Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Jade Developments Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1319 Hearing dates: 6, 7 June 2018 Date of orders: 27 June 2018 Decision date: 27 June 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Development Application No. 1020/2017/HA for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a residential flat building at 4 Parsonage Road Castle Hill is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A. 3. The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibits 1 and B. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of an existing dwelling and tree removal and construction of a residential flat building; inadequate lot size; excessive density; inadequate building separation; inadequate building setbacks; inadequate transition to adjoining properties; inadequate landscaping; poor apartment mix; solar access; out of character. Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 Cases Cited: Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jade Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant) The Hills Shire Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M Staunton (Applicant) Solicitors: Mills Oakley (Applicant) A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent) File Number(s): 2017/77319 Publication restriction: No Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. 1020/2017/HA for the demolition of an existing dwelling and tree removal and construction of a residential flat building at 4 Parsonage Road Castle Hill (the site). 2. The council maintains, in their Statement of Facts and Contentions, that the application should be refused for the following reasons: * inadequate lot size; * excessive density; * inadequate building separation, * inadequate building setbacks; * inadequate site frontage; * inadequate transition to adjoining properties; * inadequate landscaping; * poor apartment mix; * solar access; and * out of character. 1. The applicant provided amended plans to address the areas identified as being unacceptable by the council. The amended plans reduced the number of contentions to inadequate lot size, excessive density, inadequate building setbacks, location of communal open space, inadequate site frontage and character. The site 1. The site is Lot 4 in DP 511198. It is regular in shape with a southern frontage to Parsonage Road of approximately 24.38 m, side boundaries to the west and east of 28.955 m and a rear boundary to the north of approximately 24.38 m giving a site area of 689sqm. 2. Adjoining the site to the north and west at 6 Parsonage Road is a two storey townhouse development. Adjoining the site to the east is a two storey townhouse development. Further to the north and west are residential flat building developments at 8-10 Parsonage Road and 220-222 Old Northern Road, and single dwellings at 9-13 Hume Avenue. Opposite the site to the south of Parsonage Road includes both townhouse and single dwellings, including a heritage item at 210 Old Northern Road. Relevant planning controls 1. The site is located within the R4 High Density Residential zone under The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012). The proposed development is permissible, with consent as a "residential flat building". Clause 2.3(2) requires the Court to have regard to the zone objectives in considering the application. The zone objectives are: 1 Objectives of zone • To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment. • To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment. • To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents. • To encourage high density residential development in locations that are close to population centres and public transport routes. 1. Clause 4.1A(2) provides the minimum lot size for residential flat buildings in the R4 zone as 4000sqm. The proposal does not satisfy this standard however the applicant relies on the provisions of cl 4.1(A)(3) that allows development consent to be granted on a lot size below this standard if the criteria in this sub clause are satisfied. 2. Clause 4.3 provides the maximum height of buildings on the site is 16m. The proposal satisfies this standard. 3. The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 (DCP 2012) applies. 4. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) applies to the proposed development. Clause 28 requires consideration to be given to the design quality principles (cl 28(2)(b)) and the publication Apartment Design Guide (ADG) (cl 28(2)(c)). Inadequate lot size The statutory framework 1. Clause 4.1A(2) provides the minimum lot sizes for dual occupancy, multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings. For a residential flat building (Column 1) in the R4 High Density Residential zone (Column 2), the minimum lot size is 4,000sqm (Column 3). 