Selim v Strathfield Municipal Council

[2017] NSWLEC 1308

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	Selim v Strathfield Municipal Council [2017] NSWLEC 1308
Hearing dates:	13 June 2017
Date of orders:	02 August 2017
Decision date:	20 June 2017
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Dickson, C
Decision:	Orders at [58]
Catchwords:	DEVELOPMENT APPEAL: childcare centre in existing building – resident objections – amendments to proposal – agreement of experts – directions
Legislation Cited:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land
Cases Cited:	BGP Properties Pty Ltd v Macquarie City Council 138 LGERA 237; [2004] NSWLEC 399
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Sheriff Selim (Applicant) Amani Selim (Second Applicant)   Strathfield Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: M. Staunton (Applicant)   Solicitors: A. Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2016/ 313443
Publication restriction:	No

JUDGMENT

1. COMMISSIONER: This appeal was lodged against the refusal by Strathfield Municipal Council of development application number 2016/110. The application sought approval for the redevelopment of 6 Torrington Road, Strathfield as a childcare centre.

2. In its original form the application sought approval for:

1. alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house and use as a child care centre to accommodate 44 children between the ages of 0-6 years with 8 staff, onsite parking for 10 vehicles (including one accessible car parking space), and associated landscaping

2. The proposed alterations and additions will consist of the following:

1. Demolition of the garage at the rear and provision of a paved car parking area incorporating stacked car spaces and at grade spaces;

2. Internal alterations to adjust room sizes and wall locations;

3. Provision of outdoor play areas within the front setback and along the eastern boundary of the site with equipment;

4. Retention of the existing brick wall and paling fence along the front and side boundaries and construction of a new brick fence with metal gate along the rear boundary;

5. Construction of a 1.8 metre high solid clear polycarbonate fence along the front northern boundary, a 2 - 2.8 metre high solid clear polycarbonate fence, with awning along the northern portion of the western side boundary, and a 1.9 - 2.1 metre high solid clear polycarbonate fence with awning along the northern portion of the eastern side boundary, with Murraya hedging;

6. Construction of a patio along the eastern boundary; and

7. 2 x signs to be erected facing Torrington Road and Woodward Avenue.

3. The child care centre is proposed to operate 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday.

4. The matter commenced on site. A considerable number of objections were lodged to the development application, and the objectors were given the opportunity to express their concerns. The residents’ concerns can be summarised as follows:

1. Car Parking and Traffic

• The proposal provides fewer spaces than is required by the Councils planning controls.

• The use of stacked parking is unsafe.

• The proposal will result in a loss of on street parking.

• The proposed means of child drop off and pick up is unsafe.

• Concern was expressed that the change of use would increase traffic generation and increase the delays experienced by residents in the surrounding local streets. In particular residents were concerned that this impact would occur at the peak time in the locality which is in proximity to a number of schools.

2. Noise generation and Acoustic Impact

• Residents expressed concern about the impact on their residential amenity from the increased noise from the children’s outdoor play areas and from vehicular movements for deliveries and the drop off and collection of children.

• Particular concern was raised about the potential acoustic impact to the adjoining property and its upstairs bedrooms, as it is located above the proposed acoustic barrier.

3. Use of the site for a commercial use

• Whilst the residents acknowledged the use of the site as a childcare centre is a permissible use on the site, it was their view that the scale of the development proposed, in particular the number of children, is of a commercial scale.

• Submissions were provided to the Court from the residents that, in their view, there was little demand for additional childcare places as the locality was well serviced by existing centres. One resident noted that the Australian Childcare Alliance report listed Strathfield as an area of potential oversupply, with only 77% of places occupied.

• Residents expressed concern about the scale of the development, its operating hours, the requirement for suppliers to drop off goods and make deliveries, and waste collection will change the residential character of the street.

4. Proposal is incompatible with the residential character of the locality

• The residents expressed clear concerns that in their view the development would detract from the appeal of the locality and, in their opinion, would result in a lowering of property values.

• Residents expressed concern that the development is not appropriate given the heritage theme of the street;

• The residents were concerned that the acoustic barriers proposed by the application were inconsistent with the streetscape, and would be over bearing and inappropriate in a residential neighbourhood.

• Concern was also expressed about the signage of the business in the residential street.

