Guiney v Brisbane City Council
[2016] QPEC 26
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Guiney v Brisbane City Council[2016] QPEC 26
- Add to List
Guiney v Brisbane City Council[2016] QPEC 26
Guiney v Brisbane City Council[2016] QPEC 26
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Guiney v Brisbane City Council [2016] QPEC 26 |
PARTIES: | MARGARET ANNA GUINEY (appellant) v BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | 4678 of 2015 |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal |
DELIVERED ON: | 3 June 2016 |
DELIVERED AT: | Bundaberg |
HEARING DATE: | 3, 4 May 2016 |
JUDGE: | Rackemann DCJ |
ORDER: | The appeal is dismissed |
CATCHWORDS: | PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – Proposed demolition of a pre-1947 dwelling in the traditional building character overlay – where subject house is a fine example of traditional building character in a street in which post-1947 houses predominant – whether a street has no traditional character – whether subject house contributes positively to the visual character of the street |
COUNSEL: | M Batty for the appellant K W Wylie for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | HWS Lawyers for the appellant Brisbane City Legal Practice for the respondent |
- [1]This appeal is against the respondent’s refusal of a development application for preliminary approval to carry out building work, namely demolition of a pre-1947 dwelling situated within the Traditional Building Character overlay (the overlay). The house is situated at 26 Williams Avenue, Hendra, in a relatively short street within a suburb, the history of which is closely linked to its proximity to horse racing facilities. The subject site is 810m2 in area and is of regular configuration.
- [2]The development application is code assessable and so is to be assessed having regard to s 313 of the Sustainable Planning Act (SPA) and decided in accordance with s 324 and 326 of the SPA. The appellant bares the ouns.
- [3]The decision must not conflict with, relevantly, the planning scheme, unless there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision. No such grounds were urged for the appellant. The decisive issue is whether the proposal is in conflict with the planning scheme, and, in particular, with the Traditional Building Character (demolition) Overlay Code, being the applicable code (the code).
- [4]By reason of s 5.3.3 (1)(c) of the planning scheme, code assessable development that complies with:
- (a)the purpose and overall outcome of the code complies with the code;
- (b)the performance or acceptable outcomes where prescribed complies with the purpose and overall outcomes of the code.
- [5]The purpose of the code is to implement certain policy directions in the Strategic Framework and to provide for the assessment of the suitability of development in the overlay. The purpose of the code is to be achieved through overall outcomes which include:
- (a)Development protects residential buildings constructed in 1946 or earlier that give the areas in the traditional building and character overlay their traditional character and traditional building character
….
- (d)Development protects a building constructed in 1946 or earlier where it forms an important part of a streetscape established in 1946 or earlier.
- [6]An explanation of traditional character is given in the traditional building character planning scheme policy (the policy). It provides that the traditional character of areas and the traditional building character of buildings within the overlay is a combination of one or more of the following elements:
- (a)traditional building form and roof styles;
- (b)traditional elements, detailing and materials;
- (c)traditional scale;
- (d)traditional setting
The policy gives an explanation of each of those elements.
- [7]The assessment criteria in the code include, relevantly, as follows:
PO5 Development involves a building which:
| AO5 Development involves a building which:
Note— For the purpose of this code, comparative analysis of an existing dwelling constructed in 1946 or earlier against the current timber framing standards is not considered to demonstrate 'structurally unsound'. |
- [8]Neither PO 5(a) or (b) are applicable. The house in question is a fine example of traditional building character. As the experts rightly agreed in their joint report:
“The experts agree that the subject building is a high set, timber framed and whether broad clad house supported on stumps with a corrugated metal roof in a hit form capped with a short transverse ridge and incorporating single skin v jack instruction for the front wall of the building. In this regard, the experts agree that the external materiality of the subject building is entirely consistent with the “timber and tin” traditional building character referred to in SC 6.30 of City Plan 2014 – the traditional building character planning scheme policy”
There is no suggestion that this well maintained and presented house is in need of structural repair.
- [9]In so far as the assessment criteria are concern, the appellant’s case focused on PO 5 (c) and the acceptable solution AO5(d). AO5(d) is expressed in absolute terms (ie the street has “no” traditional character), whereas PO5(c) posits a different test. It is possible for a house which represents traditional building character, such as the subject, to be assessed as not contributing positively to the visual character of the street, even though that street has some traditional character. It was contended that the subject house does not contribute positively to the visual character of Williams Avenue because of the character of the street otherwise. In short, it was submitted that the subject house, although of traditional character, lies in a street of modern character (or at least a street where traditional character is not of significance or importance), such that, as a house of traditional character, it does not contribute positively to the visual character of the (modern) street.