2. Clause 4.1A(3) provides: (3) Despite subclause (2), development consent may be granted to development on a lot in a zone shown in Column 2 of the Table to subclause (2) for multi dwelling housing or residential flat buildings where the area of the lot is less than the area specified for that purpose and shown in Column 3 of the Table, if Council is satisfied that: (a) the form of the proposed structures is compatible with adjoining structures in terms of their elevation to the street and building height, and (b) the design and location of rooms, windows and balconies of the proposed structures, and the open space to be provided, ensures acceptable acoustic and visual privacy, and (c) the dwellings are designed to minimise energy needs and utilise passive solar design principles, and (d) significant existing vegetation will be retained and landscaping is incorporated within setbacks and open space areas. 1. Expert town planning evidence was provided by Mr Andrew Robinson, for the applicant and Mr Gerard Turrisi, for the council. Mr Robinson and Mr Turrisi disagreed on whether the proposed development satisfies the requirements in subsec (a) and (d) and consequently whether the concession in lot size is available. The evidence – cl 4.1A(3)(a) - the form of the proposed structures is compatible with adjoining structures in terms of their elevation to the street and building height 1. Mr Robinson states that the form of the proposed residential flat building is commensurate with other three storey residential flat buildings in the locality, in particular the existing residential flat buildings to the west of the site at 1-7 Hume Avenue (corner of Parsonage Road). Although the site is adjoined by 2 storey townhouses to the east and rear, the streetscape character has a mixed built form and scale, with both two and three storey buildings in the section of Parsonage Road between Hume Avenue and Old Northern Road. 2. Unlike the adjoining townhouse developments, the proposed building presents a built form and scale that is in keeping with the zoning objective of achieving housing in a high density residential environment. 3. Although there is an additional built element above the third storey that facilities access to the roof top communal open space, it does not constitute an additional storey and the height of the building is still well below the maximum 16m height of buildings. As such, Mr Robinson is of the opinion that the proposed building represents a height/scale that is less than that which was anticipated by the council when it adopted a maximum 16m height limit. 4. Mr Turrisi states that in considering the form of existing buildings in this area, the site is predominantly surrounded by two storey developments. This is in the form of detached dwellings and townhouses. Mr Turrisi notes that the development at 1-7 Hume Avenue is a three-storey residential flat development however; the presentation of this development incorporates a third storey in a roof type structure. It is also noted that there is a significant degree of separation between the site and 1-7 Hume Avenue due to the landscape and driveway of 6 Parsonage Road. This proposal, in terms of context, has an overall height significantly greater compared to the adjoining developments compounded by its street setback, that is forward of the adjoining properties. 5. Although the proposed development has three levels of residential accommodation, there is a fourth level created by the provision of communal open space on the roof, as a roof terrace. The fourth level is visible to the street due to the lift, which provides access to the roof terrace and by a set of stairs. It is Mr Turrisi's view that the proposed building will read, in part as a four-storey building. From a site context, there are no adjoining structures that are comparable to this height. The evidence – cl 4.1A(3)(d) - significant existing vegetation will be retained and landscaping is incorporated within setbacks and open space areas 1. Mr Robinson states that despite the proposed removal of two trees at the front of the property, the landscape scheme for the site incorporates a combination of trees, shrubs and groundcovers that will provide an attractive landscape setting. The significant trees on the adjoining sites will be retained and protected and the building design has been carefully considered and a range of protection measures will be implemented prior to the commencement of any work to ensure the retention of these trees. The Arboricultural Assessment report submitted with the development application identifies the two trees to be removed as being a Tibouchina sp. (Tree 1) approximately. 4m tall and a Pennantia cunninghamii (Brown Beach) (Tree 2) approximately 13m tall. The arborist's assessment found that the scale of significance of these trees, as established by the Rating System for Tree Significance - (IACA, 2009) as being low for Tree 1 and Medium for Tree 2 and recommended removal of both of these trees. On the strength of this recommendation, neither of these trees represent 'significant existing vegetation' such that their removal is not contrary to subsec (d). 2. Mr Turrisi states that in reference to the retention of significant vegetation and landscaping being incorporated within the setbacks and open space areas, it is noted that the applicant's arborist report indicates and recommends the retention of a number of trees. Mt Turrisi notes Council's Tree Officer is concerned about a number of trees, which are being listed as being retained will be impacted due to the location of the proposed basement, particularly Tree 12. 