Original source · versioned page text
ASTP-Rspns_To_RFI
Our ref: 220417 Council Ref: MCU22/0104 OPW22/0161 2 September 2022 The Chief Executive Officer Noosa Shire Council PO Box 141 TEWANTIN QLD 4565 Attention: Development Assessment - Georgina Schramm Via Email: [email protected] Dear Georgina, Re: Response to Council’s Information Request Development Permit for Material Change of Use and Operational Works to establish Dual Occupancy 23 Coral Tree Ave, Noosa Heads Lot 17 on RP90014 Council ref: MCU22/0104 OPW22/0161 I refer to Council’s Information Request, dated 12 July 2022 in relation to the abovementioned development. On behalf of the applicant, Mahadevan-Wilson & Ramana DS Trust, and in accordance with Part 3(13) of the DA Rules 2017, we provide a response to all the issues raised. The response to the items raised in Council’s Information Request is outlined within Table 1 below. It is noted that a meeting was held between ADAMS + SPARKES and the assessing officer at Council on 28 July 2022 to discuss the Information Request items. As such, the following responses reflect the outcomes of those discussions. The enclosed table represents our complete response to the Information Request issued by Council, and we look forward to the Decision Notice being issued by Council in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Planning Act 2016. As always, please feel free to contact me direct should you require any additional information or clarification. Yours faithfully, ADAMS + SPARKES Aspen Dunn TOWN PLANNER Encl: Revised Building Design Plans prepared by Icon Building Design (Attachment 1) Civil Engineering Plans prepared by ingeniir in (Attachment 2) Engineer’s response letter prepared by ingeniir (Attachment 3) Stormwater Management Plan prepared by ingeniir (Attachment 4) Revised Landscape Plans prepared by Bird Landscape Design (Attachment 5) Our ref: 220417 Page 1 of 15
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 14 pages
Page 2
Table 1 Reponses to Council's Information Request
Information Request Item No. Response
1. Setbacks As detailed in the lodged Town Planning Report, the reduced front setback to the
A greater setback is required than proposed is required, Acceptable outcome AO12.1 Unit 1 pergola roof of 5.5 metres (in lieu of 6m) is consistent with the predominant
and corresponding Performance outcome PO12 of the Medium Density Residential character of the surrounding area, being that the surrounding properties comprise
Zone. The proposed front setback is 5.5 metres to the ground floor outdoor buildings and structures with a front setback similar to or less than the proposed
entertaining area, and is not considered acceptable in its location. development. This conclusion is supported by a streetscape analysis plan within the
lodged Town Planning Report. As such, the front setback of 5.5 metres to the Unit 1
Information Required alfresco pergola will not form a dominant feature of the streetscape and will not be
Provide revised plans in demonstrating compliance with the required 6 metre out of character with respect to surrounding, and adjoining sites, thus fulfilling PO12
setback of the zone code. of the Code.
ADAMS + SPARKES have undertaken discussions with Council since receiving the IR
and the front setback has subsequently been accepted. As such, no changes to the
building design have been made in response to Item 1.
2. Structures over driveway Please refer to the revised Building Design Plans prepared by Icon Building Design in
The proposed pergolas over the driveway are considered a structure and are not Attachment 1. The pergolas over the driveway have been removed in line with
supported to be built to boundary. The inclusion of the pergolas raises concern in Council’s Information Request.
terms of amenity to the adjoining premises and visibility from the roadside, it will
result in structural elements across the majority of the lot and will become a
dominant feature from the roadside.
Information Required
Remove the structures built to boundary.
3. Services Room Please refer to the revised Building Design Plans in Attachment 1. The use/function
It is unclear what is located in the services room as shown on the upper floor of each of this area has been clarified on Sheet 04A.
unit, and whether there will be any windows to allow for ventilation, or how the
room will be accessed.
Our ref: 220417 Page 2 of 15
Page 3
Information Request Item No. Response
Information Required
Clarify what will be contained in the ‘services’ room, how it will accessed, and how
ventilation will work etc.
