 1.2 km of Ocean Reef Road, about 1.6 km of the Mitchell Freeway and about 0.8 km of Eddystone Avenue, which is a north‑south district distributor. The only two roads providing access into this cell are Marybrook Road from the south and Conidae Drive off Eddystone Avenue from the west. Other than local parks, land use in this cell is single residential. The Belridge City Shopping Centre is located 300 metres to the west of the subject land on the south side of Ocean Reef Road and Eddystone Primary School is 700 metres distant to the west of Eddystone Avenue near the junction with Conidae Drive.
The proposed development
Mr Anthony Love (applicant), a director of Jellybeans Child Care and of Tonic Holdings Pty Ltd, applied for planning approval to develop a child care centre for a maximum of 56 children on the subject land. The houses on each of the lots would be demolished and the two lots amalgamated to create a lot with an area of 1433 square metres. The child care centre building would be located toward the southern boundary adjacent to the Ocean Reef Road frontage. Between the building and the side boundary of Lot 60 abutting to the north would be a car park with 17 bays and access from Marybrook Road.
Of the 56 children, 38 would be "kindy" children, aged three to five years. A play area for 18 kindy children would be between the child care centre building and the boundary with Lot 57 and another for the other 20 kindy children would be between the car park and Lot 58. Eight "babies" of up to two years of age and 10 "toddlers" of two and three years of age would have separate play areas at the south‑east corner of the subject land, between the child care centre building and Marybrook Road.
The child care centre would operate from 7.15 am to 6 pm, Monday to Friday. Ms Anna LeGrove, the manager of Jellybeans Child Care, said the kindy children would play outside for two half hour periods in the morning and two in the afternoon. The two kindy groups might play at the same time or the sessions might be staggered. The toddlers have half an hour in the morning and half an hour in the afternoon and the babies are outside occasionally. There would be no play between 11 am and 2 pm.
Planning framework
The subject land and all of the lots in the immediate locality are zoned Residential R20 in the City of Joondalup's District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS 2). Ocean Reef Road is reserved as an "Other Regional Road" under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. An objective of the Residential zone is:
"The residential zone is intended primarily for residential development in an environment where high standards of amenity and safety predominate to ensure the health and welfare of the population."
A child care centre is a "D" use under DPS 2, which means it is a use that is not permitted but which may be approved following advertising and having due regard to matters in cl 6.8.1, including:
"a)Interests of orderly and proper planing and preservation of the amenity of the relevant locality;
b)Any relevant submissions by the applicant;
d)Any planning policy the Council adopt under the provisions of clause 8.11;
e)Any other matter which under the provisions of the Scheme that Council is required to have due regard;
f)Any policy of the Commission or its predecessors or successors or any planning policy adopted by the Government of the State of Western Australia; …
i)The comments or wishes of any objectors to/or support of the application; … and
k)Any other matter which in the opinion of Council is relevant."
Clause 6.8.2 of DPS 2 sets out additional matters to be considered with an application for a "D" use:
"a)The nature of the proposed use and its relationship to other land in the locality;
b)The size, shape and character of the parcel of land to which the application relates and the nature and siting of any proposed building;
c)The nature of roads giving access to the subject land;
d)The parking facilities available or proposed and the likely requirements for parking arising from the proposed development;
e)Any relevant submissions or objections received by Council; and,
f)Such other matter that Council considers relevant whether of the same nature as the foregoing or otherwise."
The respondent adopted Local Planning Policy 3.1 – "Child Care Centres" (policy 3.1) in October 2005 as the latest version of its policy on child care centres A copy was provided to the Tribunal for its deliberations. The decision the subject of review was issued in September 2005 and refers to Policy 3.1.1 – "Child Care Centres". The Tribunal understands from the submission of Ms Claire Richards, a planner who was a witness for the applicant, that policy 3.1 and the earlier version policy 3.1.1 are the same where relevant to this proposal.
The objective of policy 3.1 is:
"… to provide guidance for the location and development of Child Care Centres to maximise user convenience and maintain a high level of amenity in residential areas."
Reference was also made by the parties to the Western Australian Planning Commission's Planning Bulletin No 72 – Child Care Centres, which sets out a draft policy for public comment. The respondent's submission was that policy 3.1 is consistent with the Commission's draft expression of its policy as expressed in the bulletin.
