Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council v Walker [2023] NSWLEC 146 Hearing dates: 15 November 2023 Date of orders: 21 December 2023 Decision date: 21 December 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Duggan J Decision: See paragraph 43 Catchwords: CIVIL ENFORCEMENT – s 4.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) – where respondents carried out earthworks, erection of a building and driveway works without consent – orders made requiring demolition of works and restoration of land – s 23 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) – r 40.8 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules – orders made permitting the Council to carry out works if respondents fail to comply with orders Legislation Cited: Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Walker v Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council [2023] NSWLEC 1032 Warringah Shire Council v Sedevcic (1987) 10 NSWLR 335 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council (Applicant) Jarron Walker (First Respondent) Leah Walker (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: S Berveling (Applicant) No appearance (Respondents) Solicitors: Bal Lawyers (Applicant) No appearance (Respondents) File Number(s): 2023/00054792 Publication restriction: No JUDGMENT Nature of proceedings 1. Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council (the Council or the Applicant) by way of Summons filed 17 February 2023 commenced civil enforcement proceedings under s 9.45 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EP&A Act) against Jarron Walker (the First Respondent) and Leah Walker (the Second Respondent) (collectively the Respondents). On 18 September 2023, leave was granted for the Council to file an Amended Summons. 2. From on or about 10 July 2020, the Respondents have been the registered proprietors of the land comprising Lot 30 DP 747879 known as 159 Fernleigh Drive, Googong NSW (the Land) as joint tenants. The Respondents have not filed an appearance in the proceedings. 3. The Applicant seeks declarations and orders relating to alleged an allegation that the Respondents carried out development on the Land that was permissible only with development consent, without such consent having been obtained, contrary to s 4.2 of the EP&A Act. 4. The Applicant also sought declarations and orders in relation to breaches of s 9.37 of the EP&A Act arising from the Respondents' failure to comply with four Development Control Orders (DCOs) issued by the Council. However, at the hearing the Council did not press prayers 1 and 2 of the Amended Summons in relation to the DCOs. Procedural history 1. In circumstances where there was no appearance by the Respondents, it is appropriate to outline the evidence relating to the service of documents on the Respondents and the decision to proceed to hear the matter ex parte pursuant to r 29.7(2)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR). 2. On five occasions between 22 February 2023 and 10 March 2023, a process server engaged by the Applicant attended the Land to attempt to personally serve the Respondents with a copy of the Summons. The process server deposed that on each occasion they were unable to enter onto the Land due to the front gate being locked. On the fourth and fifth attempts to serve the Summons, the process server affixed the documents in sealed envelopes to the front gate of the Land. 3. On 21 March 2023, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion for substituted service. On 31 March 2023, I made the order for substituted service as sought in the Applicant's Notice of Motion permitting service on the Respondents to be made by post to the Land in the following terms: The court makes the following orders and directions: 1. Pursuant to r 18.2(2)(c) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (UCPR) service of this notice of motion is dispensed with. 2. Pursuant to r.10.14(2) and (4) of the UCPR, the Court directs that the Summons filed on 17 February 2023 is taken to have been personally served on Mr Jarron Walker and Ms Leah Walker: a. on 8 March 2023; and b. in the alternative, on 10 March 2023. 3. Pursuant to r. 10.14 of the UCPR and subject to any further order, a document that is required or permitted to be served on Mr Jarron Walker and Ms Leah Walker may be served by posting a copy of that document to them at 159 Fernleigh Drive, Googong in the State of New South Wales. 4. Service of a document will be deemed to have been effected: a. If sent by express post, 2 business days after compliance with Order 3. b. If sent by ordinary post, 4 business days after compliance with Order 3. … 1. On 31 March 2023, these orders were put into an Australia Post post box to be mailed to the Respondents using express post. 2. On 21 September 2023, the orders made by Moore J on 18 September 2023 granting leave to amend the Summons and a copy of the Amended Summons were mailed to the Respondents via express post. 3. On 27 October 2023, a letter from the Applicant's solicitors addressed to the Respondents was mailed relevantly enclosing: 1. A copy of the orders made on 31 March 2023 for substituted service; and 2. A copy of the orders made by Robson J on 21 July 2023 setting the matter down for hearing on 15 November 2023. 