NOSTREBOR Holdings Pty Ltd and Shire of Denmark
[2014] WASAT 64
•14 MAY 2014
NOSTREBOR HOLDINGS PTY LTD and SHIRE OF DENMARK [2014] WASAT 64
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2014] WASAT 64 | |
| 10/06/2014 | |||
| PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:76/2014 | 14 MAY 2014 | |
| Coram: | JUDGE D R PARRY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT) | 14/05/14 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Respondent has power to vary the density code in relation to the development application | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | NOSTREBOR HOLDINGS PTY LTD FRENESI PTY LTD SVEN JAMES ROBERTSON SHIRE OF DENMARK |
Catchwords: | Town planning Mixed use commercial and residential development Preliminary issue Interpretation of planning scheme Whether there is power to vary density code designated or Scheme Map under provision of local planning scheme stating that '[w]here Residential development is proposed in conjunction with other development in the Commercial zone, Council shall determine the appropriate density code to apply for development requirement purposes' |
Legislation: | Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 5, s 56(2) Shire of Denmark Town Planning Scheme No 3, cl 3.1.3, cl 3.2.1, cl 5.2.1, cl 5.2.3, cl 5.3.1, cl 5.3.2, cl 5.3.3 State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes |
Case References: | AB v State of Western Australia & Anor [2011] HCA 42; (2011) 244 CLR 390; (2011) 85 ALJR 1233 LandCorp and City of Stirling [2011] WASAT 202 |
Orders | On the application heard before Deputy President, Judge Parry on 14 May 2014, it is ordered that:,1. The preliminary issue is answered as follows:,The respondent has power to vary the density code in relation to the development application under cl 5.3.3 of the Shire of Denmark Town Planning Scheme No. 3. ,2. The matter is referred to mediation at the respondent's office on a date to be set.,3. By 16 May 2014 the applicant is to advise the Tribunal of mutually available dates for a one day mediation. |
Summary | The Tribunal was called upon to determine whether the Shire of Denmark has power to vary the density code designated on the Scheme Map under the Shire of Denmark Town Planning Scheme No 3 (TPS 3) in relation to a development application proposing mixed use development on land zoned Commercial under TPS 3.,Clause 5.3.3 of TPS 3 states:,'Where Residential development is proposed in conjunction with other development in the Commercial Zone, Council shall determine the appropriate density code to apply for development requirement purposes'.,The Tribunal determined that, on its proper interpretation, cl 5.3.3 of TPS 3 authorises and requires the Shire of Denmark to determine the appropriate density code to apply for a mixed use, including residential development when a development application is made for such development in the Commercial zone, even if the Scheme Map designates a particular density coding for the land. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA) CITATION : NOSTREBOR HOLDINGS PTY LTD and SHIRE OF DENMARK [2014] WASAT 64 MEMBER : JUDGE D R PARRY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT) HEARD : 14 MAY 2014 DELIVERED : 14 MAY 2014 PUBLISHED : 10 JUNE 2014 FILE NO/S : DR 76 of 2014 BETWEEN : NOSTREBOR HOLDINGS PTY LTD
- FRENESI PTY LTD
SVEN JAMES ROBERTSON
Applicants
AND
SHIRE OF DENMARK
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning Mixed use commercial and residential development Preliminary issue Interpretation of planning scheme Whether there is power to vary density code designated or Scheme Map under provision of local planning scheme stating that '[w]here Residential development is proposed in conjunction with other development in the Commercial zone, Council shall determine the appropriate density code to apply for development requirement purposes'
Legislation:
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 5, s 56(2)
Shire of Denmark Town Planning Scheme No 3, cl 3.1.3, cl 3.2.1, cl 5.2.1, cl 5.2.3, cl 5.3.1, cl 5.3.2, cl 5.3.3
State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes
Result:
Respondent has power to vary the density code in relation to the development application
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
The Tribunal was called upon to determine whether the Shire of Denmark has power to vary the density code designated on the Scheme Map under the Shire of Denmark Town Planning Scheme No 3 (TPS 3) in relation to a development application proposing mixed use development on land zoned Commercial under TPS 3.