The refusal
The City of Joondalup (respondent) refused the application for reasons that can be summarised as:
a)the proposal is contrary to Policy 3.1.1 – Child Care Centres in that:
•the site does not adjoin non‑residential uses;
•the proposal is located on an access road in a residential area;
b)the proposal is contrary to subclauses of cl 6.8.2 of DPS 2, namely:
•6.8.2(a) the commercial nature of the proposed use is not compatible with existing land uses in the locality;
•6.8.2(c) the nature of the roads giving access to the subject land are inappropriate as they will distribute traffic to nearby access roads;
c)the proposal will have an impact on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding residential properties because of:
•increased intensity of use; and
•potential for car parking overflows on access roads.
Discussion
Application of policy
There was no dispute that the respondent's policy on child care centres, reissued as policy 3.1 in October 2005, but first issued in a similar form in 1995, was properly prepared and adopted by the respondent.
The proper approach to such policies was set out by Barker J in Ingram v Western Australian Planning Commission [2003] WASCA 77 at [14]:
"[T]here is no good reason in law why planning documents of this type, even though they have no legal status under the Act, should not be published by a decision‑maker for the purpose of guiding the future exercise of discretion. Indeed, there is every reason why this should be done in the interests of good public administration. The publication and use of 'policies' in these circumstances serves to promote consistent and rational decision‑making. The only qualification to this statement is that policies should not be applied inflexibly so that the circumstances of a case which suggest that a variance from a policy may be appropriate on a particular occasion are not ignored: see Falc Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission (1991) 5 WAR 522; and discussion in Clive Elliott Jennings & Co Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission (2002) WASCA 276 at para[25] and para[26]."
Mr Christopher Terelinck, a planner with the City of Joondalup, called as a witness by the respondent, said that the respondent has consistently applied policy 3.1 in refusing child care centres in such residential locations, notwithstanding that there was an example of an approval of a child care centre at Greenwood in a location with parallels to the subject land.
The applicant said to rely upon policy 3.1 without due enquiry as to the merits, is a failure to discharge the obligations under DPS 2. It was the applicant's submission that all policy 3.1 does is state a preference for a location of a child care centre on local distributor roads and near non‑residential uses. While the subject land was not on a designated distributor road and near a commercial use as preferred in policy 3.1, these were not grounds for refusing the application. All factors must be examined and if factors other than these two can be satisfactorily addressed then the proposed development should be allowed.
With the matters to be considered under cl 6.8.1 and cl 6.8.2 listed above and the provisions of policy 3.1 in mind, the merits of the proposed development can be examined. Prominent in both the provisions of DPS 2 and policy 3.1 is the impact of a proposed development on the amenity of the locality. A significant element in the consideration of amenity is noise.
Noise
The applicant contends that the proposed development complies with the standards of the Table 1 of reg 8 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA) (noise regulations). This table sets out how to determine the maximum allowable noise level, or assigned noise level, at identified noise sensitive premises. An "influencing factor" is added if there is proximity to a noise source, in this instance, Ocean Reef Road. The noise sensitive premises are the residences near the subject land and the assigned noise levels for these are:
| 7am to 7pm | LAmax dB(A) | LA1 dB(A) | LA10 dB(A) |
| Base level Influencing factor (Ocean Reef Road) | 65
| 55
| 45
|
| Assigned noise level | = 71 | = 61 | = 51 |
The noise regulations provide definitions of LA10, LA1 and LAmax. Simply put, "LA" refers to the level of noise in decibels ("dB") using the "A" frequency‑weighting characteristic, a measuring system set out in the relevant Australian Standard. The number refers to the percentage of the representative test period beyond which the assigned noise level must not be exceeded. For the LA10 standard the given noise level must not be exceeded more than 10% of the time and for LA1, one per cent of the time. LAmax is the maximum noise level not to be exceeded at any one time.
