Revay and Unn Architects v Leichhardt Council

[2007] NSWLEC 651

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Revay & Unn Architects v Leichhardt Council [2007] NSWLEC 651

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Revay & Unn Architects

RESPONDENT
Leichardt Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

of 2007

CORAM:

Murrell C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :- adaptive re-use of warehouse for 21 residential Units, cross ventilation, height, privacy, balconies, open space, heritage, parking, floor space ratio, acoustic, residential flat design and streetscape

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2000
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

CASES CITED:

Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46

DATES OF HEARING:

5/07/2007, 6/07/2007 and 9/07/2007

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

9 July 2007

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Ms S. Duggan, barrister with
Mr P. Arcus, barrister
Instructed by Ms J Amy
of Shaw Reynolds Bowen and Gerathy

RESPONDENT
Mr S. Patterson, solicitor
of Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Murrell C

9 July 2007

10164 of 2007 Revay & Unn Architects v Leichardt Council

JUDGMENT

1 This is an appeal under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act1979, against Leichhardt Council’s deemed refusal of a development application for the property known as 17 to 25 Beeson Street, Leichhardt.

2 The proposed development is for the adaptive reuse of the existing warehouse for the amended 21 residential units. The subject site is 2070 square metres, has a frontage to Beeson Street of some 40 metres and a boundary to the west of some 47 metres which is the railway land, a goods railway. To the eastern boundary it is some 46 metres and the northern boundary is 51 metres. On the northern boundary are the properties or the residential dwellings that face Kegsworth Street and these properties, the built form is some 15 to 20 metres from their rear southern boundary and many of these properties have sheds within the rear yards.

3 The area is one that can be described as generally residential. The subject site is made up of No 17, which is a residential cottage. It is proposed to retain the residential cottage and the factory warehouse at 19 to 25 is proposed to be reused for residential purposes. The subject property is zoned residential under the Leichhardt relevant planning controls.

4 The Court early in the view asked whether the warehouse has a structural engineer’s report in terms of it being capable of adaptive reuse. Clearly the development application is for the adaptive reuse and one of the major tenors of this development application is that it will retain a significant proportion of the existing fabric of the warehouse building.

5 The Court met onsite with the parties on the first morning of the hearing and heard from a number of resident objectors. When the Court resumed back in Court, I detailed for the record all those who gave evidence to the Court and in that regard they represented some fifteen properties within the Kegsworth and Beeson Streets area.

6 In summary the concerns of the residents included the traffic and parking, in that the proposed development does not provide for adequate parking for all the residential units, that is the twenty three proposed in the application. There was also concern raised about the number of units and the density and intensity of the residential conversion of the warehouse building. Properties to the east of the site are concerned about amenity, in particular the aural and visual privacy amenity impacts of the proposed development with a number of residential units that face the side boundary of their properties.

7 Other issues raised by the residents concerned ESD matters, including heating and the fact that this is a particularly cold area. The other issue is that of heritage. It is noted that the two dwellings opposite the subject site are heritage listed under the council’s LEP and the Court must have regard to the impact on heritage buildings within the vicinity of proposed developments.

8 Evidence was given to the Court by a number of experts. Mr Robert Varga provided evidence on traffic and parking. The engineers for flooding issues, Mr Mark Tooker for the applicant and Mr David Paton for the respondent provided written statements and in terms of the planning expertise the Court heard from Miss Deborah Laidlaw, a consultant planner who gave evidence on behalf of the council. Mr Andrew Smith provided evidence for the applicant in the proceedings.

9 There are a number of issues raised in the statement of issues. I will not read for the record the statement of issues but shall summarise the issues raised by council. One is that the proposed development does not satisfy the provisions of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2000 in terms of cl 19(5) and I will state that when I go through the planning regime. Secondly, non-compliance with the floor space ratio standard. The LEP provides for a 0.5:1 ratio, the proposed development is in the vicinity of 1.7:1 and as such the council considers that the SEPP 1 objection in terms of FSR is not justified in the circumstances of the case in terms of impacts on surrounding developments.

10 Thirdly, the council raises the issue of external amenity and the fact that the proposed development would impact on adjoining neighbouring residential properties by reason of aural and visual privacy.