1. At the commencement of the hearing, the matter was called, including being called three times in the precinct of the Court. There was no appearance by either the First or Second Respondent. As I was satisfied by the evidence that the Applicant had served notice of the hearing on the Respondents, I proceeded to hear this matter ex parte. Facts 1. The following works were carried out on the Land (the Works): 1. From about June 2020 to October 2021: earthworks, including the placement of fill in two large mounds (Mound 1 and Mound 2); 2. From about April 2021 to October 2021: the erection of a building upon a concrete slab on Mound 2 (the Shed); 3. From about August 2020 to October 2021: the construction of a secondary access to Fernleigh Drive (the Secondary Driveway Works); and 4. From about April 2021 to May 2021: the construction of an internal dirt road along the western side of the Land (the Internal Driveway Works). 1. On 22 January 2021, the Council received a complaint from a member of the public that earthworks were being carried out on the Land. 2. Inspections of the Land were carried out by Council officers on: 1. 2 March 2021; 2. 7 April 2021; 3. 24 June 2021; 4. 9 July 2021; and 5. 20 July 2021. 1. The Council issued three stop work orders to the Respondents on: 1. 22 January 2021; 2. 30 March 2021; and 3. 22 July 2021. 1. On 16 February 2021, the First Respondent lodged a development application seeking development consent for the construction of a farm building/shed on the Land. 2. On 24 June 2021, soil and water samples were taken by Council officers from the Land. The results of the water sampling showed elevated levels of turbidity and total suspended solids in the downstream of Mound 1 and Mound 2. The analysis of the soil samples detected the presence of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in Mound 2. 3. On 28 July 2021, the development application was refused by the Council. 4. On 23 December 2021, the Council issued to the Respondents a Demolish and Restore Works Order in relation to the Works. 5. On 3 May 2022, the Respondents commenced an appeal against the Council's refusal of the development application in this Court. 6. On 31 January 2023, Bradbury AC refused to grant consent to the development application: Walker v Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council [2023] NSWLEC 1032. Statutory provisions 1. The relevant provisions of the EP&A Act provide: 4.2 Development that needs consent (1) General If an environmental planning instrument provides that specified development may not be carried out except with development consent, a person must not carry the development out on land to which the provision applies unless— (a) such a consent has been obtained and is in force, and (b) the development is carried out in accordance with the consent and the instrument. Maximum penalty—Tier 1 monetary penalty. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), development consent may be obtained— (a) by the making of a determination by a consent authority to grant development consent, or (b) in the case of complying development, by the issue of a complying development certificate. … (5) Complying development An environmental planning instrument may provide that development, or a class of development, that can be addressed by specified predetermined development standards is complying development. 9.46 Orders of the Court (1) Where the Court is satisfied that a breach of this Act has been committed or that a breach of this Act will, unless restrained by order of the Court, be committed, it may make such order as it thinks fit to remedy or restrain the breach. (2) Without limiting the powers of the Court under subsection (1), an order made under that subsection may— (a) where the breach of this Act comprises a use of any building, work or land—restrain that use, (b) where the breach of this Act comprises the erection of a building or the carrying out of a work—require the demolition or removal of that building or work, or (c) where the breach of this Act has the effect of altering the condition or state of any building, work or land—require the reinstatement, so far as is practicable, of that building, work or land to the condition or state the building, work or land was in immediately before the breach was committed. 1. As to the power to make orders relating to the substituted performance by the Council of the orders made in respect of the carrying out of works on the Land pursuant to Court orders the relevant provisions are s 23 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) and r 40.8 of the UCPR each of which provide: 23 Making of orders The Court has power, in relation to matters in which it has jurisdiction, to make orders of such kinds, including interlocutory orders, as the Court thinks appropriate. 