3. Mr Turrisi is of the view that the vegetation labeled to be retained must be retained to satisfy this consideration. In addition, the proposed setbacks to the street does not allow for appropriate planting compared to adjoining properties. Such landscaping is also compromised by the location of OSD in the front setback. Findings 1. Clause 4.1A(3) provides the opportunity for the minimum lot size requirement in cl 4.1A(2) to be varied if the matters in cl 4.1A(3) are satisfied. The subsecs in dispute are (a) and (d). The effect of cl 4.1A(3), if the relevant criteria are satisfied, is that there is no minimum lot size for the construction of a residential flat buildings on the site. The Court is required to be satisfied that firstly, the form of the proposed development is compatible with adjoining structures in terms of only two matters; being elevation to the street and building height (cl 4.1A(3)(a)). Secondly, that significant existing vegetation will be retained and landscaping is incorporated within setbacks and open space areas (cl 4.1A(3)(d)). 2. In relation to cl 4.1A(3)(a), I accept that "compatible" has the meaning of "capable of existing together in harmony" (Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191). If the proposed development is considered in this context, I accept that the proposed development is compatible with adjoining structures in terms of elevation to the street and building height. With the benefit of a site inspection, I accept Mr Turrisi's description of the "adjoining structures" being a three-storey residential flat development (1-7 Hume Avenue) with a wide separation between the site and 1-7 Hume Avenue due to the landscape and driveway of 6 Parsonage Road. The building form of the development at 6 Parsonage Road is located at the rear of the site and consists of two-storey townhouses as does the development at 2 Parsonage Road 3. Contrary to Mr Turrisi's evidence that the proposed development could be seen as a part four storey development; I am not satisfied that this necessarily the case. The structure to contain the lift and stair is near the front of the building to a height of around 12.3m (or around 2m above the parapet height). This part of the development is around 4m in width of the street elevation and building height above the three residential levels of the building. It is also integrated into the building design when viewed from the street. I do not accept that this part of the building has the effect of creating a four storey or even part four storey appearance at the street and in my view, would not make the proposed building incompatible "with adjoining structures". 4. Mr Turrisi also addressed the question of a potential amalgamation with adjoining sites however given the intent of cl 4.1A(3) to allow an unrestricted variation to the minimum lot size and the absence of any requirements to seek amalgamation, it is not a matter that needs any further discussion. 5. Clause 4.1A(3)(e) requires firstly, significant (my emphasis) existing vegetation to be retained and secondly, landscaping is incorporated within setbacks and open space areas. The Arboricultural Assessment Report (TALC, Tree and landscape Consultants, 14 December 2016) identified 12 trees on site and near the boundaries on adjoining sites. The report states that all but Trees 2 and 3 be retained. Tree 2 is located in the front setback of the site and Tree 3 is located on the property to the east. The council accepted that Trees 2 and 3 could be removed however raised concern over the impact the basement carpark would have on Tree 12. 6. A joint expert report (Exhibit 4) was provided by Mr Richards, for the applicant and Mr Goodier for the council on Tree 12. They agreed that with some reconfiguration of the basement carpark that Tree 12 could be retained. These changes were accepted by the applicant. The applicant also provided a concept landscape plan for the site as part of the site plan (A-DA-10-001) however it is not sufficient to address the second part of cl 4.1A(3)(e). This not fatal to the application as condition 39 requires a Landscape Plan to be provided to the satisfaction of Council's Manager -Environment and Health. The organisation, location and species selection is appropriate as a condition of consent. 7. The use of the front setback for landscaping was questioned by Mr Turrisi, on the basis that the OSD tank would limit the ability to provide deep soil planting and as such effective landscaping, however I accept that sufficient information has been provided to show that the OSD tank can be relocated underneath the proposed driveway to free up additional area for landscaping in the front setback area. 8. I am satisfied that the minimum lot size requirement in cl 4.1A(2) can be varied given that the matters in of cl 4.1A(3)(a) and (d) are satisfied. Density 1. The objectives of the density controls set out at cl 3.10 of DCP 2012 are: (i) To ensure residential flat building development does not over-tax existing services and facilities, (ii) To provide opportunities for a suitable density housing form that is compatible with the existing surrounding development. 