11 Fourthly council raised internal amenity concerns about the design principles for good pedestrian access and for safe and pleasant residential environments as set out in, what we refer to as, the orange book under SEPP 65, that is the residential flat design code. In particular council raised issues about the length of corridors and the internal amenity and the distance from the windows through to the rear of a number of residential properties exceeding the recommended maximum length as set out in the design code. Council also raised issues about the proposed development not being consistent with other matters within the residential flat design code, in terms of cross-ventilation, room heights, privacy, circulation spaces and balconies and open space. In terms of internal amenity there was also the issue raised about noise and vibration in terms of the goods rail line.

12 Fifhtly, the proposed development does not satisfy the council’s LEP, clause 19 subclause (7) about adaptable housing. The proposed development with the number of units under council’s LEP would require two adaptable housing units.

13 Sixthly, flooding was also raised as an issue by the council and hand-in-hand with that was the issue of stormwater.

14 Seventh, council raised as a major issue access and parking facilities, in that the proposed development would result in off-site impacts by the need for parking for the proposed development to be accommodated on-street. Lastly council raised the public interest and issues raised by objectors.

15 The Court heard from the experts on return to the Court and in that regard heard from Mr Varga, Ms Laidlaw and Mr Smith.

16 On the issue of parking Mr Varga identified to the Court that in his opinion the proposed development was satisfactory because the street could accommodate the overflow in parking. Ms Laidlaw indicated to the Court that given the density or intensity of the proposed development being in excess of more than three times the FSR control proposed in the council LEP that it was unreasonable for a development of this nature not to contain its impact in terms of off-site impacts. That is parking in her opinion the parking for the proposed development should allow for one parking space per residential unit as a minimum and the impacts that the parking would have of overspill in terms of the other residents in the streetscape.

17 During the proceedings Mr Varga was asked to respond to whether the building as shown in the plans, could accommodate additional parking spaces by the removal of a ground floor unit. That is, there are two units on the ground floor of the proposed development behind the parking bays. At the end of the day it was easily ascertained that an additional six parking spaces could be provided onsite and as such the applicant proffered an amendment to the development application to allow for the additional six parking spaces. In addition the other unit on the basement floor on the northern boundary was also deleted and this provides additional storage for the subject development.

18 In terms of the additional parking to be provided onsite, I agree with Ms Laidlaw that this development should not expect the overspill of parking to be accommodated in the street with consequent impacts for other residents in the street and as such the additional parking must be provided onsite.

19 The amended plan as proposed by the applicant is for twenty one units, that is with the deletion of units 5 and 6 on the northern ground floor. There are six additional parking spaces now taking the total to twenty eight parking, that is one space is to be allocated per unit with the larger units having two spaces and also the proposal provides for visitor parking. The amendments effectively in summary reduce the proposal by: one 2 bedroom unit; and one 3 bedroom unit. In addition one 3 bedroom unit has been reduced in size to a two bedroom unit.

20 The council did not object to the amendments and it was clear that the amendments were ones that could be considered in the context of the development application as submitted. In view of the fact that there would be reduced amenity impacts, it is not considered necessary that the proposed development application be readvertised.

21 In Ms Laidlaw’s opinion the development is still not satisfactory. She expressed concern about the length of corridors although it is noted, and she agreed that the excessively long corridor of some 36.5 metres which served units 5 and 6 is no longer an issue, but she considers that the corridor links are such that the development application is not appropriate. She is also concerned about the number of, or the predominance of one bedroom units which has been increased from 60% to 66%. She considers that this does not represent a proper mix in terms of unit sizes within the development. She said that there is opportunity to provide, or to amalgamate certain units, in particular along the eastern boundary, such that some of the one bedroom units could be amalgamated for say, two and three bedroom units, and in her opinion that would be a better outcome.

22 During the proceedings the Court also inquired as to the acoustic attenuation provided, in particular, for the eastern façade. The applicant has now proposed glass bricks to a height of 1.78 metres which is a 600 millimetre glass bricks on top of a rendered wall on the eastern boundary. In terms of external amenity the planners had already agreed prior to this change, that the visual privacy issues to the neighbours to the east are satisfactorily addressed, subject to conditions relating to the nature of screening to be provided on the eastern terrace openings.