40.8 Substituted performance If a judgment requires a person to do an act and the person does not do the act, the court— (a) may direct that the act be done by a person appointed by the court, and (b) may order the person to pay the costs incurred pursuant to the direction. Planning controls 1. Prior to 14 November 2022, the Land was zoned C4 Environmental Living under the Queanbeyan Local Environmental Plan 2012 (the QLEP 2012). On 14 November 2022, the QLEP 2012 was repealed and replaced by the Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Local Environmental Plan 2022 (the QPRLEP 2022). The Land is currently zoned C4 Environmental Living under the QPRLEP 2022. 2. Under the QPRLEP 2022 and the former QLEP 2012, the land use table relevant to the C4 Zone provides that development for the purposes of farm buildings and roads is permissible with development consent. Clause 7.1 of the QPRLEP 2022 provides that development for the purposes of earthworks requires development consent unless the earthworks are exempt development or are ancillary to development that is permitted without consent. 3. Subdivision 15 of the General Exempt Code in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 provides for the carrying out of earthworks, retaining walls and structural support to be exempt development if such satisfies the standards set out therein, including that development must: 1. Not be a cut or fill of more than 600mm below or above ground level (existing); 2. If the fill is imported to the site – be free of building and other demolition waste, and only contain virgin excavated natural material (VENM) as defined in Pt 3 of Sch 1 to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW); and 3. If the land is in a rural zone or an environmental zone – not be fill of more than 100m3 on each lot. 1. The entirety of the Land is identified as "biodiversity" on the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map under the QPRLEP 2022. The Land is partially identified as "watercourse" on the Riparian Lands and Watercourses Map under cl 7.4 of the QPRLEP. 2. The Land is within the catchment area of Jerrabomberra Creek. Jerrabomberra Creek is identified as having biodiversity values on the Biodiversity Values Map (Exhibit E) published in accordance with the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW). Evidence 1. The Council read a number of affidavits deposing as to the history of the Works, the undertaking of the Works, the consequences of the Works and the relevant planning controls applying to the Land. Affidavits were read from: 1. Victoria McGiness, solicitor; 2. Gary Cheung, former Development Compliance Officer of the Council; 3. Noel Burton, surveyor; 4. Jeremy Swan, Town Planner; and 5. Melinda Corey, Programme Co-ordinator Environmental Health of the Council. 1. From a consideration of the evidence adduced by the Council I am satisfied that the evidence establishes that at each relevant date: 1. Prior to 14 November 2022, the Land was zoned C4 Environmental Living under the QLEP 2012. The QLEP 2012 was a standard instrument local environmental plan under the EP&A Act; 2. Development for the purposes of farm buildings and roads was permissible with development consent on the Land; 3. Development for the purposes of earthworks required development consent to have been obtained unless the earthworks were exempt development or were ancillary to development that is permitted without consent; 4. On 14 November 2022, the QLEP 2012 was repealed and replaced by the QPRLEP 2022, pursuant to which the Land is zoned C4 Environmental Living. Again, the QPRLEP 2022 is a standard instrument local environmental plan under the EP&A Act; and 5. Development for the purposes of farm buildings and roads is permissible with development consent on the Land. Development for the purposes of earthworks requires development consent to have been obtained unless the earthworks are exempt development or are ancillary to development that is permitted without consent. 1. In the present case, I am also satisfied upon the evidence that: 1. With the exception of the fill deposited on the Secondary Driveway Works the fill deposited on the Land is higher than 600mm above ground level (existing); 2. The fill was imported to the Land and contains materials other than VENM; and 3. The total quantum of fill is much more than 100m3 on the Land; such that the placement of that fill cannot comprise exempt development. 1. As to the fill placed on the Secondary Driveway Works: 1. It is unclear whether the fill deposited in the secondary road is more than 600mm above ground level (existing); and 2. The fill is non-compliant with the requirement that fill material comprise VENM and the total cubic quantity exceeds that nominated; The fill on the Secondary Driveway Works does not satisfy the development standards to comprise exempt development. 