4 & 5. Swimming pools Item 4 – Council are seeking that a landscape buffer be provided between the
There is concern where the swimming pools have a minor setback to the side swimming pools and southern side boundary onsite. Further, during the meeting
boundaries, this avails no space for landscaping and separation between adjoining discussions held with Council on 28 July 2022, the assessing officer indicated that
land uses. It is not clear whether the pools are sited above natural ground and if so Council are seeking a minimum 0.5m wide landscape strip in this location. It is noted
to what extent (i.e. will the respective pools contribute to site cover). that neither the QDC or Council’s Planning Scheme Codes nominate a setback
requirement for swimming pools, or a requirement to provide a landscape buffer
Information Required along the side or rear boundaries of a site. Council have therefore not clearly
4. Provide a greater setback to the side boundaries where immediate to the demonstrated how the proposed development does not comply with the
respective swimming pools to allow for landscaping to be established. Assessment Benchmarks of the Code.
5. Provide cross sections of the swimming pools to show whether the respective
pools will be greater than 1 metre above NGL and therefore contribute to site Should the applicant amend the design to provide a 0.5m wide landscape buffer
cover. along the southern side boundary, it is not guaranteed that this landscape buffer
a. Revise planning report, and site cover calculations should the pools be would perform any legitimate screening or acoustic buffering function. In reality, if a
sited above 1 metre NGL landscape buffer were to be provided between the pool and the fence, the applicant
would likely provide only ground covers, given that shrub and tree species would
drop leaves into the pool and cause maintenance issues. Further, any landscapes
provided in this location are unlikely to exceed the height of the boundary fence,
given that there are limited species available that can be planted in a 0.5m wide
garden bed adjoining a pool wall below ground. Overall, having a setback of 0.5
metres to the pool will be a negligible change, with the visual and acoustic impacts
of a backyard swimming pool being evident whether it is on the boundary or setback
0.5 metres. Further, having a 0.5 metre setback will enable persons to walk between
the pool and the fence and enter the pool from the southern side. This will
undoubtably result in worsened noise impacts from splashing on the southern side
of the pool.
Our ref: 220417 Page 3 of 15
Page 4
Information Request Item No. Response
Overall, the proposed development suitably complies with the Assessment
Benchmarks of the relevant Codes relating to landscaping provision on the following
basis:
• AO7.4 of the Local Plan Code: the proposed development respects the scale
of surrounding vegetation, by seeking to establish a combination of trees
and shrubs along the property boundaries. Pease refer to the revised
Landscape Plans prepared by Bird Landscape Design in Attachment 5;
• AO7.4 of the Local Plan Code: the development incorporates deep planted
garden beds between the building onsite and the adjacent front, side and
rear boundaries. Where the pools are built to boundary without landscape
buffers provided between the pool edge and fence line, there are no
buildings north of the pools onsite that require soft landscape buffering. As
such, the proposal incorporates soft landscaping between buildings on the
side and the neighbouring premises;
• AO12.2 of the Zone Code: the front 6 metres of the property is landscaped
open space, including both hard and soft landscapes, with the Unit 1
swimming pool, which protrudes no more than 1 metre above the ground
level, being setback 2 metres from the front boundary. Whilst the patio slab
and bin store are located within the 6 metre landscape setback area,
relocating the pool to be setback 0.5 metres from the southern side
boundary will not change this outcome;
• PO12 of the Zone Code:
o The proposed development provides a high level of amenity to
users of the subject site by seeking to provide private open space
and soft landscape areas that are well in excess of the minimum
areas required, inclusive of swimming pools, deep planted
landscapes, turfed back yard and covered alfresco entertainment
areas;
o The proposed development does not compromise the amenity of
Our ref: 220417 Page 4 of 15
Page 5
Information Request Item No. Response
residents or adjoining neighbours, including provision of visual
and acoustic privacy, given that compliant setbacks to all
windows of the development have been provided over both
levels. Further, the site does not adjoin any built form at the rear,
with the rear adjoining Dwelling located north of the subject site
alignment. It is noted that fully compliant setbacks are provided
to the southern side boundary, where the development
interfaces with Multiple Dwelling units;
o The proposed development does not compromise the amenity of
residents or adjoining neighbours, including provision of visual
and acoustic privacy, given that the pool will be screened by
boundary fencing and the built to boundary pool outcome
prevents people from walking around the pool to enter from the
southern side;
o The development does not result in overlooking opportunities
into the private open space or habitable areas of adjoining
premises;
o The proposed development provides a complaint building height
and largely compliant setbacks over the upper level, so as not to
obstruct views or cause overshadowing of adjoining premises;
o The development will be buffered from adjoining premises and
the street by ample onsite landscaping, including adequate area
at ground level for landscaping with trees, shrubs, outdoor living
and utilities;
o The proposed development presents as a single Detached
Dwelling from the street frontage and is therefore consistent with
the predominant character of the surrounding area, which
consists of large two (2) storey Dwelling Houses that seek to
capitalise on the high value land in Noosa Heads. Further, the
Our ref: 220417 Page 5 of 15
Page 6
Information Request Item No. Response
development is of a smaller scale and bulk than the Multiple
Dwelling units on the adjoining site to the north;
o The development will not have a presence of bulk when viewing
the site from the street or adjoining premises; and,
o The proposed development does not impact upon any
ecologically important areas.