23 The Court understands the concerns of the residents, in particular the concerns of the residents at No. 15 Beeson Street and to a lesser extent at No. 13 Beeson Street in that there will be change in that the proposed factory warehouse conversion for residential unit will result in a greater number of neighbours on their western boundaries. The Court, appreciates that people may not always embrace change, but the Court in its assessment must have regard to whether the impacts are reasonable or not.

24 In my assessment I do not consider the impacts on the rear yards of the properties in Beeson Street will be unreasonable by the conversion of the subject warehouse even though there will be a number of neighbours to this boundary. The plans are such that the impacts are ameliorated by the fact, firstly, No 17 is part of the development and that in itself provides for an 8.5 metres wide buffer. So in terms of separation distances, in an urban context the proposal satisfies what are general rules of thumb for separation distances, that is even if one could view/overlook adjoining properties. Secondly, the design of the balcony privacy walls will prevent same. T

25 The walls on the outer edge of the balconies, that is the glass brick and masonry walls, will be erected to a height of 1.78 metres, which is also above the generally accepted 1.5 metre, to ensure that the visual privacy of the residents to the east is maintained. Furthermore, it will not rely on landscaping as in the original proposal with a louvre system that may be dismantled because the glass bricks will become part of the new fabric of the warehouse conversion and the glass bricks will also provide noise attenuation.

26 As such for the aural privacy, I am also satisfied that the amelioration and the attenuation provided by the glass bricks and masonry wall will not represent unreasonable impacts for the neighbours to the north. It is true to say that with any neighbours one will hear noise from time to time. The test however is whether the design ameliorates those impacts or mitigates those impacts such that it would not create an unreasonable or undue disturbance.

27 I am satisfied the proposed development in terms of its design, in terms of the separation distances and the fact that there will be no direct sight lines achieved from the residential units facing east, is acceptable and satisfactory with the design now before the Court.

28 At this point I will address Ms Laidlaw’s concern about the number of residential units. Firstly, the number or the mix of residential units in terms of the predominance of one bedroom units in my assessment in terms of council’s controls is satisfactory. Furthermore, in terms of the design, if the one bedroom units were amalgamated, or some were amalgamated, to provide for larger units, that would create problems in terms of the depths of those units for the rear portions. In order to provide some interest in the corridor in Exhibit H it can be seen that it is not just a long continuous corridor, it is broken up by materials, it is broken by doorways and by some articulation and modulation. Further articulation and modulation in the corridor could even be achieved with one bedroom units as opposed to two and three bedroom units by some perhaps being a little smaller. However I do not consider this necessary and the design that I see in the plans before me is satisfactory in this regard also.

Statutory Planning Framework

a

29 The site is zoned residential under the Leichhardt LEP 2000. It was also brought to the Court’s attention that there is a draft LEP, amendment 8, this does not however impact on my assessment of the application, nonetheless it is a matter which I must take into consideration under s 79(C).

30 In terms of the general objectives of the plan, the general objectives include: to encourage the design of building structures and spaces which are compatible with the character, form and scale of the area; to provide an environment meeting the principles of good design; and maintain amenity and contribute to a sense of place and community.

31 For heritage conservation, there are a number of objectives that I must have regard to and the general provisions of developments in the vicinity of a heritage items, cl 16(7)

consent must not be granted for development on land in the vicinity of a heritage item unless the consent authority has made an assessment of the effect of the carrying out of the development will have on the heritage significance of the heritage item and its setting as well on any significant views to and from the heritage item.

32 I am satisfied and indeed it is noted there was an internal referral within council that states: there is no impact on the heritage items that would warrant refusal of this development application and indeed it has not been raised as an issue by the council in the proceedings. I do note that some of the residents were concerned about the impact on the heritage items. I also note that the proposed development includes new fencing outside the retained single dwelling at No. 17 such that it will be a fence that is more appropriate and in keeping with the streetscape, than that we see for No 17 today.

33 The objectives for housing, include relevantly: (a) to provide a development standard to ensure that the density and landscaped areas of new housing are complementary to, and compatible with the orientation and pattern of surrounding building works and landscaping and take into account the suite of controls in the development control plan, the relevant development control plan being 2000.