1. A development application had been lodged on or about 16 February 2022 for the construction of a farm building/shed on the Land, relating to the Shed. It was refused by the Council on 28 July 2021. Upon appeal, the Land and Environment Court refused the development application on 31 January 2023. 2. No development application has been lodged for the earthworks to deposit the fill (Mound 1 and Mound 2) nor for the secondary road regardless of it containing any fill. Council's submissions 1. On the basis of the findings made on the evidence identified above, the Council submitted that it had established that in breach of s 4.2 of the EP&A Act it was entitled to the orders sought. Findings on breach 1. I accept the submissions made by the Council. The evidence satisfies me that the carrying out of the Works required development consent and such consent was not obtained. Nature of relief 1. The Council submitted that in light of the findings on the evidence and the findings of breach that it was appropriate to make the declarations and orders sought in the proposed orders sought by the Council on the basis that there was no relevant discretionary consideration that would relevantly warrant the exercise of the Court's discretion to decline the making of the orders. In particular, the Council submitted that: 1. The Court's discretion in making orders pursuant to s 9.46 of the EP&A Act is wide. Even so, the Court of Appeal has stated guidelines applicable to the exercise of the Court's discretion in Warringah Shire Council v Sedevcic (1987) 10 NSWLR 335 at 339-341. 2. In relation to those guidelines: (a) the breaches are not merely technical and their results are highly noticeable in that the Works are highly visible from places external to the Land (b) Council has not delayed the commencement of these proceedings (on 17 February 2023): i. The Shed was the subject of a DA which was finally determined on appeal to the Land and Environment Court on 31 January 2023. ii. The Shed is dependent on the existence of Mound 2 upon which it is erected. (c) The breach has an adverse effect on the environment and the amenity of the locality. (d) Whilst the developments can be categorised as "static" development the "static development" arises purely from the continued conduct by the Respondents: i. the Respondents consciously continued the deposit of fill and the erection of the shed on the Land; ii. the Respondents ignored warnings both orally and in writing separate from first and in addition to the 4 DCOs; iii. the correspondence from the Respondents did not show any intention to stop; and iv. The fill deposited by the Respondents was not authorised to be deposited in NSW and is not VENM. v. Whilst large, the Shed is not a complex building, the cost of its construction being $160,000. vi. The "degree of irremediability occasioned by the breach and the expense or inconvenience which would follow the law's enforcement" is in the present circumstances outweighed by the public interest in compliance with the law. (e) The orders sought are not, in their nature, the enforcement of a private right, but instead are "the enforcement of a public duty imposed by or under [the EP&A Act], by which Parliament has expressed itself on the public interest which existed in the orderly development and use of the environment". (f) Condoning the Respondents' actions by the exercise of the Court's discretion in their favour would undermine the orderly enforcement of the EP&A Act. 1. I accept the submissions made by the Council and find that there is no relevant matter that would warrant the exercise of the Court's inherent discretion to decline to make the orders sought by the Council. 2. The Council also sought orders permitting, in the event that the Respondents fail to comply with the Court's orders, an order permitting it to enter upon the Land and carry out the works the subject of the orders and recover the costs of such work from the Respondents. The Council sought such order pursuant to r 40.8 of the UCPR, or, in the alternative pursuant to the power to order substituted performance pursuant to s 23 of the LEC Act. 3. It submitted that such orders were appropriate in the circumstances of this case having regard to: 1. The Respondents' non-appearance in these proceedings; 2. The evidence that the Respondents are not in continuous occupation of the Land; and 3. The evidence that the Respondents have presently listed the Land for sale. 1. In the circumstances outlined by the Council I consider it appropriate to make such orders. The primary orders are made against the Respondents and the Respondents have the primary obligation to comply with the orders of the Court. Absent such compliance the Respondents are at risk of being in contempt of the Court's orders. Compliance with the Court's orders as is required will render the alternative order nugatory as there will be