• AO10.1 of the Use Code – the proposed development provides 176.9m2 of
soft landscaping onsite, in lieu of the minimum 145.4m2 required (31.5m2
excess). As such, the subject site is provided with a greater extent of
landscape buffering, including shrubs and trees, to adjoining premises and
the street frontage; and,
• AO21.3 of the Zone Code: the final location for pool pump equipment has
not yet been decided. As such, the development approval can be
conditioned to require pool pump equipment to be visually and acoustically
screened by 1.8 metre high solid boundary fencing, a purpose built
enclosure and landscape buffers. It is noted that the likely location for pool
pumps will be within the clothes drying areas adjoining the living rooms to
the south, which comprises a deep planted landscape buffer along the fence
line. The Council’s suggestion to provide a setback to the pools from the
southern side boundary will not impact this outcome, as there is no other
appropriate location for the equipment. With suitable screening/acoustic
buffering provided, the pool equipment will comply with PO21 on the basis
that it will not have an adverse effect on the amenity of nearby residents.
Item 5 - Please refer to the revised Building Design Plans in Attachment 1. Sections
have been provided on Sheet 07 to confirm that the pools are below 1 metre in
height from natural and finished ground levels. As such, they are not considered with
regard to setbacks or included in the site cover calculations.
Our ref: 220417 Page 6 of 15
Page 7
Information Request Item No. Response
6. Gross Floor Area Please refer to the revised Building Design Plans in Attachment 1, which include a
The ground floor plan gross floor area (GFA) calculations appear to exclude the corrected gross floor area calculation for the ground level on Sheet 03E. It is noted
laundry sink. While this may be a minor discrepancy and be a small area this area is that the plot ratio of the development remains compliant.
to be shown and included in GFA, plot ratio calculations.
Information Request
Provide revise plans including the area in GFA and plot ratio calculations.
7. Fence height Please refer to the revised Civil Engineering Plans prepared by ingeniir in Attachment
The plans provided show a fence/retaining wall height of 3 metres in sections. It is 2. As shown on Sheet C06, the change in surface levels onsite is a result of cut, rather
unclear why a fence more than 2 metres is required along the side and rear boundary than fill earthworks. As such, the retaining walls with fencing over will be visible
is required. Fence heights greater than 2 metres from natural ground should not be internally only. The neighbouring allotments will not suffer any loss of amenity or
a solution to combat privacy issues, as this alone creates amenity impacts for privacy as the boundary fence height will be 1.8 metres from the natural ground
adjoining properties. level, being the finished ground level on the adjoining properties.
Information Required
Provide amended plans that reduce the cumulative fence/retaining wall height to be Overall, the earthworks and retaining walls are required due to the topography of
no more than 2 metres from natural ground along the side and rear boundaries. the site, being higher at the rear.
This matter was raised and discussed in the meeting with Council on 28 July 2022,
and it is understood that Council are supportive of the proposed fence and retaining
wall heights, given that they will not cause amenity or privacy issues for the adjoining
sites.