5. Noncompliance with Council’s planning controls.

• The residents identified that the proposal was non-compliant with the planning controls governing setbacks, site width, parking, and the maximum number of children.

6. Potential contamination

• Given the age of the existing home, residents expressed concern that the property may contain contaminants in the fabric of the building or the soil.

• Notes of that oral evidence, as recorded and agreed by the parties’ solicitors, were later tendered into evidence.

5. The planning assessment report (tendered as part of Exhibit 4) prepared for the Council meeting of 20 September 2016, notes:

The proposal received (a) significant number of submissions in support of the proposal citing the following reasons:

• Retention of a significant building, including no alterations to the façade or external appearance of the dwelling. Whist not heritage listed it is representative of the early era of Strathfield development;

• The proposal compliments the street and the streetscape;

• Provision of a needed service to the community;

• Embellishes landscaping to the curtilage of the dwelling;

• Is well located away from noise sources such as roads; and

• The proposal includes acoustic measures such as fencing and acoustic absorption panels to minimise the impact.

The site and its context

6. The site is described as Lot A1 in DP 368736 with a street address of 6 Torrington Road, Strathfield. The site is rectangular with a northern frontage to Torrington Road and a rear southern boundary to Woodward Avenue of 22.25 metres, an eastern side boundary of 50.52 metres and a western side boundary of 50.585 metres, with a total area of approximately 1, 125.52m2.

7. Vehicular access to the site is currently provided from Woodward Avenue.

8. Currently occupying the site is a single storey 1916 Federation dwelling house with a garage at the rear.

9. The site is located within the R2- Low Density Residential Zone under the provisions of Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012). The current streetscape contains a mixture of dwelling styles, comprising Federation houses on large lots with generously landscaped front setbacks, modern 2 storey brick rendered dwellings and established single storey circa 1950s and 1960s cottages. Adjoining the site to the east and west are single storey dwellings.

Planning Controls:

10. Section 79C(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) requires the consent authority, in this case the Court, to consider a number of provisions of any environmental planning instrument, any development control plan, any planning agreement, relevant regulations, and any coastal management plan that may apply to the land to which the development application relates. Amongst other things, s 79C also requires consideration of the likely impacts of the development, the suitability of the site for development, any submissions made, and the public interest.

11. Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 ("the Draft SEPP") is a matter for consideration in the determination of the application.

12. Strathfield LEP 2012 LEP 2013 applies to the site. Pursuant to LEP 2012 the site is zoned R2 Low Density residential. The proposal is defined as development for the purposes of a Childcare centre and is permissible, with consent, in the zone.

13. The development is subject to the requirements of Strathfield Development Control Plan 2005 (DCP 2005). The relevant planning controls are contained in:

1. Part E - Child Care Centres

2. Part H -Waste Management

3. Part I - Provisions of Off Street Parking Facilities

4. Part J - Erection & Display of Advertising Signs & Structures

5. Part K- Development on Contaminated Land

6. Part L- Public Notification for Development & Complying Applications

7. Part N -Water Sensitive Urban Design

8. Part 0- Tree Management.

14. Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW) and Education the Care Services National Regulations. Provider Approval has been granted to Woodgreen Early Education Centre Pty Ltd pursuant to section 15 of the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law.

Original Proposal:

15. At the commencement of the proceedings Council contended that the application should be refused on the basis of the following grounds:

1. The proposed development exceeds the maximum number of children permitted for the site under Council’s planning controls;

2. The acoustic barriers required to ameliorate the noise generated by the development exceed Council’s fencing controls, will create amenity impacts for the adjoining residents, and are inconsistent with the residential character of the street;

3. The development provides insufficient and non-compliant parking and the access arrangements for drop off and pick up are likely to result in pedestrian and vehicle conflict; and

4. The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

Expert Evidence

16. The Court heard expert planning evidence from Mr Jeff Mead, for the applicant, and Mr Brett Daintry for the Council. The experts participated in a joint conferencing process prior to the hearing that sought to address the issues in contention. As a result of the conferencing process they prepared a joint expert report which was tendered as Exhibit 7. Following the amendments to the applicant’s proposed development; they prepared an addendum to their report which was tendered as Exhibit 9.