Clause 5.3.3 of TPS 3 states:
- Where Residential development is proposed in conjunction with other development in the Commercial Zone, Council shall determine the appropriate density code to apply for development requirement purposes.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicants : Ms B Moharich
Respondent : Mr DW McLeod
Solicitors:
Applicants : Flint Moharich
Respondent : McLeods Barristers & Solicitors
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
AB v State of Western Australia & Anor [2011] HCA 42; (2011) 244 CLR 390; (2011) 85 ALJR 1233
LandCorp and City of Stirling [2011] WASAT 202
Preliminary issue
1 The following preliminary issue arises for determination in a proceeding for review of the refusal by the Shire of Denmark (Shire or Council) of a development application for mixed use, including residential development, at No 3 Strickland Street, Denmark (site):
Whether there is power to vary the density code in relation to the development application under clause 5.3.3 of the Shire of Denmark Town Planning Scheme No 3 (TPS 3 or Scheme).
2 The proposed development comprises a café and four tenancies at ground floor for commercial or residential use and seven units for residential use at the first floor. The site is zoned 'Commercial' under TPS 3. A residential density coding of R25 applies to the site, as designated on the Scheme Map. As the site has an area of 1,641m2, the R25 coding would allow four dwellings on the site.
3 The preliminary issue turns on the proper interpretation of cl 5.3.3 of TPS 3, which states as follows:
Where Residential development is proposed in conjunction with other development in the Commercial Zone, Council shall determine the appropriate density code to apply for development requirement purposes.
4 Also relevant, in terms of statutory context, is cl 5.3.1 and cl 5.2.3 of TPS 3. These provisions are as follows:
5.3.1. Where Residential development is permitted in areas not allocated a density code on the Scheme Map, such development shall in all respects be in accordance with the requirements of the R2 Code of the Residential Planning Codes.
5.2.3 Unless otherwise provided for in the Scheme the development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the Residential Planning Codes shall conform to the provisions of those Codes.
5 The expression 'Residential Planning Codes' in cl 5.3.1 and cl 5.2.3 of TPS 3 is now to be taken as a reference to the State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes (Codes).
6 TPS 3 does not contain a provision which is typically found in local planning schemes modelled on cl 5.2.3 of the Model Scheme Text (Appendix B of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 (WA)), to the effect that the Residential Planning Code density applicable to land in the Scheme area is to be determined by reference to the code density number superimposed on the Scheme Map. However, it is common ground, and plainly contemplated by TPS 3, that the Scheme Map can allocate a density code to land. This is implicit in cl 5.2.3, because conformity to important provisions of the Codes can only be determined if land is allocated a particular residential density code referred to in Table 1 of the Codes. It is also explicitly recognised in cl 5.3.1 of TPS 3, which refers to land 'not allocated a density code on the Scheme Map'.
7 The applicants contend that, on its proper interpretation, cl 5.3.3 of TPS 3 confers power on the Council to vary the density code in relation to the development application, and determine that another density code should be applied for development requirement purposes in the context of the proposed development. Counsel for the applicants recognises that, on the applicants' proposed interpretation, the Council may determine that a lesser density code is appropriate, or that a higher density code is appropriate, in the context of the determination of the appropriate density code to apply for development requirement purposes.
8 In contrast, the Shire contends that cl 5.3.3 of TPS 3 does not confer power on it to vary the density code in relation to the development application, essentially because it has already determined the appropriate density code by allocating a residential density code of R25 to the site by designation on the Scheme Map.
9 For reasons I will address, I accept the applicants' proposed interpretation of cl 5.3.3 of the Scheme.
Is there power to vary the density code in relation to the development application?
10 As the High Court of Australia observed in AB v State of Western Australia & Anor [2011] HCA 42; (2011) 244 CLR 390; (2011) 85 ALJR 1233 at [10]:
What is contemplated by [a legislative provision] falls to be determined by construing its terms in the context of the [legislation] as a whole and by reference to its evident purposes.