8. Front fence, wall Please refer to the revised Building Design Plans in Attachment 1, which illustrate
The proposed front fence is 1.8 metres high in lieu of 1.2 metres in accordance with the provision of a front fence that is 1.75 metres high with a combination of solid
AO17.1 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code. The reasoning for the fence sections and sections with battens to achieve partial transparency. It is noted that
height is outlined to be for the purpose of combatting privacy concerns. Increased the purpose of the fence is not relied upon to demonstrate its suitability.
fence height for the purpose of reducing privacy issues should not be relied upon, as
it unduly impacting streetscape character. This proposed front fencing outcome is appropriate, and complies with PO17, on the
following basis:
Our ref: 220417 Page 7 of 15
Page 8
Information Request Item No. Response
Information Required Screening/Visual Amenity
Reduce the front fence height to be no more than 1.2 metres and landscape with The front fencing comprises a combination of high-quality stonewall and aluminium
species with a mature height suitable for providing additional privacy, or provide a battens. As such, the proposal provides transparency into the site, as well as greater
wall which is 50% transparent and has a height no exceeding 1.8 metres. variation of materials and texture finishes and improved visual interest when viewed
from the public realm. Further, the proposal provides for landscaping in front of the
fence that is not positioned in the road reserve. As such, the existing fencing outcome
is a significant improvement to the existing situation (discussed below) and therefore
cannot possibly unduly impact on the streetscape character of the site or Coral Tree
Avenue generally.
It is noted that the front landscape strip widens to 2 metres in front of the solid
stonewall. As shown on the revised Landscape Plans in Attachment 5, this garden
bed will comprise a combination of mid-height shrub species and a tree expected to
grow up to 6 metres wide at full maturity. As such, the non-complying section of
front fencing will be suitably screened by landscaping such that it will not
compromise the visual amenity of the current streetscape.
Impact on streetscape
The existing Dwelling House onsite provides a 1.8 metre high solid rendered wall with
a gate extending across the driveway on the front boundary of the site.
Our ref: 220417 Page 8 of 15
Page 9
Information Request Item No. Response
Subejct site – existing
Further, the adjoining properties (for example #15 to #23 inclusive) and adjacent
properties (for example #24) all provide 1.8 metre high solid walls/fences along the
front boundary. Overall, this outcome is common for properties along Coral Tree
Avenue generally. As such, the proposed front fencing outcome is compatible with
the existing streetscape character, and if anything creates an improved outcome for
the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed front fence will not unduly impact on
the streetscape character of Coral Tree Avenue.
Casual Surveillance
The permeable sections of front fencing adjacent to the turfed backyard and alfresco
of Unit 1 will support casual surveillance of the street from the subject site.
Conclusion
Council’s claim that the proposed front fencing will unduly impact on the streetscape
character of Coral Tree Avenue is unfounded and indicates that the existing situation
Our ref: 220417 Page 9 of 15
Page 10
Information Request Item No. Response
onsite and site/streetscape context has not been taken into account when assessing
the application. Overall, the proposal complies in full with PO17 given that the front
fence is compatible with the existing streetscape character of the site, as
demonstrated above. Further comments regarding the proposal’s compliance with
PO17 of the Code is available within the lodged Town Planning Report.
9. Sustainable Building Design Refer to the Engineer’s response letter prepared by ingeniir in Attachment 3 and the
The application does not include detail in regard to Acceptable outcome AO2.1 of revised Stormwater Management Plan prepared by ingeniir in Attachment 4, which
the Sustainable Building Design Code - a minimum 3,000 litres of rain water storage address Item 9 of the Information Request.
is provided per dwelling and reused for non-potable purposes and incorporated into
a stormwater management plan for the development.
Information Request
Provide an amended stormwater management plan that demonstrates compliance
with the above Acceptable outcome. The amended stormwater management plan
must be certified by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional
Engineer of Queensland).
10. Landscaping discrepancies in plans All design sets enclosed within this Information Request response have been
The Landscaping Plan provided by Bird Landscaping Design and conceptual reviewed for consistency.
landscaping plan prepared by Icon Building Design do not align with one another.
Bird Landscaping Design’s plans show greater soft landscaping than Icon.
Information Required
Provide revised plans to rectify discrepancies or identify the higher order plan and
confirm correct landscaping calculations for total landscaping and soft landscaping.