17. The Court heard expert traffic evidence from Mr Thomas Yang, for the applicant, and Mr Ken Hollyoak for the Council. The experts participated in a joint conferencing process prior to the hearing that sought to address the issues in contention. As a result of the conferencing process they prepared a joint expert report which was tendered as Exhibit 6. Following the amendments to the applicant’s proposed development; they prepared an addendum to their report which was tendered as Exhibit 10.

18. The Court heard expert acoustic evidence from Mr Steven Cooper, for the applicant, and Mr Richard Haydon for the Council. The experts participated in a joint conferencing process prior to the hearing that sought to address the issues in contention. As a result of the conferencing process they prepared a joint expert report which was tendered as Exhibit 5.

Consideration

19. Following the onsite view, the hearing was delayed to allow for further conferencing of the parties and their experts to explore potential amendments to the proposal to address the concerns of the Council [refer par 15].

20. At the commencement of the hearing the applicant made the following amendments to their proposal:

1. An amendment to the site design that incorporates the drop off and pick up of children within the site. This amendment is consistent with DCP 2005, and the evidence of Mr Hollyoak:

2. A reduction in the number of children to 35, and staff to six, in the following configuration:

0-2 years: eight children, two staff

2-3 years: ten children, two staff

3-6 years: seventeen children, two staff

21. These amendments were not objected to by the Council and leave was provided for the applicant to amend their application.

22. Following the amendments to the proposal by the applicant the hearing was adjourned to allow the experts to consider the amendments and provide additional evidence to the Court. Following the conference a further joint report of the experts was tendered (Exhibit 7).

Acoustics:

23. The joint expert report on acoustics addressed the concerns raised by the Council and residents in relation to the potential noise impacts arising from the development. The agreed conclusions of the experts are summarised as follows:

1. The acoustic environment of the site as identified by the ambient logger graphs and observations of the site, with the EPA’s definition of urban would be classified as an urban environment.

2. That the acoustic report prepared by the applicant confirms compliance with the EPA’s intrusive noise targets.

3. The analysis of noise emissions from the site (under the proposed development) is able to achieve the required benchmark of less than +5dB(A) above background with the proposed controls.

4. As the draft Plan of Management identifies that no staff are to be on site prior to 7am, the experts conclude the sleep arousal criterion do not apply.

5. In relation to the concerns raised by residents the acoustic experts provide the following summary:

Extract from Exhibit 5

The experts agree that: noise emissions from the car park at the rear of the site with respect to the adjoining properties would be less than the background +5dB(A) target and that the addition of internal activities and mechanical plant would not give rise to an exceedance of the noise target for the rear of adjoining residential properties, with the incorporation of the recommended noise mitigation (Exhibit 5).

6. In conclusion the acoustic experts agree:

that the noise targets identified in The Acoustic Group assessment report are appropriate for the proposed childcare centre and with the implementation of the recommended noise control measures and restriction in the number of children in the external play area, as identified in the report, then the noise targets nominated for the development will be achieved.

…there are no outstanding acoustic issues with respect to the subject application. (Exhibit 5)

24. Given the evidence of the experts, and the reduction in capacity of the childcare centre by the applicant, there is no evidence before the Court that warrants refusal of the application on grounds of an unacceptable acoustic impact.

25. The agreed conditions of consent include the following relevant conditions (from the set of consent conditions) which I am satisfied are appropriate to ensure the ongoing satisfactory acoustic operation of the centre:

3. The maximum number of children permitted on site at any one time shall be restricted as follows:

Birth to 24 months of age 8 Children

over 24 months of age and less than 36 months of age 10 Children

36 months of age and less than 6 years of age 17

Total 35

22 The hours of operation shall be restricted to 7:00 am to 6pm Monday to Friday (staff only operation permitted between 6:00pm and 9:00pm). No work is permitted on Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays, with the exception of maintenance and cleaning as identified in the Plan of Management.

35 Full compliance shall be given to the recommendations contained in the endorsed acoustic consultant’s report prepared by prepared by The Acoustic Group, Ref 47.5264.R2:MSC, dated 30 March 2017, including, but not limited to the following:

(a) The ceiling above the existing veranda is to be lined with acoustic absorptive material with a perforated facing that has an open area of at least 23%.

(b) The eastern grassed area of the site is to be used for passive play activities only.