1. Clause 3.10(a) 'Density' in Part B, Section 5 'Residential Flat Buildings' of DCP 2012 relevantly states as follows: The maximum population density permitted is 175 persons per hectare with a desirable range between 150-175 persons per hectare. 1. Mr Turrisi states that the proposed density is 197 persons per hectare, exceeding the upper limit of the planned density (175 persons) by 22 persons (or 12.6%). 2. Mr Robinson address the density question through a scenario where the density of adjoining properties is calculated based on occupancy rates for the existing adjoining developments. The proposed development would generate a total occupancy of 13.6 people across the 6 apartments. When added to the 83.7 people for the existing adjoining developments, a total population density of 97.3 people is achieved. This is well below the estimated density of 173.4 people that could be achieved across the four sites. 3. Mr Turrisi notes Mr Robinson's calculations and, if correct, they demonstrate a lower population. The degree of variation from 175 persons per hectare to 197 is a non-compliance of 12.6% however the critical issue to support a variation is that the proposed development, in terms of its overall density, provides a high level of amenity for the residents as per the Design Quality Principle 3 of SEPP65, which in my view is a more determinate issue together with the proposal satisfying cl 4.1A(3). 4. Mr Turrisi states that should the development satisfy cl 4.1A(3) and if it is demonstrated that the amenity of the apartments have been satisfied, together with no material impact to adjoining properties, including loss of vegetation on adjoining sites, then a non-compliance to the density control in isolation could be supported. 5. I agree with Mr Turrisi that the density is not a matter that would warrant the refusal of the application, particularly as the amended plans satisfactorily addressed the matters raised by Mr Turrisi. Also, the submission of Mr Staunton is helpful in that the12.6% increase in density is misleading. To satisfy the 175 persons per hectare requirement, and given the size of the site, the actual population of the proposed development would only need to be reduced by 1.5 persons to satisfy 175 persons per hectare requirement. 6. I accept that the proposed development satisfies the objectives in cl 3.10 of DCP 2012 in that there was no evidence (or likely to be any evidence) to suggest that an additional 1.5 persons is likely to "over-tax existing services and facilities" (objective 1). I do not accept, for reasons set out in the judgment, that the proposed development is not "a suitable density housing form that is compatible with the existing surrounding development" (objective 2). Setbacks 1. Clause 3.3(2)(a) - Setbacks - Building Zones (Table 1) in Part B Section 5 'Residential Flat Buildings' of DCP 2012 provides for a minimum front building setback of 10 m, a minimum side building setback of 6 m and a minimum rear building setback of 8m. 2. The setback objectives in cl 3.3 in DCP 2012 are: (i) To provide setbacks that complement the setting and contributes to the streetscape and character of the street while allowing flexibility in siting of buildings. (ii) To ensure that the space in front of the building is sufficient to permit landscaping that will complement the building form and enhance the landscape character of the street. (iii) Side and rear setbacks are to be proportioned to the slope of the site having regard to the height and relationship of the buildings on adjoining properties. (iv) The setbacks of proposed buildings are to minimise any adverse impacts such as overshadowing and privacy on adjacent and adjoining properties. (v) To ensure placement of buildings takes into account the retention and protection of existing trees 1. Mr Turrisi notes that the plans as filed provides for a front setback of 6.37 m and 3.008 m to the bin storage area. He notes that Mr Robinson provided plans that shows setbacks of the existing built form which varies with 1-7 Hume Avenue having a street setback between 7.834 m to 11.656 m, the garbage enclosure at 2 Parsonage Road has a street setback of 5.85 m and the development at 212 Old Northern Road has an indicated setback to Parsonage Road at 1.7 m. However, with the benefit of the site view, these measurements were found to be inaccurate 2. Mr Turrisi notes that the applicant has now suggested that the waste room will now contained within the ground floor alignment of the built form, rather than projecting forward, and this would mean that the setback to the street would be a minimum of 6.392 m. Notwithstanding this, Mr Turrisi states the development removes vegetation from the street and the adjoining setbacks are still greater than the proposed development. The new proposed setback is not consistent with adjoining/surrounding built form which means the proposal will provide a more dominant presentation compared to the surrounding developments which provide greater setbacks and within a landscaped setting. While the relocation of the garbage area may satisfy the relevant provisions in DCP 2012, that there should be no building work other than landscaping, driveways, post boxes, pergolas outside of the building zone, the overall built form as presented to the street is not considered appropriate. 