(Citations omitted)
11 It is also to be borne in mind that the legislative provision in question is a provision of a town planning scheme which, as the Tribunal recognised in LandCorp and City of Stirling [2011] WASAT 202 at [26], is the product of town planners, not Parliamentary Counsel, and is to be read as a whole and in a practical and commonsense, and not in an overly technical way, and in a fashion which will best achieve its evident planning purpose.
12 In my view, read in this way, there are textual, contextual and purposive indications to the effect that, on its proper interpretation, cl 5.3.3 of TPS 3 confers power to vary the density code in relation to the development application.
13 By its terms, cl 5.3.3 applies when a development application for mixed use, including Residential development, is made to the Council in relation to land in the Commercial zone. The clause operates:
[w]here Residential development is proposed in conjunction with other development in the Commercial Zone ….
14 Furthermore, in circumstances where cl 5.3.3 applies, it imposes a mandatory obligation on the Council to determine the appropriate density code to apply, as it states that where a mixed use, including Residential development is proposed in the Commercial zone:
… Council shall determine the appropriate density code to apply for development requirement purposes.
15 Section 56(2) of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) (Interpretation Act) states:
Where in a written law the word 'shall' is used in conferring a function, such word shall be interpreted to mean that the function so conferred must be performed.
16 The term 'written law' is defined in s 5 of the Interpretation Act as including 'all subsidiary legislation' and the term 'subsidiary legislation' is defined in s 5 of the Interpretation Act as including a local planning scheme, such as TPS 3.
17 Thus, on a literal interpretation of cl 5.3.3 of TPS 3, where a development application for mixed use, including Residential development is made to the Council in relation to land in the Commercial zone, the Council must determine the appropriate density code to apply for development requirement purposes. This is a mandatory obligation whether or not there is an existing residential density code applicable to the land, and irrespective of what that density code is.
18 As noted earlier, under cl 5.3.1 of TPS 3, where there is no residential density code assigned to land, and where residential development is permitted on the land, the R2 Code applies essentially as a default provision. However, as also noted earlier, it is implicit in cl 5.2.3 of TPS 3 and explicitly recognised in cl 5.3.1 that the Scheme Map can designate an alternative residential density coding for land in the Scheme area. In this case, there is an alternative residential density coding to cl 5.3.1 allocated on the Scheme Map for the site, namely, a coding of R25.
19 However, irrespective of whether there is an allocated density code for land in the Commercial zone on the Scheme Map, the text of cl 5.3.3, in my view, requires the Council to determine the appropriate density code in relation to a development application for mixed use, including Residential development, when such a development application is made to it in relation to land in the Commercial zone.
20 Of course, the Council could determine, under cl 5.3.3 of TPS 3, that the appropriate density code to apply for development requirement purposes is the density code that has been allocated to the land under or, more correctly, on the Scheme Map. No doubt the Council would give very careful consideration, in the context of a particular mixed use development, as to whether that development warrants any variation to the residential density coding.
21 It is also possible, as counsel for the applicants recognised, that the Council may determine, in the context of a particular proposed mixed use development, that the appropriate density code to apply for development requirement purposes is less than the density code on the Scheme Map that would otherwise apply to residential development.
22 However, on the proper interpretation of cl 5.3.3 of TPS 3, the Council, in my view, is bound to consider whether the code should be varied, whether the applicable code is the default code of R2 or another code allocated to the land in question. On the proper interpretation of cl 5.3.3 of TPS 3, the fact that land in the Commercial zone has previously been allocated a density code on the Scheme Map cannot satisfy the requirement of cl 5.3.3, because the Council is obligated, by cl 5.3.3, to determine an appropriate density code when mixed use development is proposed; that is, when a development application for mixed use development is made to it.
23 Furthermore, on the proper interpretation of cl 5.3.3, the fact that land in the Commercial zone has previously been allocated a density code on the Scheme Map cannot satisfy the requirement of cl 5.3.3, because the density code allocated on the Scheme Map applies to all residential development on the land, including residential development that is not proposed in conjunction with other development on the land. In contrast, cl 5.3.3 specifically requires designation of an appropriate density code by Council when mixed use development, and not purely residential development, is proposed.