(c) Acoustic barriers and fencing are to be provided around the site in accordance with the specification contained in the approved acoustic report; (d) Sealed 6.38mm glazing is to be provided to the western side of the front veranda;

(e) Compliance with recommended maximum numbers of children in outdoor play areas is required at all times;

(f) Appropriate control/mitigation of mechanical noise emission to ensure complying levels is required to be implemented;

(g) The development is to incorporate and adhere to an appropriate Plan of Management.

Planning:

26. The joint expert report on planning addressed the contentions in relation to the noncompliance with Council’s controls in relation to: the maximum number of children and the minimum site width; the fencing treatment proposed and whether the fencing was consistent with the residential character; and whether the proposal would result in an adverse amenity impact on adjoining properties. Initially the experts were not agreed on these matters.

Number of Children

27. Clause 5.17 of DCP 2005 includes the following objectives:

“To ensure that child care centres integrate into existing residential environments and are unobtrusive in terms of size and operation,

To ensure that the amenity of neighbours is maintained."

The requirements of clause 5.17 'Maximum number of children' in Part E of SDCP 2005 are as follows:

"The maximum number of children using a child care centre at any one time shall not exceed thirty (30)"

28. The amended application proposes 35 children. In addition, it proposes a limit of 10 children outside in active play, and 10 children outside in quiet play at any one time.

29. The planning experts agree that the purpose of the control is to limit the impacts of the childcare centre on the residential environment. Mr Mead argues that if the traffic, parking and acoustic impacts are found to be acceptable there is no additional town planning reason to limit the number of children on the site to 30.

30. In oral evidence Mr Daintry’s evidence was that the reduction in overall numbers, and the restriction on the number of children outside at any one time, along with the inclusion of fencing to delineate the area of quiet play to the area in closest proximity to the neighbours achieves the objectives of the control. It was his assessment that the variation to the control is acceptable in the circumstances of this case.

31. It is the submission of Mr Staunton that the control in DCP 2005 that restricts the number of children has the purpose of managing the intensity of the development. He argues that this objective is achieved by the application by limiting the number of children outside which is the manifestation of the impact on the residents of the childcare use.

32. Given the evidence of the experts, and the reduction in capacity of the childcare centre by the applicant, I accept that the application as proposed meets the objectives of Clause 5.17 of DCP 2005 despite noncompliance with the numeric control.

Site width

33. In the joint report, Mr Daintry argues that the intent of the 25m width control appears to be to allow the drop off and pick up arrangements detailed by Figure 1 – DCP extract (Exhibit 7). Importantly the relevant extract from the DCP seeks the provision of an onsite loop driveway.

34. Following the amendments to the proposal, as detailed in [par 20], Mr Daintry’s oral evidence was that the driveway arrangement sought by the Council had been achieved by the applicant despite the noncompliance with the control. He concluded that the objectives of Clause 5.2(6) Site Requirements are achieved be the amended proposal.

33. Given the evidence of the experts, and the amended driveway access arrangements, I accept that the application as proposed meets the objectives of Clause 5.2(6) Site Requirements of DCP 2005 despite noncompliance with the numeric control.

Fencing

36. It is agreed by the experts that acoustic fencing is required to attenuate noise that would otherwise be unsatisfactory. The acoustic fencing proposed exceeds the DCP control of 1.8m in height. The design of the fencing is as follows:

The proposed front acoustic screen at the front boundary is 1.8m in height, is to be clear Perspex which in my view is visually permeable, and is to be setback 900mm from the front boundary, screened by an existing hedge that is between 1.8m and 2m above footpath level.

…

The acoustic barriers to side boundaries are 2m high to the western boundary (set in 900mm) and 1.9m from the eastern boundary (set in 900mm) to the front alignment of neighbouring buildings and then step up with a 45 degree “awning”.

37. It is the opinion of Mr Mead that:

Because the landscaping that will screen the front fence exists, the streetscape impact of the proposal will be negligible. The entrance to the site at the north-eastern corner will allow limited views into the site however the Landscape Plan also proposes to screen fencing alongside boundaries and therefore those acoustic barriers will also not dominate the streetscape in any way. (Exhibit 7)

38. In the alternative it is Mr Daintry’s evidence that:

…the high fencing to Torrington Road and forward of the building line to Torrington Road is out of context with the existing streetscape of Torrington Road which is characterised by palisade fencing and visually transparent front gardens. (Exhibit 7)

It is Mr Daintry’s preference that the outdoor play area is relocated to the rear of the site, and the vehicular access and parking is accommodated into the front setback of the dwelling to Torrington Road.