34 The general provisions which relate to the development application are cl 19 in that there is a control of an FSR of 0.5:1, and cl 19(5) clause I must have consideration to for the SEPP 1 objection is necessary in terms of landscaped area. The building conversion and adaptation subclause (5) states:

“Irrespective of subclauses 2 and 3, consent may be granted to alterations to a non-residential building in the residential zone, so as to allow it to be used for residential use if the consent authority is satisfied that:
(a) the building is substantially retained which means the building must be structurally capable of conversion without the need for the replacement of most of the structure; and
(b) any increase in floor space is contained generally within the envelope of the existing building; and
(c) the alteration of the building will meet the ecologically sustainable development objectives and controls of the plan; and
(d) the alterations have been designed with adequate provision for the intended occupants and those in the vicinity of the site of the proposed development in terms of amenity; and
(e) the appearance of the building after the alterations have been carried out will integrate and enhance the streetscape; and
(f) the alteration of the building will provide usable private outdoor recreation space for and directly adjoining each dwelling; and
(g) the conversion of the building will provide adequate accessible and secure parking spaces and bicycle storage facilities for residences of, and visitors to the building; and
(h) where the building is a heritage item in the vicinity of a heritage item, the conversion of the building meets the heritage objectives of the plan”.

35 Of the above the Council contends 19(d) (f) and (g) are not complied with. That is (d) the alterations designed for the amenity of the occupants and neighbours and (f) private open space areas and (g) which is the conversion adequate car parking.

36 The Court in its deliberations has also looked at the accompanying development control plan which speaks about the use of existing buildings and where a development proposal involves additions to an existing building, a change in use or intensification of use, the required parking is to be based on the generated demand arising from the additional component. As I stated, the issue of the parking at the end of the day was no longer an issue., given the amended plans.

37 Council in its DCP also has controls for the recycling or reuse of buildings which must be taken into consideration and that is the conversion of existing non-residential buildings. The principle is to encourage reuse of non-residential buildings in residential zones for either residential or community purposes, and the rationale is in terms of ESD and where non-residential buildings can no longer be used for the purpose of which they are built, alternative uses should be sought.

38 The council encourages non-residential uses as well provided they are compatible with the residential zoning. Criteria for assessment include:

• To minimise the amount of demolition undertaken in the reuse of buildings and maximise the recycling of site and building materials.
• Development will need to respect privacy of gardens, courtyards, balconies and inhabitable rooms of adjacent dwellings and specific attention to be focused on visual privacy
• in the adaptation of existing buildings for residential use, maximum private open space should be provided in the form of courtyards, roof gardens, communal open space.
• Due to layout constraints building reuse may require a design approach that provides private open space at standards below those set out in (b) 4.1 of this plan.
• Maximise solar access to the living areas of all dwellings if orientation and limitations in the adaptation of the building fabric dictates and justification is provided
• where buildings have a deep floor plan the sub-division desire deep spaces requires an energy efficient approach to ventilation, natural ventilation methods should be used, such as cross or stack ventilation by incorporating atrium and Courtyards.

39 Council also has a requirement to integrate garbage bins and waste recycling areas into the overall development with convenient access to residents. In this regard there is a waste room near the entry of the parking area for the proposed development.

40 The Court in its assessment in particular of cl 17 and cl 19(5) must consider first of all as a threshold question if it does not consider a SEPP 1 objection is necessary. In this regard subclause (5) allows for adaptation of buildings irrespective of the FSR that is subclauses 2 and 3, the Landscape Control.

41 I am satisfied that all of the provisions above - (a) through to (h) are satisfied by the proposed development. That is, in my assessment the building is substantially retained and this could be seen on site and also shown in the plans. If the fabric cannot be retained as shown in the plans, then any development application approval of those plans could not proceed. The development application is specific to the plans which incorporates the significant reuse of the building or of the building fabric as we see on the site today. It is noted that there will be clearly some changes and adaptation to make the building appropriate for residential use.

42 The development is generally, in terms of subclause (b), contained generally within the envelope that we see on the site today, so that provision is satisfied and the alteration will meet ESD in terms of the controls. I am satisfied that the proposed development is acceptable in this regard.