24 A final textual indication, in my view, is the use of the word 'determine' in cl 5.3.3. The determination by the Council of the appropriate density code to apply does not require an allocation of a density code on the Scheme Map. It simply requires a resolution of the Council. Indeed, an allocation of a density code on the Scheme Map involves more than merely a determination by the Council, as it requires the translation of that determination into the Scheme Map itself.
25 There is also a related contextual indication in TPS 3 which leads to the same interpretation. The use of the word 'determine' in cl 5.3.3 is to be contrasted with the use of the words 'not allocated a density code on the Scheme Map' in cl 5.3.1. The contrast in language indicates that the clauses contemplate different processes. In particular, the requirement for determination of the appropriate density code under cl 5.3.3 is not satisfied by the allocation of a density code on the Scheme Map.
26 A purposive interpretation, in my view, arrives at the same result. The evident purpose of this provision is to confer flexibility and discretion on the Council in a very specific context, so as to encourage appropriate mixed use, including Residential development, in the Commercial zone.
27 The Council is authorised to respond to specific development proposals which involve mixed use development when such development is proposed, by considering, in the context of that development, what is the appropriate density code to apply. This enables the Council to encourage and approve appropriate mixed use development in the Commercial zone, even if such development proposes greater density than is contemplated by the default, that is, R2, or relevantly in this case, underlying R25 coding in the Scheme Map. This is consistent with cl 1.6(c) of the Objectives of TPS 3:
[T]o zone land for various purposes in order to promote orderly and proper development of the shire[,]
- as was submitted for the applicants.
28 It is also consistent with cl 1.6(j) of the Objectives of TPS 3:
[T]o provide for the subdivision and development of land in a manner suited to the economic activity of the region.
29 Counsel for the Shire presented very detailed submissions in support of a contrary interpretation. He observed that the Shire has, in the past, consistently applied cl 5.3.3 of TPS 3 in accordance with the interpretation contended by counsel for the Shire in this case; that is to say, the Council has always applied the underlying specific residential density coding on the Scheme Map when assessing a mixed use development for Commercial zoned land in its local government area.
30 I will address what I understand to be the Shire's key submissions as expressed in its written submissions, and as developed in the oral submissions today.
31 Firstly, the Shire submits that cl 5.3.3 should be interpreted so as to treat the code density allocated on the Scheme Map as the relevant determination by the Council of the appropriate coding to apply to the residential component of proposed mixed use development. For reasons that I have already given, in my view, the submission is incorrect. Clause 5.3.3 only operates and requires a determination by the Council where residential development is proposed in conjunction with other development in the Commercial zone. The density coding allocated on the Scheme Map cannot be treated as the relevant determination as the allocation of residential density coding on the Scheme Map occurred before, and is unrelated to the proposal for residential development in conjunction with other development in the Commercial zone contemplated by cl 5.3.3. Of course, as I have said, the Council may well take the view that the underlying residential density coding of R25 is appropriate when assessing the appropriate density code to apply for development requirement purposes in the context of a particular mixed use development proposal, or it may take the view that the characteristics of the mixed use development proposal and its particular qualities when assessed in the context of the particular characteristics of the development site, warrant a higher density code to apply for development requirement purposes.
32 The second principal submission made for the Shire is that if the Council was dealing with an application under cl 5.3.1 of TPS 3, without there having been an allocation of a specific residential code on the Scheme Map, then cl 5.3.1 would require the R2 Code to be applied, and:
It follows … that cl 5.3.3, interpreted in the manner that the Respondent proposes, has significant work to do as a modification of the provisions of cl 5.3.1, in the case of a mixed use development on Commercial zoned land, where no R Code density is assigned to the land on the Scheme Map.
33 These submissions are, of course, correct. However, it is recognised in the Shire's submissions that a density coding may be assigned for land in the Commercial zone on the Scheme Map. The fact that this can be done, as I have said, is necessarily implicit in cl 5.2.3 and expressly recognised in cl 5.3.1 of TPS 3. The fact that clause 5.3.1 would have work to do when there is no density code assigned to land on the Scheme Map does not mean that the clause has no work to do where there is a density code assigned to land on the Scheme Map.