39. Mr Daintry provided oral evidence to the Court following consideration of the amendments to the application. It was his conclusion that on balance, the changes to the proposal were positive, and he accepted that if the landscaping proposed and existing were maintained in good order the acoustic fencing proposed would be acceptable.

40. The final agreed position of the planners in relation to the amended proposal is as follows:

Having attended the site again and considered the cumulative streetscape outcomes (front and rear), under the further amended scheme, with the parking at the rear, lower rear fencing and landscaping, we agree, on balance the amended scheme produces an acceptable and far safer outcome for the children. (Exhibit 9)

41. Given the importance of the landscaping it is agreed between the parties that any consent include the following condition:

2A the landscaping hedges shown in the approved plans are to be installed and maintained to the height shown on the plans for the life of the development.

42. As such, based on the expert evidence, there are no planning grounds remaining that warrant the refusal of the application.

Traffic:

43. Whilst the residents raised concerns in relation to the use of stacked parking within the proposal the traffic experts agree that DCP 2005 permits this form of parking for provision of staff parking and it is acceptable as schematically proposed [refer par 20], subject to:

1. An amendment to the Plan of Management (Exhibit D) to ensure that the staff spaces are occupied, or accessed, prior to drop off occurring.

2. The actual locations of spaces 5,6, and 7 being subject to detailed design and confirmation that they achieve satisfactory operation and provision of pedestrian sight lines in accordance with AS2890.1 (Exhibit 10)

44. To ensure that any waste collection does not interfere with sight lines at the driveway it is agreed between the parties that any consent include the following condition:

38 All waste collection is to occur on the site, or from Torrington Road, for the life of the development.

45. The application relies on a variation to the car parking provision, and thus may result in increase in the use of on street parking. The experts agree that:

On street parking in the adjacent area is safe, and the car parking accumulation surveys collected on 3rd March 2016 between 7:00am-9:30am and 3:00pm- 6:00pm demonstrated that there were a minimum 85 on-street car parking spaces available during the entire survey periods within 200 metres walking distance to / from the subject site.

There is a high availability of on-street parking and the reliance of 2 of these spaces at peak times would have no significant impact on the amenity of the area. In addition, we agree that parking availability is relatively uniformly spread within the surveyed area, so that these two spaces would be available within a short distance of the site, if not immediately adjacent. (Exhibit 6)

46. The amended proposal will result in the reduction of on street parking by one space to accommodate the additional driveway. In oral evidence, the traffic experts agreed this would not alter their conclusions provided above that there is adequate capacity.

47. In their oral submissions, the residents expressed concern in relation to the impact of the changes of use on traffic generation in the surrounding streets. The Council does not contend this as an issue in the proceedings. The planning assessment report (tendered as part of Exhibit 4) prepared for the Council meeting of 20 September 2016, notes that the traffic assessment prepared by the applicant as part of the proposal was reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer who concluded:

… That the surrounding road network has sufficient additional capacity to manage the additional vehicle movements generated by the use of the site.

48. As such, based on the expert evidence, there are no traffic generation or parking grounds remaining that warrant the refusal of the application.

Conclusion

49. At the conclusion of the proceedings Mr Seton, for the Council, confirmed that the delegation had not been able to be obtained to enter into an agreement in the proceedings despite the above position of the experts. His submission however acknowledged that the experts had reached agreement on all the matters previously contended by the Council.

50. To ensure that the use operates within the parameters discussed and agreed between the experts Council seeks the following amendments to the Plan of Management. I have reviewed these changes and agree that the Plan of Management should be updated to reflect these changes and the evidence of the experts prior to determination. The following information is required to be incorporated in the Plan of Management that will form part of the consent:

1. The hours of operation.

2. The maximum number of staff present on site at any one time.

3. The minimum number of staff present on site at any one time.

4. The maximum number of children, and their age distribution.

5. An updated waste management plan including storage and collection arrangements to minimise nuisance and transfer of odour to adjoining properties.