3. Mr Turrisi is also concerned in terms of the rear setback of the building which requires an 8 m setback. The purpose of the 8 m setback control is to ensure that the placement of any building takes into account, amongst other considerations, the retention and protection of existing trees. As detailed previously, there is a concern based on the applicant's arborist report that Tree 12 to be retained, cannot be protected. On that basis, variation to the setbacks should not be supported. 4. On the matter of the front setback, I accept that the proposed setback is acceptable for a number of reasons. Given that the minimum lot size is unrestricted (but subject to cl 4.1A(3)) it is reasonable to expect some variations to some requirements in DCP 2012 would be expected given that the minimum lot size is 4000sqm in cl 4.1A(2). Any variations would, not unreasonably, need to be justified through consideration against the relevant objectives. 5. In this case, I am satisfied that the variation can be justified. The setbacks vary considerably along that section of Parsonage Road between Old Northern Road and Hume Avenue. 1-7 Hume Avenue has a street setback to Parsonage Road around 10m. The site has an area of over 4000sqm. The building setback for 6 Parsonage Road is over 30m and the visual presentation of the property to Parsonage Road is more associated with a vacant lot. The property at 2 Parsonage Road has a setback around 10m to the townhouses however a significant brick structure to house the garbage bins with a tiled pitched roof is located almost on the front property boundary. The next property at the corner of Parsonage Road and Old Northern Road has its side boundary to Parsonage Road and is less relevant is assessing street setbacks. In this context of markedly different setbacks to Parsonage Road, I am satisfied that the front setback of 6.392 m "complement(s) the setting and contributes to the streetscape and character of the street while allowing flexibility in siting of buildings" (objective (i)). 6. I am also satisfied that the front setback "ensure(s) that the space in front of the building is sufficient to permit landscaping that will complement the building form and enhance the landscape character of the street" for the reasons set out earlier in the judgment (objective (ii)) 7. No issues were raised in relation to overshadowing and privacy on adjacent and adjoining properties (objective (iv)) and the retention of existing trees has been considered earlier in the judgment and found to be acceptable (objective (v)). 8. Similarly, the side and rear setbacks are considered acceptable and "are to be proportioned to the slope of the site having regard to the height and relationship of the buildings on adjoining properties" (objective iii)). Any concerns over the retention of Tree12 have been satisfactorily resolved. Communal open space 1. The proposed development provides the communal open space on the roof of the building. Mr Robinson maintains that the provision of communal open space at ground level will provide a much lower amenity for residents and their visitors. While 353sqm of landscaping is provided at ground level, a single area that achieved the required 172m2 (25% of the site area to meet the ADG requirement) cannot be achieved. Locating the communal open space at the roof top will allow for a consolidated and usable area for communal use that will be afforded high levels of solar access and will remove any acoustic/privacy issues associated with the relationship between ground level communal open space and ground floor apartments. 2. Mr Robinson notes that Objective 3D-1 of the ADG states that an adequate area of communal open space is to be provided to enhance residential amenity and to provide opportunities for landscaping. The proposed roof top open space satisfies this objective, providing a landscaped area of 192.30m2 (27.84% of the site area), together with a large consolidated area where tables and chairs and BBQ facilities will be provided for the use and enjoyment of residents and their visitors. 3. While the proposed roof top communal open space does not meet one of the design criteria at Objective 3D-1 (communal open space should be co-located with deep soil areas); the proposed location of the communal open space will meet the remaining 5 design guidance matters. In particular, the design guidance acknowledges that: Where communal open space cannot be provided at ground level, it should be provided on a podium or roof; and Where developments are unable to achieve the design criteria, such as on small lots, sites within business zones, or in a dense urban area, they should: provide communal spaces elsewhere such as a landscaped roof top terrace or a common room provide larger balconies or increased private open space for apartments demonstrate good proximity to public open space and facilities and/or provide contributions to public open space. 