Land and Environment Court of New South Wales CITATION : Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2005] NSWLEC 162 APPLICANT Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd PARTIES : RESPONDENT Ku-ring-gai Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 11508; 11509 and; 11516 of 2004 CORAM: Roseth SC - Murrell C Development Application :- 134-8 Eastern Road Wahroonga - Demolition of Interwar building - Heritage significance. KEY ISSUES: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 LEGISLATION CITED: Ku-ring-gai Plalnning Scheme Ordinance 1971 Development Control Plan No. 16 DATES OF HEARING: 1/03/2005 - 2/03/2005 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/21/2005 APPLICANT Mr C. McEwen, SC SOLICITORS Coudert Brothers LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr D. Officer, QC SOLICITORS Abbott Tout JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES Roseth SC Murrell C 21 April 2005 11508 of 2004 Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd v 11509 of 2004 Ku-ring-gai Council 11516 of 2004 JUDGMENT 1 Commissioners: Appeal No 11509 of 2004 is an appeal from Ku-ring-gai Council's (the council) refusal of an application for the demolition of a building, referred to as the Interwar Building. There are also two other appeals that relate to lot 1 DP 186622 and lots 13, 14 and 15 DP 12810, known as 134-138 Eastern Road, Wahroonga (the site). 2 Appeal No 11508 of 2004 is against the council's deemed refusal of an application under s96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) to amend the development consent for subdivision, issued by the Council in May 2001, by the adjustment of the boundaries of the allotments and by re-aligning the road. 3 Appeal No 11516 of 2004 is an appeal against the council's deemed refusal of an application under s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to amend the development consent for earthworks on the site. The Court determined an application 8 July 2004 to allow earthworks for the residential subdivision consented to by the Council in its letter of determination of May 2001. It was common ground that, if the Court approved the demolition of the Interwar Building, then the two appeals relating to the s96 applications should also be allowed. The site and environs 4 The two-hectare site is rectangular in shape and is located on the southwestern corner of the intersection of Eastern Road and Burns Road, Wahroonga. The Eastern Road boundary is 202 m and the boundary with Burns Road is 92 m. The western boundary of the site adjoins a public reserve with a length of 202 m and the southern boundary adjoins a road reserve forming part of Water Street having a length of 92 m. 5 The site is currently vacant apart from a number of structures associated with its former use as a religious training facility of the Patrician Brothers. The existing structures on the site include a heritage item known as Glenwood House, which was built c1910. The other building adjacent to the heritage item is an Interwar Building constructed in c1936 and consists of a dormitory, training facilities and a chapel. Figure 1 shows the site and location of the buildings. Figure 2 contains photographs of the Glenwood house and the Interwar Building. 6 There are a number of exotic and native trees on the site, mainly located towards the boundaries as shown on the aerial photograph at Figure 3. This also shows the playing fields associated with the use as a training college and the current access to the site off Eastern Road. 7 The Clive Evatt Reserve is opposite the site on the south-eastern corner of Burns and Eastern Roads. To the west of the site along the Burns Road frontage there is a bushland valley that adjoins the Wahroonga Public School known as the Bush School. To the south, southwest, southeast and north of the site, large residential allotments with dwelling houses are to be found in leafy landscaped settings. Background 8 The council approved a subdivision of the site for 17 residential allotments and a private access road. The consent was issued on 16 May 2001 and contained a number of heritage conditions, many of which are relevant to the Interwar Building and are shown in bold below. HERITAGE 22. A separate application accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement is required for any alterations and additions to Glenwood House, and the Interwar Building. 23. To ensure conservation works are carried out, the maintenance works outlined in the Heritage Consultant's report shall be completed prior to the commencement of works. 24. Essential repairs as identified in the. Heritage Report (Tropman & Tropman, March 2000) shall be carried out and completed within 6 months of this development consent, or prior to the commencement of works, whichever occurs first. 25. Details and heritage policy/Conservation Management Plan is to be provided identifying the possible uses of the Interwar Building which retain the buildings significance and curtilage is to be submitted to Council prior to release of the Subdivision Certificate. 