To compare predicted noise levels generated by the proposed development with assigned noise levels, Mr Nick Della Gatta, an acoustic engineer who appeared for the applicant, used as a base level readings of groups of children at a child care centre in Greenwood. For a measure of noise at the point of receival at Lot 57 and Lot 58, Mr Della Gatta reduced the base level by 3 dB(A) because of the distance from the source and 10 dB(A) because of the barrier effect of a 1.8 metre high fence along the boundary. Mr Della Gatta selected a separation distance of 14 metres, being 5 metres between the source and the fence and a further 9 metres to the rear wall of the houses on those lots. The noise level at the rear of the houses on Lot 57 and Lot 58 would therefore be, in his estimation:
| Lots 57 & 58 | LAmax dB(A) | LA1 dB(A) | LA10 dB(A) |
| Base noise level (Greenwood child care centre) | 77 | 73 | 59 |
| Distance reduction | -3 | -3 | -3 |
| Fence reduction | -10 | -10 | -10 |
| Resultant noise level | = 64 | = 60 | = 46 |
Mr Della Gatta did the same calculations for the house on Lot 60, using an 18 metre separation distance and got, respectively, 2 dB(A) less for each of the resultant noise levels. Mr Della Gatta said these figures showed that for Lots 57, 58 and 60 the noise from the playground complied with each of the assigned noise levels. The noise at Lot 59 would be less again, being slightly more distant.
For noise levels from the car park, Mr Della Gatta assigned a base level of 58 dB(A). For Lot 60, he then accounted for the fence but added a penalty of plus 10 dB(A) for impulsive noise. Impulsive noise can be described as that of a single event such as the slamming of a door. Mr Della Gatta said that, again, the assigned noise level of 71 dB(A) was not exceeded.
The respondent called Mr Scott Favacho, the Senior Environmental Health Officer of the City of Joondalup, who is experienced in the measurement of sound. Mr Favacho accepted the assigned noise levels for the noise sensitive premises. Under cross‑examination, he accepted that the noise levels at Lot 60 would not be as high as for Lot 57 and Lot 58.
There were points on which the two experts differed. Mr Favacho considered 5 dB(A) should be added for tonality arising from the noise of the children. Tonality was explained as typically a noise signature that comes from something reasonably regular or cyclic in nature, such that it can be measured by one of the two methods set out in the noise regulations. Examples given were a background hum or the persistent noise level of a crowd of people at a function. Mr Della Gatta did not agree that a tonality penalty should be included because the children's noise at the child care centre would be too broken up.
Mr Favacho submitted that the separation distance to the houses on Lot 57 and Lot 58 should be 5 metres, not 14 metres, measured as 2 metres from the fence on the subject land and 3 metres from the fence in the recreation areas of the neighbouring lots. He accepted that this was the "worst case scenario" but argued that it was the position at which to measure noise when addressing complaints. Also discussed at some length was the noise of children at the top of a fort or other equipment reducing the screening effect of fencing and the noise of children gathered for group activity at different locations in the play areas. A comparison table shows:
| Lots 57 and 58 | LAmax dB(A) | LA1 dB(A) | LA10 dB(A) |
| Assigned noise level | 71 | 61 | 51 |
| Della Gatta Estimated noise level | 64 | 60 | 46 |
| Favacho estimated noise level: raised equipment, tonality, reduced setback | 75 | 71 | 57 |
| Favacho estimated noise level: minus tonality | 70 | 66 | 52 |
| Lot 60 | |||
| Actual noise level reading at Lot 60 | 68 | 65 | 47 |
| Della Gatta estimated noise level from children | 62 | 58 | 44 |
The readings at Lot 60 were taken by Mr Favacho at about 1.00 pm. Mr Favacho agreed that this would mostly be noise from Ocean Reef Road. These can be compared with Mr Della Gatta's estimated noise levels of the children at Lot 60. Mr Favacho, when examined, agreed that the road made this a noisy area. When asked if the road noise would mask the noise of the children, Mr Favacho said road noise was low frequency, children's noise more high pitched and road noise was also not constant as traffic lights resulted in peaks and quiet periods. He did say, however, that road noise would often mask the noise of the children.
There was no dispute that, in dealing with noise there are two matters to be dealt with. One is the compliance or non-compliance with the noise regulations and the other is the effect of noise on amenity.
As to compliance with the noise regulations, the parties agreed that noise modelling is not an exact science. Results depend upon such factors as the length and time of test periods, influencing factors and the quality of the base measurements provided as a starting point for calculations. Those measuring must decide whether readings are adjusted to take into account tonality, modulation or impulsiveness of the noise and from where, within the noise receiving property, the measurement of noise is taken.