34 Purely residential development is capable of approval on the site. The R25 coding would apply and could not be varied by the Council if wholly residential development were proposed on the site. However, cl 5.3.3 of the Scheme enables the Council to vary that underlying residential density coding where mixed use development is proposed, having regard to the particular circumstances of the proposed development and the site.
35 The third submission put for the Shire draws in aid the context of cl 5.3.3 in terms of cl 5.3.1 and cl 5.3.2. Clause 5.3.2 applies to the Rural zone specifically and states that no more than two single houses shall be permitted on any lot in the Rural zone unless written approval of the Council is granted.
36 The Shire emphasises, and it is common ground, that although most lots in the Commercial zone have a residential density code applied to them on the Scheme Map, there are approximately six to the southwest of the central part of Denmark which do not, and there is another lot at Ocean Beach which is zoned Commercial, but does not have a residential density code assigned to it on the Scheme Map.
37 Counsel for the Shire submits, having regard to the context of cl 5.3.1 and cl 5.3.2, and the fact that there are approximately six lots in the Commercial zone in the central part of Denmark and a further lot at Ocean Beach which do not have a residential density code applied to them on the Scheme Map, that:
It is not unreasonable in the circumstances to interpret cl 5.3.3 in a way which follows on from cl 5.3.1, which clearly deals with land where no R coding is assigned to it on the Scheme Map. [Clause] 5.3.3 can in those circumstances be seen as a variation of the broad proposition contained in cl 5.3.1, the variation being intended to deal with the specific case of residential development as part of a mixed use development on Commercial zoned land, where no R Code density is assigned to the land on the Scheme Map. In the absence of cl 5.3.3, the R2 density code would apply to the residential development component of mixed use proposal. The effect of cl 5.3.3 is to allow the Council to determine the R coding which would apply, instead of the R2 coding which would otherwise apply under cl 5.3.1.
38 In my view, certainly cl 5.3.1 and cl 5.3.2 form part of the context in which cl 5.3.3 is to be interpreted. However, all of these clauses are to be interpreted in the wider context, which does allow the Scheme Map to allocate a code for residential development. The Map has done so in the case of most, but not all, Commercial zoned lots. However, cl 5.3.3 does not say, nor does the context, in my view, require an interpretation that it only operates in the case of land where there is no underlying residential density coding allocated on the Scheme Map, and, therefore, the default coding applies.
39 Furthermore, and in any case, there is considerable conjecture as to why a number of lots in the Commercial zone have not been allocated a residential density code. It may well be that they were not allocated a residential density code because they have not been assessed for residential development, or because residential development is considered to be inappropriate. In my view, an interpretation of the Scheme, and in particular cl 5.3.3, cannot be based on the fact that there are lots which do not have a residential density coding imposed on the Scheme Map, as to do so would involve considerable conjecture as to the reason for those lots being uncoded.
40 Fourthly, counsel for the Shire emphasises the nature of the Commercial zone under the Scheme, and describes it as a special zoning, in that:
… it could reasonably be contemplated that commercial non-residential development would be proposed on Commercial zoned land.
41 He submits that, consequently, the assignment of a coding to Commercial zoned land on the Scheme Map is:
… a clear indication of the intent to apply the R25 coding to residential development, including residential development as an accompaniment to commercial non-residential development.
42 There is certainly force in counsel's submission. Regard must be had to the nature and character of the Commercial zone as disclosed in the provisions of the Scheme. However, as counsel for the applicants pointed out, residential development, including wholly residential development, is capable of approval in the Commercial zone. In particular, under the Zoning Table in cl 3.2.1 of TPS 3, a single house and a grouped dwelling are both 'AA' uses, meaning that the Council may, at its discretion, permit the use in the zone.
43 That being the case, it cannot be taken as a clear indication of the intent of the Scheme to apply the R25 coding to all residential development including mixed use development. There may well be locations within the Commercial zoned part of the Shire where a purely residential development would be proposed, and certainly such development is permissible, with consent, in that zone.
44 The R25 coding that applies to the land under the Scheme Map is certainly an indication that, in relation to purely residential development, the density should accord with R25 coding. It does not, however, indicate that where there is a mixed use development proposed that the residential component of such development should necessarily be no higher than a density of R25.