26. Details of the colour, finish and substance of all external materials are to be submitted to Council for approval prior to commencement of work. New materials shall match existing as closely as possible but shall be discernible from original work. Samples of all external materials, finishes and colours to be submitted for approval by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any work on the Heritage Item. 27. A simple photographic record of the affected parts of Glenwood House and the Interwar Building shall be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of any works in the vicinity of the Heritage Item. Recording shall be undertaken in accordance with the Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Sites, Building and Structures (1994) prepared by the (then) Department of Planning and Heritage Council of New South Wales (Heritage Office). Information shall be bound in an A4 report format. It shall include copies of black and white photographs, referenced to plans of the affected property. Two (2) copies (one (1) copy to include negatives of photographs) shall be submitted to Council's Department of Environmental and Regulatory Services, to be held in the Local Studies Collection of Ku-ring-gai Library. 28. Details on the conservation and/or reuse of the sandstone wall on the site are to be submitted to Council prior to any works occurring on the site. 29. No approval has been granted to demolish the Existing Interwar Building on the site of proposed Lot 3. A separate application will be required to demolish, alter, add, or change the use or exterior appearance of the building. 30. All requirements and policy identified in the Heritage Assessment including sections 7.1.1 - 7.1.14; 7.4.2-7.4.5 and 8.0 to 8.5 (pp 15-16, 18-21) Tropman & Tropman, March 2000) form part of the conditions of approval. 31. New buildings upon Lots 4 and 3 (to the south east and north east) of Glenwood House shall be substantially single storey so as to retain the landscaped vistas of the heritage buildings. 32. All future landscaping is to be suitable and complementary to the heritage values of the site, particularly within the curtilage of the heritage buildings, and should be developed to retain vistas to and from the historic Glenwood House. 9 The following recommendations from the Tropman Report referred to in condition 30 relate to the Interwar Building: 7.1.4 The Interwar building should be conserved as an example of Georgian Revival styled architecture of the Interwar Period (1915 -1945). The Interwar building can be adapted, including partial demolition, however these alterations should be limited to the spaces and fabric of less heritage significance and allow for the interpretation of the original spaces and their uses. 7.1.6 No activity should be allowed that confuses the fact that Patrician Brothers ownership and use of the site was significant. 7.1.10 The maximum amount of early fabric inclusive of the Federation Period and Inter- War Period should be retained and conserved, with the Federation fabric being considered to have the greatest significance. 7.1.11 All significant articles should be retained on the site and conserved. However all significant religious artefacts should be relocated for use in another religious establishment or be retained on the site and conserved. These are mainly found within the chapel of the Interwar building. 7.1.12 Any new building, services, landscaping or activities in the vicinity of the former "Glenwood" house, significant landscape features and Interwar building structure, should have regard to the siting and design of the above mentioned structures and character of the site, with the former "Glenwood" house and it's setting being considered to have the greatest significance. 7.4.2 Within the last few years there have been problems with termites within the floor and roof structure of at least the Interwar building. A specialist with relevant experience should provide an assessment to ascertain where there are further constraints. 7.4.3 There are falling damp and moisture problems with the buildings. The source of these problems should be identified for rectification. 7.4.4 Generally the former 'Glenwood' house and Interwar building are substantially intact and retain their integrity. These buildings should be appropriately conserved. 7.4.5 There are a number of cracks ranging in size in both the former 'Glenwood' house and Interwar building, however they appear to be stable. A structural engineer's report should address this issue regarding their structural implications to ascertain whether there are any further constraints. 8.0 DRAFT CONSERVATION POLICY 8.1 Discussion The following is a draft. conservation management policy… The implementation of this policy will allow the clear interpretation of the significance of the site while accommodating subdivision and development… 8.2.9 There should be some form of interpretation of the past uses of the site incorporated into the facility. This could be achieved by placing a plaque near the entrance gate, designed to give an overview of the history of the site and by reusing the sandstone retaining wall as part of the entrance gates. 8.3.2 THE FORMER "GLENWOOD" HOUSE 8.3.2.1 The former "Glenwood" house is the most significant on the site. All future developments should reflect this. 8.3.2.2 The former 'Glenwood' house should be retained and conserved. 