11-13. Landscape species Please refer to the revised Landscape Plans in Attachment 5. Further, the Landscape
Species selected do not meet the Landscaping Works Code PO10 as some are Architects, Bird Landscape Design, have provided the following comments in
inappropriate for the locality and landscape character of the area. Species identified response to Items 11-13:
as potentially inappropriate include:
• HOWEA forsteriana - Kentia Palm – endemic to Lord Howe Island not Noosa
Our ref: 220417 Page 10 of 15
Page 11
Information Request Item No. Response
LICUALA ramsayi Item 11 - All subjective species have been removed and/or replaced appropriately
• Australian Fan Palm – endemic to North Queensland not Noosa Heliconia with the exception of Heliconia psittocroum ‘Fuchsia’ and a substitute Heliconia
psittocroum ‘Fuchsia’ – not native stricta ‘Jamaican Dwarf’, which are used around the pool areas and when tallied
• Heliconia orthothicha ‘Garden of Eden’ – not native Ficus pumila together are less than the allowable 25% exotic plant species used around pools.
• Creeping Fig – not native
Item 12 - All species used on our revised plan meet these criteria.
Information Required
11. Review species selection and ensure and justify species meet PO10. Item 13 - All species used on our revised plan meet these criteria where practical.
12. Review and justify that if exotic species are to be included in the landscape plan There are no palms located on the external front fence boundary. See revised plan.
that they are only located around pool areas and no more than 25% of the
landscaping is with exotic plant species.
13. Review and justify that palms are specifically located in group plantings only as
detailed within PSP2 - Landscaping and are not located on the external front
fence boundary.
14 &15. Vegetation screening Please refer to the revised Landscape Plans in Attachment 5. Further, the Landscape
Species selection on all boundaries is not providing adequate screening. Appropriate Architects, Bird Landscape Design, have provided the following comments in
understorey and taller species are required to provide appropriate screening and response to Items 14 and 15:
softening of the building.
Item 14 - Syzygium Resilience/Straight and Narrow do not meet the Landscaping
Information Required Works Code PO10 either nor are they native to Noosa, as were some of the
14. Review the species selected that are utilised for screening the front boundary aforementioned plants used on our lodged plan set so they are inappropriate for the
and rear and side boundaries and substitute/include for species that provide locality and landscape character of the area. Syzygium Resilience/Straight and
adequate screening i.e. mature height of minimum 4m e.g. Syzygium Narrow are also invasive to drainage and sewer lines which the site has along the
Resilience/Straight and Narrow. southern (pool equipment, etc.) and northern boundaries respectively. All species
15. Ensure appropriate root barriers are installed where infrastructure may be used on our landscape plans are suitable for screening the front boundary. Our
impacted and select appropriate species that will provide screening in those revised plan has been amended to include more plants that will attain 4m in height
areas. along the rear/western and southern boundaries and provide adequate and required
screening whilst allowing for services access and typical landscape maintenance
Our ref: 220417 Page 11 of 15
Page 12
Information Request Item No. Response
requirements. The northern boundary garden beds along the driveway are too
narrow for taller species than nominated. See revised plan attached.
Item 15 – root barriers are not required with the proposed landscaping not impacting
upon any existing infrastructure.
16 & 17. Gardens in road reserve Please refer to the revised Landscape Plans in Attachment 5. Further, the Landscape
Council is not supportive of gardens or edging being located on the Council verge Architects, Bird Landscape Design, have provided the following comments in
area. Council is supportive of removal of non-native species within the group of response to Items 16 and 17:
plants on the Council verge. If native species of tree is present and can be retained
this may be proposed to remain as the street trees however a replacement street Item 16 - as noted on our landscape plans, there are existing services running through
tree is a requirement if none are to be retained. the road reserve that preclude street tree planting due to service provider and Council
required services setbacks. Regardless, if any new street trees were planted behind
Information Required Council preferred alignment, i.e. 1m behind back of kerb, they would hinder driveway
16. Amend landscape plan to include at a minimum 1 x 45l street tree with the sightline requirements. Please refer revised Civil Engineering Plans in Attachment 2
species sourced from the PSP2 – Landscaping policy and located in an and the Engineer’s response letter in Attachment 3 to Item 21 of the IR, noting that
appropriate location on the verge if no native street trees are to be retained. any new trees would need to be kept 1 metre away from the new stormwater
17. Remove non-native plants and any garden edging from the Council verge. pipe/kerb adaptor.
Item 17 - Please refer notation on the revised Landscape Plan in Attachment 5.