1. Mr Turrisi sates that Mr Robinson's response that the communal open space cannot be provided on the ground level in one single area is a direct result of the design. Clearly, the footprint of the building holistically would enable such provisions. There is opportunity to potentially minimise the size of the ground floor apartment to the rear to provide connectivity from the lift to the north eastern side/corner of this site to provide a far more usable communal open space area and thus minimise the bulk and scale of the development on the upper floor. These provisions are endorsed in ADG where it is stipulated that communal open space should be co-located within deep soil areas. Mr Turrisi acknowledges that the provision of a roof terrace is deemed to be acceptable in the ADG but where open space cannot be provided at the ground level. Mr Turrisi considers that the applicant has not demonstrated that it cannot be provided at the ground but rather it is more convenient to be located to the roof level. 2. The details of the upper roof area show quite an extensive BBQ and recreational space however to minimise the overall height of the building, the applicant has not shown any form of structure or weather protection other than what would appear to be a folding umbrella. Given the level of facilities provided, it would not be unreasonable for future residents to seek additional elements such as pergolas to provide appropriate sheltering. This aligns with the general objective of 3D-2 of ADG which states that the location of facilities respond to the micro-climate and site conditions with access to sun in winter, shade in summer and shelter from strong winds and down drafts. 3. On the location of the communal open space, I agree with the conclusions of Mr Robinson. Even though the proposed roof top communal open space does not meet one of the design criteria at Objective 3D-1 (communal open space should be co-located with deep soil areas) in the AGD ; the proposed location of the communal open space meets the remaining 5 design guidance matters. 4. Clause 3.13 – Open Space in Part B Section 5 'Residential Flat Buildings' of DCP 2012 provides objectives and development controls for common open space. The objectives are: (i) To provide a functional open space area within the development for the informal recreation of all residential flat building residents and children's play. (ii) To provide opportunities for additional landscaping and retention of any significant features that add to the amenity of the site in accordance with Council's ESD objective 4. 1. The proposed location satisfies objective (i) and is not inconsistent with objective (ii). 2. The proposed location also satisfies development controls (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) with the only conflict being (c) where, in part, surveillance of the area is required from at least two dwellings. Given the proposed location and the likely access arrangements; this would not be a reason to accept Mr Turrisi's suggestion of a building redesign to provide the communal open space at ground level. I note that DCP 2012 provides no suggestion that roof top communal open space is unacceptable. Site frontage 1. Clause 3.1 - Site Requirements in Part B Section 5 'Residential Flat Buildings' of DCP 2012 relevantly states the minimum road frontage requirement is 30 m. The site frontage proposed is approximately 24.38 m. 2. Mr Turrisi states that a variation to the minimum frontage requirement of 30 m should not be given unless all other issues associated with the ability to vary Clause 4.1 A(3) have been satisfied. Clearly, a lot which is compliant with the minimum site area requirement would be compliant with this control. The non-compliance is a direct product of the site being only 690m2 and whether it is appropriate to erect a residential flat building of this scale on the site. A variation to this control could be considered only on the premise that all other aspects in terms of vegetation retention, setbacks and amenity of the apartments have been satisfied together with the bulk and scale issues and presentation to the street being addressed. 3. Having found that there are no reasons why development consent should not be granted (as set out in the judgment, including those matters raised by Mr Turrisi), the variation to the minimum site frontage requirement can be supported. Character 1. Having found that the range of matters raised by the council do not warrant the refusal of the application, I can comfortably conclude that the proposed development will not have an unacceptable impact on the existing of future character of the area. Orders 1. The orders of the Court are: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Development Application No. 1020/2017/HA for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a residential flat building at 4 Parsonage Road Castle Hill is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A. 3. The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibits 1 and B. ___________ G Brown Commissioner of the Court Annexure A (171 KB, pdf) 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: 27 June 2018