8.3.2.3 The former 'Glenwood' house should once again become a 8.3.3 INTERWAR BUILDING 8.3.3.1 The Interwar building is significant building however it is not as significant as the former "Glenwood" house. Any future development should appropriately reflect this. For example the Interwar building should be appropriately screened from the former "Glenwood" building whilst maintaining an appropriate physical connection, because "Glenwood" house and its setting are more significant than the Interwar building. 8.3.3.2 In terms of heritage, the building's preferred reuse options are educational and residential. 8.3.3.3 A structural engineer and pest inspector should be engaged to inspect, assess and make recommendations regarding the condition of the Interwar building. However the building appears to be in good condition. 8.3.3.4 The building envelope and fenestration should be retained and appropriately conserved. 8.3.3.5 The chapel (Room 3), attached room (Room 2) and stair well (Room 1) should be retained and conserved. 8.3.3.6 The Interwar building can be adapted, including partial demolition, provided this is limited to the spaces/ fabric of less heritage significance ie. rooms 7, 8 and the majority of room 13. Ensure a reasonable interpretation of the original building. 8.3.3.7 The joinery including windows and doors, and in particular the front door casement and main stairs, should be retained and conserved. 8.3.3.8 The building should be appropriately interpreted, and its significant moveable items and elements should be recycled. These include joinery items such as windows, the front door casement and internal '14 stations' (plaques depicting scenes from the bible) from the Interwar building. Some of these items, namely the religious artefacts, have already been promised for reuse in facilities in the Western suburbs. 10 The applicant submitted a s96 application to modify the above consent, however, the council required a development application under s97 of the Act. In our opinion, it would be desirable, for the sake of clarity, to amend the above consent to be consistent with this decision. The issues 11 The council submitted a Statement of Issues in respect of Appeal No 11509 of 2004 (ie the application to demolish the Interwar Building) containing the following issue: The demolition of the Interwar institutional building will have detrimental impact on the historical significance of the site for religious use and further deplete existing examples on Interwar institutional buildings in Ku-ring-gai. 12 It was common ground between the parties that the determination of Appeal Nos 11508 and 11516 of 2004 also depended on the determination of the above issue. The parties agreed that, if the Interwar Building can be demolished, the appeals dealing with consequential changes to the subdivision pattern and the earthworks required should be upheld. We note, however that the residents raised concerns about the other appeals, irrespective of the fate of the interwar building. Relevant planning controls and guidelines Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance 13 The site is zoned Residential 2(c) under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance 1971, (KOPSO) as amended. Subdivision is permissible with the consent of the council as is the erection of dwelling houses. 14 An amendment to the KPSO was made in 1991 by inserting a heritage map and a list of heritage items that includes No. 134 Eastern Road. This was based on a heritage study carried out in 1986, which identified "Glenwood House" for its cultural, social and architectural significance on the inventory sheet. 15 Clause 61D of the KPSO requires the consent of the council "to demolish, or alter the building or work…or erect a building on or subdivide land on which the building, work or relic is situated". In granting consent consideration must be given to "the carrying out of the proposed development and the affect on the heritage significance of the item and any stylistic or horticultural features of its setting". Similarly cl.61E requires "an assessment of the affect of carrying out of development on a heritage item on land in the vicinity of the item". Clause 61G contains provisions for conservation areas and requires "consideration to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the conservation area". The subject site is within the conservation area known as No. 27. 16 At the time the council resolved to refuse the application for demolition of the Interwar Building and chapel on the site, it also resolved: to prepare a draft local environmental plan to include the whole of the site known as 134-138 Eastern Road, Wahroonga, as a draft heritage item; and to request the Minister to make an Interim Heritage Order (IHO). Development Control Plan No. 16 17 A site specific DCP was prepared for the site known as 134-138 Eastern Road. The aims and objectives of the DCP are: a) encourage future development of the. site that is of a form and nature which ensures the conservation of the natural landscape, cultural and historic elements; b) promote the retention of the identified heritage item as listed in the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance; c) encourage the conservation of the historic and architectural integrity of the building by identifying an appropriate curtilage; d) ensure the protection of surrounding bushland reserves and existing trees from the impact and consequences of urban development; e) promote vehicular access to the site that is safe while being sensitive to the surrounding bushland and heritage significance of the site; and f) promote development of the site that is compatible with the character of the surrounding residential areas. 