The comparison table shows that, depending upon method, assumptions and calculations it can be shown that the estimated noise level is above, at or below the minimum standard. Ultimately, the Tribunal is of the view that there is no requirement for a definitive judgment as to whether the proposed child care centre will comply with the standards set out in the noise regulations. A comment that can be made is that, generally speaking, it does not take an exceptional variation from where measurements are taken and what is included or excluded to have the estimated noise levels move from compliance to non‑compliance with the assigned noise level.
The second consideration is the effect of noise on amenity. Policy 3.1 states that care should be taken to ensure play areas are not located adjacent to private open space or living areas. The policy, however, also prefers that parking be in front of buildings. This requires play areas to be to the side or rear. This would not have impact where the neighbouring use is non‑residential, but in this proposal the play areas are located adjacent to private open space because the neighbouring uses are residential.
Mr Della Gatta recommended that all fences be of solid construction at least 1.8 metres high, play areas be at least 10 metres from the boundary with Lot 60 and that a vegetation buffer be provided along that boundary. In relation to Lot 57, he recommended the play area be as close as possible to Ocean Reef Road. Mr Della Gatta also recommended that the kindy children play in two groups of not more than 20 and that they preferably have staggered play times. He said that play equipment should preferably be plastic. The applicant submitted that a condition requiring that there be no fort or like concentration points would be acceptable.
The conditions suggested to reduce impact on the amenity of neighbours give rise to concerns. The conditions would be difficult to police and can be argued to go beyond being incidental to striking directly at the proposed use.
The applicant does make a strong point that there is a significant level of noise in this locality because of the noise from Ocean Reef Road and this noise would at times mask the noise from the child care centre. The Tribunal has accepted, however, that this noise is not constant and the additional noise that would be introduced by the increased intensity of use and the nature of it would have an impact on the amenity of the neighbours.
Location on Marybrook Road
Policy 3.1, using road classifications from the Main Roads Functional Road Hierarchy (August 1999), states under the heading "Location":
"1.Road Hierarchy
Child care centres are reasonably high traffic generators and should therefore should not be located on Primary District Distributors where the primary function is to cater for through traffic or on Local Distributors in close proximity to District Distributors or in or adjacent to Access Roads in residential areas where amenity, safety and aesthetics must take priority. Accordingly, these Centres should be located on Local Distributor roads in such a fashion that they will not conflict with traffic control devices and will not encourage the use of near‑by Access Roads for turning movements."
The applicant called Mr Lachlan Millar, a traffic engineer. Mr Millar acknowledged that Marybrook Road is classified as an access road in the road hierarchy, but said that, in the vicinity of the subject land the road had some characteristics of a local distributor road. This was because Marybrook Road was one of only two roads providing access to this residential cell and had a junction with Ocean Reef Road, a district distributor road. There was no local distributor road which would normally be the next level of road in the hierarchy and so traffic entering the cell was therefore distributed from Marybrook Road, which had a carriageway some 14 metres wide and carried 3000 vehicles per day. Mr Millar was of the opinion that the traffic function of the section of Marybrook Road near the subject land was in excess of that of a normal access road.
Mr Millar said the site distance between the proposed car park access and Ocean Reef Road would be about 45 metres which exceeds the minimum site distance of 30 metres for speeds of less than 45 kilometres per hour. There has been an average of one crash per year at the intersection up to 2003. The access to the proposed use would therefore not interfere with the function of the Ocean Reef Road junction and the driveway was safe. The existing driveway to the house on the corner would be removed. Vehicles arriving at the child care centre would, in Mr Millar's estimation, be 70% from Ocean Reef Road and 30% from the north of the child care centre.
It was Mr Millar's opinion that the addition of up to 186 additional vehicle trips per day, with 56 of these trips occurring during peak hour, would not have an adverse impact on the amenity and safety of Marybrook Road.
Mr Terelinck was of the view that the concentration of traffic on the local access roads at morning delivery and afternoon pick‑up times would have an impact on the amenity of nearby residences and would affect use of local roads by residents. He was of the view that the introduction of a traffic generating commercial use would not be consistent with the amenity expectations of the nearby residents, particularly those who had an expectation that Marybrook Road would function consistent with its classification as an access road serving a low density single residential locality. When examined, Mr Millar accepted that deliberately attracting traffic from outside the residential cell would be contrary to the normal function of an access road.