no work for the Council to do. However, if the works outlined in the Court's order are not undertaken as required, I am satisfied on the evidence that there is both actual and potential harm to the environment that may occur if the breach of the EP&A Act is not remedied by way of the presence of potentially contaminated land together with the exportation of fill from the Land to surrounding waterways. Further, the Respondents have the benefit of the appeal from the Council's refusal of the development application for the Shed which determination considered the merits of the Shed and determined that development consent should not be granted. In those circumstances, and particularly in light of the Respondents' evinced intention to sell the Land, it is appropriate that such orders be made. 2. Accordingly, I will make the orders as proposed in the Council's short minutes of declarations and orders as filed in Court (with minor amendments to form rather than substance to render the orders internally consistent). Conclusion and orders 1. For the reasons outlined above, I make the following declarations and orders: 1. A declaration that, in breach of s 4.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EP&A Act), between about June 2020 to October 2021, the First Respondent and Second Respondent have carried out or permitted the carrying out of development on the Land, namely earthworks (the Earthworks) involving the depositing of fill consisting of soil, gravel, rocks and other material (the Fill Material), without development consent having first been obtained therefor and in force when the development was carried out. 2. A declaration that, in breach of s.4.2 of the EP&A Act, between April 2021 and October 2021, the First Respondent and Second Respondent carried out or permitted the carrying out of development on the Land, namely the erection of a building upon a concrete slab (the Shed) without development consent having first been obtained therefor and in force when the development was carried out. 3. A declaration that, in breach of s 4.2 of the EP&A Act, between August 2020 and May 2021, the First Respondent and Second Respondent have carried out or permitted the carrying out of development on the Land, namely the construction of an unsealed internal road (the Internal Driveway Works), without development consent having first been obtained therefor and in force when the development was carried out. 4. A declaration that, in breach of s 4.2 of the EP&A Act, between September 2020 and October 2021, the First Respondent and Second Respondent have carried out or permitted the carrying out of development on the Land and on the immediately adjacent road reserve of Fernleigh Drive, namely the construction of a vehicle track forming a secondary driveway access (the Secondary Driveway Works), without development consent having first been obtained therefor and in force when the development was carried out. 5. Order under s 9.46 of the EP&A Act that the First Respondent and Second Respondent, by themselves, their servants or agents: 1. Demolish the Shed and the concrete slab upon which it stands, within 38 days of the Court's order; 2. Remove all demolished materials and debris from the Land as a consequence of the demolition of the Shed and concrete slab pursuant to order 5(a) above and lawfully dispose of such waste, within 49 days (7 weeks) of the Court's order; 3. Provide evidence of lawful disposal in accordance with order 5(b) above to the Council, within 56 days (8 weeks) of the Court's order; 4. Remove the Secondary Driveway Works from the Land and adjacent Fernleigh Drive road reserve and reinstate a rural type wire fence on the boundary of the Land and the Fernleigh Drive road reserve in that location, within 42 days (6 weeks) of the Court's order; 5. Remove all demolished materials and debris from the Land as a consequence of the demolition of the Secondary Driveway Works pursuant to order 5(d) above and lawfully dispose of such waste, within 49 days (7 weeks) of the Court's order; 6. Provide evidence of lawful disposal in accordance with order 5(e) above to the Council, within 56 days (8 weeks) of the Court's order; 7. Advise the Council within 7 days of service of the Court's order the name of a suitably qualified environmental engineer to advise the Respondents on appropriate erosion and sediment controls to contain the movement of sediment off the Land from the areas disturbed by the Earthworks and Internal Road Works in accordance with, and as detailed in, NSW Government (Landcom) Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction, vol 1 (4th ed), March 2004, ISBN 0-9752030-3-7 (the 'Blue Book'); 8. Install erosion and sediment controls as advised by the environmental engineer engaged pursuant to order 5(g) above, within 28 days of the Court's order; 9. Engage a suitably qualified consultant to prepare Waste Classification Report. The Waste Classification Report must: 1. include details of the