18 In the DCP "heritage item means that part of the building and associated curtilage as identified and shown on the map". The DCP shows Glenwood House with a curtilage of 15m to the north and south of the dwelling, 20m to the west, and to the boundary with the road to the east. The 15m-curtilage to the north takes in that part of the Interwar Building that includes the Chapel. 19 Clause 7 contains additional requirements for subdivision applications and states the following objective: To promote submission of additional information that will demonstrate future subdivision of the site results in the creation of allotments that will sustain development causing minimal disturbance of bushland, maximum tree retention and minimal impact on the identified heritage item. 20 The DCP also contains a number of objectives relating to access, drainage, adjoining bushland, existing trees on the site, landscape requirements. The objective for the heritage item is: To ensure conservation of the identified heritage item and maintenance of a reasonable curtilage to ensure the conservation of the context of house and its visitors. The objectors 21 The development application for the demolition of the Interwar Building was advertised and over 50 submissions were received. On the first morning of the hearing the Court visited the site and met 24 local residents who objected to demolition. A number of them spoke to their objection including: Mr Don Brew of 86 Braeside Street; Mr Simon Olding of 16 Moana Street; Ms Jennifer Harvey of 48 Kokoda Avenue; Ms Neroli Lock of 4 Leuna Avenue; Mr Alan Parr of 42 Water Street; Mr Barrie Pointon of 45 Braeside Street; and Mr Bastow of 114 Coonabarren Road, St Ives. 22 The objectors are opposed to the demolition of the Interwar Building because of its local importance to the area for its historic and social significance as it represents the earliest known novitiate (the quarters for the training of religious instructors). They consider the retention of this building important to interpreting the historic significance of the site. In their view it represents the later history story of the site, as opposed to Glenwood House, which only represents the early days of the Patrician Brothers' connection with the community. 23 The objectors were concerned that the original consent for the subdivision referred to the Tropman heritage assessment report, the recommendations of which included retention of the Interwar Building. Therefore they considered that the demolition represents 'development by creep,' and that the building should be retained to comply with the original consent. Some of the residents were also concerned about the extent of the earthworks and the loss or removal of trees on the site, in particular, the connection, or corridor, this site provides to surrounding bushland of Blue Gum High Forest Group. The evidence 24 The heritage consultants provided statements to the Court as well as a joint report. Mr Robert Moore gave evidence for the council and Mr Howard Tanner gave evidence on behalf of the applicant. 25 In their joint statement the heritage experts agreed that: The principal matters for discussion were the heritage significance of the Interwar Building, and whether it could be adapted satisfactorily for a new residential use in the context of the proposed development 26 On the question of the significance of the building, the joint statement provide: Mr Tanner for the applicant could not agree that the building has real heritage significance. He did not see that the building, if repaired and restored, would become an example celebrated by architects or visited by students or the community. There were other buildings of its type that made it of less concern for consideration, and it was of unremarkable design. He did not see that the building was importantly representative of its type or staff. It was in poor condition, and while it could be repaired, this would be expensive and uneconomic. Mr Moore said he did not rely upon the architectural or aesthetic value of the building alone – it was its local historical role as well as its design qualities and character which made the building of interest, and gave it a place in local history. It did not matter if it was visited by architectural students, but it was important that it was retained as a reflection of the area's history – and as one of the few buildings of a formerly religious use, potentially to remain. It also had associations with the Patrician Brothers and their supporters, and the wider Catholic community. Mr Moore believed that if retained, the building would meaningfully contribute to the newly evolving urban setting. 