18. Sight distance Please refer to the Engineer’s response letter in Attachment 3 and the revised Civil
Given the proximity to the corner of Coral Tree Avenue, Council have concerns Engineering Plans sheet C09 in Attachment 2, which provides the required sight
regarding the potential impacts the proposed driveway crossover will have on the distance assessment.
safety of the existing road conditions for all users.
Information Required
Provide additional detail demonstrating that the proposed location of the driveway
is safe by providing a safe sight distance analysis on the intersection. The analysis
must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional
Engineer of Queensland).
Our ref: 220417 Page 12 of 15
Page 13
Information Request Item No. Response
19-21. Vehicle Manoeuvring Please refer to the Engineer’s response letter in Attachment 3 and the revised Civil
The submitted plans do not include sufficient detail on the access driveway, the Engineering Plans in Attachment 2.
manoeuvring area and access into each proposed garage.
Information Required
19. Provide additional detail on the access driveway and the manoeuvring area.
The detail must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered
Professional Engineer of Queensland) and include, but not be limited to:
a. a design generally in accordance with RS-049, RS-050 and any associated
addendum;
b. a longitudinal section extending from the centreline of the formation in
Coral Tree Avenue to driveway adjacent to the garages; and
c. demonstrate that a B99 vehicle will not bottom out of scrape while
entering/exiting the driveway.
20. Provide a Turning Path Plan that demonstrates how the driveway and
manoeuvring area will function. The plan must be prepared by a suitably
qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland) and
include, but not be limited to:
a. demonstrate how a B99 vehicle, beginning and ending at the proposed
‘refuse area’, can enter and exit each garage while the proposed visitor
carpark is occupied; and
b. demonstrate how a B99 vehicle can enter and exit the visitor carpark while
both garages are occupied.
21. Provide comment from a suitably qualified person discussing what necessary
safety controls are to be implemented to ensure the sight lines from the road
frontage to the manoeuvring area remain unobstructed and to remove the
potential creation of traffic hazards between vehicles entering and exiting the
site simultaneously.
Our ref: 220417 Page 13 of 15
Page 14
22. Underground infrastructure Refer to the Engineer’s response letter in Attachment 3. The submitted documentation indicate that the proposed works is to be constructed in close proximity (above and adjacent) to existing Unitywater infrastructure and no relocation point to the existing water meter has been proposed. A statement from Unitywater approving the locality of the proposed works to their existing infrastructure has not been provided. Information Required Provide an additional statement from a Unitywater representative authorising the locality of these works and the relocation of the water meter 23. Lawful point of discharge Refer to the Engineer’s response letter in Attachment 3. According to Council standards, the maximum discharge flow rate to a Lawful Point of Discharge is 25l/s in a 1% AEP event. The submitted documentation indicates that the maximum site discharge to each kerb adapter is 14l/s in a 5% AEP event. Council are concerned that the discharge flows from each kerb adapter in a 1% AEP event may create a worsening of existing drainage conditions and potential traffic hazards. Information Required Provide additional detail considering the discharge rate in a 1% AEP event and demonstrating that this discharge rate will not create a worsening of conditions or potential creation of traffic hazards along Coral Tree Avenue if a 1% AEP event occurred. This detail must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland). 24. Street trees Please refer to the revised Landscape Plans in Attachment 5. Further, please refer to Council would prefer the removal of both the existing trees (marked as the Landscape Architect’s response to Items 16 and 17 above, which addresses Item ‘removal/relocation’ and ‘to be retained’) and be replaced with a suitable street 24 of the Information Request. tree. Information Required Our ref: 220417 Page 14 of 15
Page 15
Provide additional detail demonstrating that both existing trees are to be removed
and replaced with a suitable street tree. The replacement street tree must:
a. meet AS2303:2018 Tree Stock for Landscape Use;
b. be a minimum of 45 Litres;
c. be maintained (watered) for 12 months; and
d. be planted according to the standard species and setbacks. A few
suggestions for suitable species include:
i. Banskia Integrifolia;
ii. Callistemon Viminalis; and
iii. Cupaniopsis Anacardiodes.
Our ref: 220417 Page 15 of 15