consultant's licenses and qualifications; 2. classify the Fill Materials in accordance with the NSW EPA Waste Classification Guideline (EPA, 2014); 3. include details of the types of any waste present on the Land, the quantities of each waste type present and the location of each type of waste; 4. include an assessment of whether asbestos and/or other contaminates, including PFAS, PFOS, are present in the Fill Materials and surrounding areas; 5. if asbestos, PFAS, PFOS and/or other contaminates are identified, provide details of the quantity, type and appropriate method of disposal; 6. recommend an appropriate lawful facility for the disposal of the Fill Materials and any contaminated materials; 1. Provide a copy of the Waste Classification Report prepared in accordance with 5(i) above to the Council for its approval within 63 days (9 weeks) of the Court's order; 2. Once the Waste Classification Report has been approved by the Council, and subject to any changes required by the Council, remove the Fill Material from the Land and lawfully dispose of Fill Material in accordance with the recommendations of the Waste Classification Report, within 56 days (8 weeks) from the date the Council approves the Waste Classification Report; 3. Provide to the Council written evidence of the lawful disposal of the Fill Material in accordance with order 5(k) above, including copies of all receipts, within 3 days of the disposal occurring; 4. Engage a consultant accredited by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for a Biodiversity Assessment Method to prepare an Environmental Restoration Plan for the areas affected by Earthworks and Internal Road Works. The Environment Restoration Plan must: 1. include details on what work is required to remediate the Land to allow the rehabilitation of the Land and regrowth of vegetation, and to restore habitat, flora and fauna back to the conditions they were in prior to the Earthworks and Internal Road Works being carried out; 2. if any contamination is documented in the Waste Classification Report prepared in accordance with order 5(i) above, include details of what work required to decontaminate the Land; 3. provide a schedule of work and nominate a reasonable timeframe to restore the Land to its original condition; 1. Provide a copy of the Environmental Restoration Plan prepared in accordance with order 5(m) above to the Council for its approval within 63 days (9 weeks) of the Court's order; 2. If there is a dispute in relation to the content of the Environmental Restoration Plan provided to the Council in accordance with order 5(m) above and, if requested by the Council, the First Respondent and Second Respondent must, at their cost and expense, engage an independent, suitably qualified ecologist to peer review the Environmental Restoration Plan and provide this to the Council; 3. Once the Environmental Restoration Plan has been approved by the Council, and subject to any changes required by the Council, restore the Land as near as possible to the condition it was in prior to the carrying out of the Earthworks and Internal Road Works by implementing the Environment Restoration Plan, within 28 days (4 weeks) of the Council approving the Environmental Restoration Plan. 1. Direct that, if the First Respondent and Second Respondent do not comply with Order 5(h) above within 1 month of the date specified by that order, the Council may, by itself, its servants or agents, enter the Land and shall install erosion and sediment controls to contain the movement of sediment off the Land from the areas disturbed by the Earthworks and Internal Road Works in accordance with, and as detailed in, NSW Government (Landcom) Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction, vol 1 (4th ed), March 2004, ISBN 0-9752030-3-7 (the 'Blue Book'). The Council must, prior to entering the Land, give 7 days' written notice of its intention to enter the Land to the First Respondent, the Second Respondent, and any occupiers of the Land by posting a notice to the Land. 2. Direct that, if the First Respondent and Second Respondent do not comply with orders 5(a)-(f) and (i)-(p) (inclusive) within 1 month of the date specified by those orders, the Council may, by itself, its servants or agents, enter the Land and do all such things as are necessary or convenient to give effect to the terms of the outstanding orders. The Council must, prior to entering the Land, give 14 days' written notice of its intention to enter the Land to the First Respondent, the Second Respondent, and any occupiers of the Land by posting a notice to the Land. 3. Order that the First Respondent and Second Respondent pay the costs incurred by the Council in carrying out the works pursuant to orders 5, 6 and 7. 4. Order that the First Respondent and Second Respondent are to pay the Applicant's costs of these proceedings as agreed or assessed. 5. The exhibits are returned. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 21 December 2023