27 On the question of the adaptive re-use of the building the joint statements says: Mr. Tanner agreed that there had been reports prepared by Tropman & Tropman Architects for Mirvac examining the re-use of the building, as listed in his Statement…. Adaptive possibilities examined included the partial demolition of the building at its northern end, and the inclusion of garages in its western elevation. Mr. Moore noted these concepts were in conflict with the proposed policies of the Tropman reports, and suggested they were not the only options. Mr. Tanner was of the view that adaptive re-use would still only produce a poor building of little architectural merit or quality. As a residential building it would be out of keeping with the proposed new buildings around it and architecturally incongruous. It would be of a different character and appearance both internally and externally if converted into a contemporary home. Mr. Moore did not agree that the building would of necessity be dull or incongruous. As could be seen and appreciated from photographs showing it in good condition, it was a well-mannered building of a style popular in Ku-ring-gai, and it should not be dismissed because of its condition now. It was repairable and would lend character to its setting, typical of surrounding established streets. Mr. Moore remained of the view that the building could be usefully adapted as residential accommodation, and that this adaptation could be both successful and worthwhile. Its design did not mean it would, of necessity, adversely impose on its new setting. The design of the new buildings would not be diminished in quality or success should the developer be required to keep this building and to relate new development to it - as had earlier been an approved part of the development. While Mr. Tanner agreed the building could be adaptively re-used, he did not see there was merit in doing so. It is, in his opinion, not worth keeping, and would frustrate better development. Mr. Moore remained supportive of the building's heritage value, and felt there was both purpose and opportunity, for the community and the developer, in the building's re-use. 28 The Court requested Mr Moore and Mr Tanner to sketch how the Interwar Building could be adapted for use as a residence. Mr Tanner thought that it is preferable to have direct access for the garage from the internal road (currently the rear of the subject building). Mr Moore considered that this would not be sympathetic and recommended garaging under the building serviced by a driveway on the northern side of the building. Mr Moore was of the opinion that the garages should be introduced on the eastern side away from the street. He was of the opinion that it is possible "to convert the house into a very liveable and very desirable residence and at the same time retain enough of its integrity". 29 The Interwar Building is currently oriented with the front entrance and Chapel wing to the east. The rear of the building faces the proposed access road. Mr Tanner thought that the western side of the building (the back) provides "a barren presentation that requires work to 'domesticate' it and provide a 'fit' with other dwellings proposed in the estate". He considered that this elevation is institutional in character (whereas the eastern elevation does have a domestic feel) and that it would be difficult to provide street appeal for the building if it were converted to a dwelling. In his opinion "it would not be palatable in the Wahroonga market presenting a utilitarian elevation". 30 Mr Tanner said the design of the proposed subdivision makes Glenwood House the focus, or pivot, with panoramic views to appreciate the house in the round by providing for buildings on either side to be predominantly single storey. He said that demolition of the Interwar Building would provide a greater curtilage to Glenwood House. He considered that the Interwar Building, even after adaptation, would appear as having institutional character hard up against the road. It would not successfully convey its historic role during the Patrician Brothers' period. 31 Mr Moore took issue. In his opinion the retention of Glenwood House in isolation would tell only part of the story of the Patrician Brothers' importance to the local community. 32 The experts agreed that it would cost in the vicinity of $1.7 to $1.9 million in construction costs to adapt the Interwar Building to a residence. The estimate cost of a new dwelling is around $600,000. The cost difference between demolition and a new house on the one hand, and adaptive reuse, on the other, is therefore in the order of $1 million. Findings 33 While the experts agreed that the Interwar Building is capable of adaptation for a dwelling house, they disagreed on whether the building should be retained and how successful adaptive reuse would be. The Court must therefore decide two questions. First, does the building justify retention and adaptive re-use at considerable cost? Second, would the building, if adapted, succeed in achieving the purpose of retention, namely telling the story of its significance to the Patrician Brothers, the site and Wahroonga? 34 We accept that the Interwar Building represents a chapter in the history of the Patrician Brothers' novitiate role on the site. However, we are not persuaded that this is of such importance as to justify its retention. The Patrician Brothers' use of the site will be permanently commemorated by the retention of Glenwood House and the associated interpretative material. The retention and adaptive reuse of the Interwar Building would not add to the effectiveness of Glenwood House in commemorating the Brothers' role. 35 We agree with Mr Tanner that the Interwar Building is unremarkable. We question how, if converted to a dwelling, it could fulfil the task of explaining the role it played in the Patrician Brothers period. In our opinion, it will be unsuccessful both as a house and as an attempt to preserve history. Moreover, the demolition of the building, which is located within Glenwood House's curtilage, would 'free up' Glenwood House and assist it in making it the focus of the residential estate. 