43 In my assessment the alterations have also been designed with the intended occupants in mind and in terms of those in the vicinity of the site, that is the impacts on adjoining neighbouring residential properties, I am satisfied that it represents an acceptable outcome and therefore this subclause is also satisfied.

44 The appearance will integrate into the streetscape as there is no question that the building will be retained. It has been clearly on the site for many years and is part of the streetscape and in terms of the council encouraging the reuse or adaptive reuse of buildings, the historic nature of the mix within the Leichhardt area in terms of the streetscape will be retained. The proposal will also provide for residential unit accommodation.

45 In my opinion each unit also provides for satisfactory open space in terms of an assessment under SEPP 65.

46 The conversion of the building will now provide for an level of appropriate parking. Each unit will have at least one car parking space allocated to it on title. The heritage items in the vicinity will not be adversely impacted in my assessment and therefore council’s controls are satisfied in this regard.

47 As such it is not necessary for me to consider the SEPP 1 objections in terms of the FSR and the landscaped area. However for caution I have looked at the objectives of the standard and in the circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the SEPP 1 objections for the FSR and landscaped area would be satisfied having regard to the Winton principles established by his Honour Lloyd J in Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46.

48 The Court must also have regard to cl 19(7), that is adaptable housing and consent should not be granted for dwellings numbering 16 to 24 unless two adaptable housing units are provided and this regard it was agreed that a SEPP 1 objection would be necessary and indeed the applicant submitted a SEPP 1 objection.

49 The subject site is effected by flooding and that could be seen from other properties within the area and the low lying nature of the area and for an adaptable reuse of this building which is encouraged and supported by the council through its controls, I am satisfied in terms of the objectives of the adaptable housing standard that the proposed development is one that justifies a variation to this standard.

50 In the circumstances of this case, having regard to the flooding issue, articulated in the joint engineers’ report of Mr Tooker and Mr Paton, I am satisfied that the proposed development is satisfactory in terms of its non-compliance of not providing for adaptable housing on the subject site. It would in fact be inappropriate to subject people with a disability or aged persons in terms of disabilities to require evacuation from the premises when in fact it is known that there will could be water rising within the basement car park and in the vicinity of the site. In my assessment the SEPP 1 objection in the circumstances should be allowed and the proposal is consistent with the aims of the Policy and the objects of the Act.

51 I am satisfied in terms of the correspondence that has been received by the council from RailCorp that council’s design requirements specified in the conditions of Mr Paton the condition for the the drainage easement can be satisfied. RailCorp will allow for drainage pipes to the brick culvert and in this regard the letter of 6 July 2007 states:

“Subject to any conditions arising from a proper review of the design and installation methods of the proposal, RailCorp permits parched drainage from the development site to be discharged into the nearby brick culvert under the rail corridor, and it is also noted that formal approval from RailCorp is required prior to work commencing”.

52 I consider it is appropriate for a deferred commencement for drainage for the subject property having to drain over State Rail land. Mr Tooker and Mr Paton were of the view that the most feasible option to achieve the necessary stormwater drainage is to construct a system of in-net pits and pipelines to collect and discharge the stormwater to the public drainage system. This would require the creation of a drainage easement through the RailCorp land. And in this regard council’s conditions are satisfied in terms of the development application subject to formal approval from RailCorp.

53 The Court must also assess the development application under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65, design quality for residential property. In this policy there are a number of principles that are articulated for context and good design responds to and contributes to its context. I am satisfied the proposed development is one that makes good use of the warehouse and will retain this in the streetscape to continue to contribute to the character of the area.

54 In terms of scale the proposed development is clearly one of an industrial warehouse scale and the refurbishments or recycling is appropriate. Also in terms of the built form, I am satisfied the proposal does not have adverse impacts such as overshadowing or any other external impacts on adjoining properties. The principle of density, the built form is for the existing envelope to be utilised. I am satisfied also that (the intensity as described by Ms Laidlaw) the density of the proposed development will not adversely impact on the surrounding area.

55 In terms of resources, clearly a reuse is appropriate and in terms of council’s controls to encourage the reuse of buildings, the landscaping provision or landscape area requirement does not have to be met in terms of council’s LEP, but I am satisfied the proposed development that each residential unit provides for an appropriate outdoor area.