6. Detail of the relevant procedures in relation to the management of outdoor play to ensure compliance with the acceptable noise levels.

51. Childcare is a sensitive use. In undertaking my assessment I have given consideration the submissions of the residents in relation to the potential for contaminants to exist with the building itself and the areas designated for outdoor play. I am satisfied that it is appropriate for the applicant to undertake a hazardous materials inspection of the property, including air monitoring, to ensure the development satisfies State Environmental Planning Policy 55 -Remediation of Land, Clause 7(4)(c) (i) before consent.

52. I have reviewed the agreed evidence provided by experts to support the resolution of the contentions now agreed. I am satisfied that they appropriately consider the issues raised by the contentions, and the appropriate planning controls, and I accept their conclusions.

53. In assessing the merits of the Proposal under s 79C of the Act, the Court must consider the expert and lay evidence and give appropriate weight to the permissibility to carry out the use on the land: BGP Properties Pty Ltd v Macquarie City Council 138 LGERA 237; [2004] NSWLEC 399 per McClellan CJ at [117]. In this case, the expert evidence supports a conclusion that the childcare centre (as amended) will not generate unacceptable impacts internally or externally to the site.

54. In oral evidence, the planners agreed that the variations requested by the applicant to Council controls are warranted as they meet the relevant objectives of the controls, and the alternative is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

55. I am satisfied that the proposal, when amended as detailed in the further joint reports, and as detailed in the judgement, will provide a satisfactory development. As there is no evidence before the court of a substantive issue that warrants refusal of the application, the development application can be granted development consent.

Directions

56. The applicant is:

1. Undertake a hazardous materials inspection of the property, including air monitoring and provide a report to the Court no later than 31 July 2017.

2. Update the development application, ensuring that the documentation is internally consistent, and to incorporate the changes as detailed in this judgement, and agreed between the parties during the proceedings.

3. Update the Plan of Management to reflect the changes as detailed in this judgement, and outlined in par 50.

4. The applicant is to file and serve the amended plans and documentation no later than 31 July 2017.

5. The respondent is to file, no later than two weeks after the filing of amended plans, amended consolidated conditions of consent, including:

1. any agreed conditions outlined in the expert reports tendered in the proceedings;

2. updating the revision numbers of the amended architectural drawings and supporting materials in condition 1; and

3. Incorporating the additional conditions agreed between the parties during the proceedings:

4. Identifying any areas of contention with the amended documentation, if necessary.

6. Liberty to restore with two days’ notice.

7. Orders will be made in chambers.

57. In accordance with the terms of the directions in my judgement of June 20 2017 the parties have provided me with the amended documentation in accordance with my directions [par. 56]. I am satisfied that the additional information in relation to hazardous materials and their management, amended plans, plan of management and updated conditions of consent accord with my findings. Accordingly I make orders in chambers as follows:

58. The orders of the Court are:

1. The applicant is granted leave to rely on amended plans as detailed in Condition 1of Annexure B ;

2. The appeal is upheld;

3. Consent is granted to Development Application No. 2016/110 for the redevelopment of 6 Torrington Road Strathfield for use as a childcare centre subject to the attached conditions, and the following additional operational condition:

Prior to the commencement of use of the existing building as a childcare centre the applicant is to ensure the implementation of the principles identified in Section 9.3 Control of Lead Hazards, Hazardous Materials Survey, Management Plan & Air Monitoring Report by Safe Work & Environments dated 10/7/17. This condition is necessary to  ensure this risk is appropriately managed.

4. The exhibits are returned with the exception of Exhibit A, 2 the amended documentation filed with the Court on 11 July 2017.

…………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

313443.16 Dickson - Plans Annexure A (2.22 MB, pdf)

313443.16 Dickson - No 6 Torrington Road Strathfield NSW - Landscape Plan Revised 5.7.17 (494 KB, pdf)

313443.16 Dickson (Annexure B Addendum) (188 KB, pdf)

313443.16 Dickson - Amended_Plan of Management Woodgreen June 2017 (878 KB, pdf)

Amendments

20 June 2017 - Correction to second applicants name

03 August 2017 - Orders made on 2 August 2017 - Addendum added.

Decision last updated: 03 August 2017