The Tribunal accepts that in terms of the number of vehicle movements on Marybrook Road the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on traffic flows. In the absence of empirical evidence to the contrary it is noted that the use of the entry to the proposed car park can be safe in the particular circumstances described, although the concentration of vehicles at that time would be obvious to nearby residents. The absence of evidence makes less convincing the opinion that just 30% of vehicles will travel from the north in the residential cell to the child care centre with the rest being from Ocean Reef Road.
Adjoining uses
Policy 3.1 states, again under the heading "Location":
"2.Neighbouring Uses
Wherever possible it is preferred to locate Child Care Centres adjacent to non-residential uses such as Shopping Centres, Medical Centres/Consulting Rooms, School Sites and Community Purpose Buildings to minimise the impact such centres will have on the amenity of residential areas."
As explained above, the subject land is a corner lot with single houses abutting to the west and the north. Directly over the road are single residences. Mr Terelinck said the proposed child care centre is in conflict with policy 3.1 because it would not be located adjacent to non‑residential uses. This, he said, was in conflict with the strategic intent of the respondent.
Ms Richards agreed that policy 3.1 encourages the siting of child care centres adjacent to non‑residential uses, but argued that this did not make the proposed development inappropriate. The intent of policy 3.1, in her view, was not to restrict child care centres from locating adjacent to residential land, but to ensure in such circumstances the impact on the amenity of these residential areas is minimised. In her opinion, the proposed development did not adversely impact on the local amenity because of the findings of Mr Millar and the noise expert and so was consistent with the intent of policy 3.1.1.
The applicant provided a copy of a document with signatures from people in the four adjoining houses and three houses over the road on which it was stated they "give my approval" for the development. The respondent produced letters from occupants of three of the adjoining residents in which they opposed the development, changing their minds, together with objection letters from the partners of two of them. Counsel for the applicant highlighted that the objecting letters included wrong information on the days and times of opening. Mrs Adrienne Lorelei Fischer, of Lot 59, gave evidence on how she believed the noise of the child care centre would disturb what was for her a quiet locality and would interrupt the use of her rear yard. Her main concern was that the safety of her home would be compromised after hours when the child care centre was unoccupied, although there was no evidence to support this assertion of behaviour at such uses after hours.
The Tribunal finds that the current amenity of the neighbouring houses is influenced by the two single residences on the subject land. The proposed intensification of activity would add discernable noise and movement. The Tribunal is not convinced it would be appropriate to set aside the preference in policy 3.1 for child care centres to be adjacent to non‑residential uses and allow car parking and outdoor play areas to be developed adjacent to residential recreational spaces and openings to habitable rooms.
Parking
There was no dispute that the 17 parking bays to be provided were two more than the parking standard and that the layout complied with policy 3.1. Mr Terelinck, however, was concerned that there would be an adverse impact on the amenity of the locality from vehicles being parked on the verge as a matter of convenience and during special occasions when parents stayed for an extended period of time. Ms Richards said that simple control methods would prevent casual verge parking and Ms LeGrove said it was likely to be very few times a year that there would be any special event at which there might be an overflow of vehicles. The Tribunal accepts that parking for the proposed use can be reasonably managed.
Conclusion
Policy 3.1 adopted by the respondent is generally sound and consistently applied. The policy sets out locational criteria and development standards for child care centres with the clear objective that an adverse impact on residential amenity is to be avoided, or at the very least limited.
It is clear that policy 3.1, by itself cannot preclude the approval or refusal of the proposed development. The applicant says that the proposed development is an appropriate use having regard to the present amenity of the locality, the nature of the proposed development and the manner in which it addresses issues of amenity, safety and aesthetics, traffic impact and noise. While the proposed location is not that preferred in policy 3.1, the proposed use would not be in conflict with the objectives of the residential zone as it does not have an adverse effect.
In Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, Brennan J confirmed the freedom of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to apply or not apply the policy. He noted, however, that departures from government policy would be "cautious and sparing", occurring only where there were "cogent reasons": [644 – 5].
Examination of the proposed development reveals that the extent to which developmental and environmental items might be addressed is not sufficient to fully overcome the amenity impact on this residential locality. The Tribunal has found that in the circumstances of this proposal this is not an instance in which to set aside the policy.
The Tribunal has therefore decided to refuse the application.
Orders
The application for review of the respondent's refusal to grant planning consent for the proposed child care centre is dismissed.
I certify that this and the preceding [56] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J JORDAN, MEMBER
3
2
4