36 By way of comment, we draw attention to the fact that the assessment of dwellings adjoining Glenwood House should take into account the requirements of the DCP, ie they should be predominantly single-storey and provide an appropriate curtilage and presentation. We note that the applicant's plans show the proposed dwelling footprint to be closer than the 15m-curtilage envisaged by the DCP. The heritage provisions of the KPSO referred to above also require an assessment of development in the vicinity of a heritage item. 37 In coming to our decision, we were not influenced by the cost of converting the Interwar Building to a house. The only significance of the $1 million additional cost is that the requirement to retain the Interwar Building should not be imposed on the applicant lightly or thoughtlessly. There were two factors behind our decision. First, the significance of the Interwar Building is not of a level that justifies its retention. Second, adaptive reuse would result in a building that is neither successful as a house, nor would it achieve the aim of reminding people of the building's role in the Patrician Brothers' period on the site. 38 There have been a number of heritage studies, reports and assessments relating to the site over the years from 1986: * the study that lead to the listing of part of the site and identified Glenwood House in the KPSO; * the three Tropman reports; * various council officers' reports; and * the experts' reports for these proceedings. 39 The studies are not consistent on the significance of the Interwar Building. They are, however, consistent that 'Glenwood House' is of heritage significance. We have also considered the draft amendment to the KPSO that included the whole of the subject site as a heritage item. We note that the amendment does not change the description of the item by including the Interwar Building. DCP 16 reinforces this by being emphatic in its terms to ensure the conservation of Glenwood House and its curtilage. 40 We accept the council's submission that there should not be 'development by creep'. When there is a condition attached to a development consent, the consent authority must undertake a thorough assessment whenever that condition is proposed to be varied. We understand the concerns of local residents to ensure that environmental values of the built and natural environment are not eroded by subsequent changes to consents. The fact that the original consent required the retention of the Interwar Building meant that we have given the proposal to demolish it very thorough consideration. That consideration has brought us to the conclusion that there is no reason to refuse the demolition of the building, subject to conditions to prepare an historic record and place interpretative material on the site. Conditions 41 At the end of the proceedings the parties undertook to review the proposed conditions for the three appeals. The solicitors for the council gave the objectors the opportunity to comment on these. We have considered the objectors' further comments. We do not think that it is necessary for the archival record to allow the building to be re-created, as this is a most unlikely event. However, we agree that more detail should be provided, eg interior colours, brick type and colour, details of joinery, external doorway and window arrangements, roof tile type; and a detailed history of the building's use and the site's role within the Patrician Brothers organisation. The applicant should provide these to the council before the building is demolished. The condition for the location of the interpretative panel for the Interwar Building is amended to be co-located with the 'Glenwood House' display panel. These should be visible from the Eastern Road boundary within the curtilage of the proposed lot for 'Glenwood House'. We have amended the condition accordingly. Appeal Nos 11508 and 11516 of 2004 42 It was common ground between the parties that if the appeal relating to the demolition of the Interwar Building is upheld, the other two appeals should also be upheld. However some issues, including the conditions on which the objectors have commented were not discussed before us. We do not think that it is appropriate for the Court to uphold these appeals without further submissions on the residents concerns. The matter can be dealt with by a mention before the Court. Alternatively, as the council has not yet determined these applications, it may approve them without recourse to the Court, in which case the appeals could be discontinued. Orders 43 On the basis of our assessment above, the orders of the Court are: 1. Appeal No. 11509 of 2004 is upheld. 2. The development application submitted to Ku-ring-gai Council, for the demolition of the Interwar Building located on the land known as 134-138 Eastern Road, is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure "A". 3. The exhibits, except No. 7, are returned. 4. Appeal Nos 11508 of 2004 and 11516 of 2004 are adjourned to the call-over on 26 April2005. ______________________ ___________________ Dr John Roseth Jan Murrell SeniorCommissioner Commissioner 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.