45 Fifthly, and related to this point, the Shire draws particular attention to the purpose and intent of the Commercial zone in the Scheme. Clause 3.1.3(c) states that the purpose and intent of the 'Commercial Zone' is 'for the major service, retail, office and entertainment uses in the town site'. It is submitted for the Shire that there is 'nothing in that statement of intent that refers in any way to the encouragement of residential uses'.
46 However, as counsel for the applicants submits, while the objectives of the zone are relevant and material in construing cl 5.3.3, they must be read together with other provisions and, in particular, the Zoning Table and the terms of cl 5.3.3 itself. As noted, the Zoning Table contemplates purely residential development on land in the Commercial zone, and cl 5.3.3 itself contemplates and, in my view, where appropriate, encourages mixed use development in the Commercial zone.
47 Sixthly, it is submitted for the Shire that the interpretation proposed on behalf of the applicants would, in effect, require a redrafting of cl 5.3.3 and, in particular, the reading into that clause of certain words.
48 Counsel for the applicants disagrees, and submits, in effect, that cl 5.3.3 means what it says; that is, that it applies where residential development is proposed in conjunction with other development in the Commercial zone.
49 For reasons that I have already given, I respectfully agree with that submission. Indeed, in my view, the Shire's proposed interpretation of cl 5.3.3 would require, in effect, words to be read into that provision that would make its operation subject to there being no residential density code on the Scheme Map which would apply to residential development on the site and would, in effect, restrict the operation of cl 5.3.3 to a small number of lots.
50 The Council also submits that if the applicants' proposed interpretation of the clause is correct, then a residential development could be contemplated, ranging anywhere from R1 to R200 coding. Although this is theoretically correct, the planning context of Denmark would no doubt be taken into account when the Council is called upon to address what is the appropriate density code to apply in the context of a particular mixed use development and site. It is highly unlikely that the Council would accept a high density development in that planning context.
51 Furthermore, as I have said, the Council would no doubt take into account the underlying coding of R25 that has been determined for residential development, and then consider the particular circumstances of the development application and the context of the site, as to whether a variation is indeed appropriate in the context or not.
52 A related submission from counsel for the Shire is that the Codes have been amended to enable flexibility in relation to multiple dwellings on land coded R30 and above. However, in my view, the Scheme provision cannot be interpreted by reference to subsequent amendments of the Codes.
53 Finally, in terms of the principal submissions made by the Shire, it is submitted that cl 5.3.3 can be seen as an encouragement for mixed use development, but only on those uncoded lots; that is to say, lots which do not have a density code assigned for residential development on the Scheme Map by giving the opportunity to the Council to assign a density code to the residential component higher than R2 that would apply to a residential development alone.
54 Counsel submits that that would seem very appropriate for encouragement of mixed use development on lots on the outskirts of town, or at Ocean Beach, where commercial and residential development might not otherwise be contemplated. He submits that that would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Commercial zone as set out in cl 3.1.3. However, as counsel correctly and fairly conceded, there is a great deal of conjecture in the submissions. There is simply no evidence before the Tribunal as to why six lots in the southwestern portion of the central commercial precinct of Denmark have not been coded, and why a lot at Ocean Beach has not been coded on the Scheme Map. In my view, cl 5.3.3 cannot be properly interpreted having regard to those other lots, given the level of conjecture and uncertainty involved.
55 In all of the circumstances, I am of the view that the applicants' proposed interpretation of cl 5.3.3 of the Scheme is correct, and that the Council of the Shire is required, by cl 5.3.3, to consider and determine the appropriate density code to apply for development requirement purposes in the context of the particular proposal in the development application.
Orders
56 The Tribunal makes the following orders:
1. The preliminary issue is answered as follows:
The respondent has power to vary the density code in relation to the development application under cl 5.3.3 of the Shire of Denmark Town Planning Scheme No 3.
2. The matter is referred to mediation at the respondent's office on a date to be set.
3. By 16 May 2014 the applicant is to advise the Tribunal of mutually available dates for a one day mediation.
I certify that this and the preceding [56] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
JUDGE D R PARRY, DEPUTY PRESIDENT
0
3
3