56 Similarly, I am also satisfied the amenity is appropriate for the residential units and for the adjoining properties. Safety and security are matters that have also been considered and in terms of social dimensions. The introduction of 21 new residential units into the streetscape will mean there will be new neighbours within the streetscape but clearly the street has a width of the road of some 13 metres in terms of the streetscape itself, the proposed development is appropriately accommodated and the street is one that has both the physical and the environmental capacity to provide satisfactory access, egress and exit from the conversion of the building to residential as proposed.

57 The aesthetics clearly, the adaptive reuse of the building is supported by council in term of its planning regime and it will continue to contribute to the diverse character of the area.

58 The planners also addressed or assessed the application in terms of the rules of thumb’ contained in the orange book. For cross-ventilation , solar access, open space, visual and acoustic privacy, I am satisfied the proposed development being an adaptive reuse of an existing warehouse is satisfactory.

59 One cannot and should not expect, and this is reflective in council’s planning regime, to achieve the same level of amenity as a newly designed building given its adaptive reuse of a warehouse, but at the same time any adaptive reuse should ensure that the amenity is appropriate for each of the new occupants and in that regard I am satisfied each unit does provide for appropriate amenity.

60 The Court must also have regard to SEPP 55, that is contaminated land, and it is noted that there has been a preliminary report prepared on contamination and the council does not raise issue with the proposed development.

61 In terms of the railway noise and vibration it is noted there is also a report. Clearly this development cannot impact on the potential use of the goods rail line. Currently it is used very infrequently and that is recognised, however there is a projected increase in the use of the goods line in terms of the Sydney Ports Strategy and the building should be designed to provide for the necessary attenuation and I am satisfied that in terms of the verandahs and the louvres, closing of windows and the conditions contained in council’s suite of conditions, that the proposed development is satisfactory and would not inhibit the use of that line if in fact the use is increased in the future.

62 At the end of the day, following the amendments to the plans, and the council did recognise that the amendments certainly improved the proposed development, that is in terms of the deletion of units 5 and 6, because of the poorer or the lower amenity afforded to those units and the access but also more importantly, the provision of additional car parking. The council stated that this is an improvement but in its opinion, the proposed development was still wanting or deficient in terms of the external and internal impacts that I have already addressed.

63 The Court must also look at the issue of the conditions. There is dispute in the conditions only with respect to the s 94, or rather the timing of the s 94, payment and the council requires the payment of the s 94 monies, in the vicinity of nearly some $500,000, to be provided to the council prior to the issuing of the construction certificate. The applicant states that this is too onerous and the demand for s 94 facilities would not be triggered until the building is completed and occupied. Therefore the applicant submits it is more appropriate to require the s 94 contribution at the time of the occupation certificate.

64 At the end of the day whether it be at the construction certificate stage or at the occupation certificate stage, it requires the private certifier to ensure that the monies have been paid to council. I am satisfied that it is not unreasonable to require the payment at the occupation certificate, or the interim occupation certificate, stage of the development. That is the building could not be occupied until all the s 94 contribution payments have been made to the council.

65 I also note that there will be other community benefits by this proposed development in terms of stormwater drainage which will be at applicant’s expense which certainly will ensure that the site has a reduced impact on the area. Also there is to be the construction of a turning circle in the cul-de-sac by the applicant and this will be to the benefit of existing local residents as well. In the circumstances I consider that, and having regard to the provisions of s 94 itself, I am satisfied that the payment is appropriate at the interim occupation certificate or the occupation certificate stage, whatever is applied for first.

66 Accordingly, on the basis of my assessment above, the formal orders of the Court are:

1. The appeal in respect of the property known as 17 to 25 Beeson Street is upheld.

2. The SEPP 1 objection to vary the adaptable housing provision under cl 19(7) of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan is allowed.

3. The development application submitted to Leichhardt Council as amended for 21 units and 29 car parking spaces is approved subject to a deferred commencement condition and the other conditions contained within annexure A.

4. The exhibits except for A, (reduced A3 size plans) exhibit B, the landscape plan, E, O, Q, R, 7 and 13 are returned to the parties

5. The applicant is to forward a copy of the amended plans, required by the deferred commencement condition, within seven days of council’s approval of same.

___________________
Murrell C
Commissioner of the Court
DK