- [10]There is a numerical predominance of post-1947 buildings in the street. The subject house is not the only traditional character building within the street, however the appellant’s position was that:
“… The handful of remaining pre-1947 buildings are effectively dispersed and isolated by intermingled modern buildings and therefore do not generate sufficient traditional character for the street as a whole to be reasonably characterised as having traditional character”;
and
“the number and design of the contemporary (post 1947) houses located in Williams Avenue, together with the non-residential activities that occur in the street and the few (and mostly of limited quality) pre-1947 houses means that, on any objective assessment, Williams Avenue has no traditional character.”
That calls for an examination of the character of the street within which the subject site falls.
- [11]The built form in Williams Avenue is mainly composed of dwellings, although there is a non-residential use, being a facility for race horses. The dwelling houses in Williams Avenue are a mixture of pre-1947 traditional character buildings and more modern buildings some of which (particularly towards the western end of the street) are quite contemporary, whilst others are from an earlier period (mostly 1950’s). There is no single unifying built form character with which each and every building in the street conforms.
- [12]The existence of post-1947 buildings in the street is explained not so much by demolition of pre-1947 buildings and their replacement with newer building forms, as by reason of infill residential development since 1946. Williams Avenue lies in that part of Hendra that is east of Nudgee Road. The historical aerial photography shows that, as at 1946, this part of Hendra was less developed for residential houses than the area west of Nudgee Road. As at that time Williams Avenue featured a combination of dwelling houses, undeveloped parcels of land and horse training facilities, including training tracks.
- [13]In the circumstances it is unsurprising that the overlay applies only to some properties within the street, namely those on the northern side of the street down to, but not beyond, the subject site as well as at the western end of the southern side of the street. That the overlay applies only to part of the street does not necessarily mean however, that buildings of traditional character do not contribute positively to the character of the street as a whole.
- [14]Currently there are 22 properties within Williams Avenue. Seven of those have pre-1947 traditional character houses five of which are within the overlay. Of those not in the overlay, one (no 9) is the subject of substantial alteration, but is still recognisably a building of traditional character, whilst the other is a pre-1947 house which has been moved into the street, by relocation, on the opposite side of, but proximate to, the subject house. Of the five pre-1947 traditional character buildings within the overlay, two lie on opposite sides of the corner of Williams Avenue and Pleystowe Crescent Street (to the west) whilst the other three lie in a row on the northern side of the street, a short distance away, at about mid-block. There is street vegetation, which filters the view of some houses, including the subject, but the houses are nevertheless readily visible from the street.
- [15]The subject house is the eastern most of the mid-block group of three which, as has been observed, lies opposite the relocated pre-1947 building on the southern side of the street. The two other pre-1947 houses within the mid-block group are poorly maintained, but are relatively intact from a character prospective and are clearly of traditional building character. There are disused stables in the rear, reflecting the historical link of the street with the equine industry. I accept Mr Kennedy’s (the expert called by the respondent) evidence that the stables do not diminish the traditional building character,[1] although I would not go so far as to say that they add to it (as Mr Kennedy thought), given that the explanation of traditional building character in the policy focuses on dwelling houses.
- [16]The built form of the street otherwise is composed of a horse exercise facility (to the immediate west of the row of three) and post-1947 dwellings from different eras.
- [17]The appellants case focused on the numerical predominance of post 1947 buildings to justify a conclusion that the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of the planning scheme, including the assessment criteria. In that regard it was argued that:
- (1)a street can have only one character, which relevantly must be either a traditional character or a non-traditional character, rather than being of a mixed character or as featuring any realistic co-existing character;
- (2)whether a street is characterised overall as being of traditional character or non-traditional is determined by reference to what predominates; and
- (3)accordingly, Elliott Avenue, is a street of modern character only.
- [18]
“Accepting that a street may exhibit more than one character as I have said, does that mean that the “street” identified for the purpose of interpretation of the Demolition Code can have more than one character? I think not. The term “character” is defined as - “the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing” (underlining in the definition). A street may well contain houses of various styles. But to determine the visual character of the street, it seems to me one character has to be identified reflecting the aggregate of is features or traits as above defined. P1 speaks of the character of the street not the character of various segments of the street. Put another way, in determining the street’s character for the purposes of P1, the task is to consider the visual character of the street as a whole, not the character of houses or groups of houses in isolation.”
- [19]In that case, His Honour was concerned with a street which had moved well away from its traditional character notwithstanding that there remained a small number of pre-1947 houses. The above passage appears after a discussion of whether the relevant “street” might be taken to be a section of the street. Read in context, His Honour’s observations that, once the relevant street had been identified, its character must be assessed as a whole rather than by reference to only some segment or segments thereof is, with respect, correct. Accordingly, the character of Williams Avenue cannot properly be assessed only by reference to the group of three traditional character houses in the middle part of the street, of which the subject building forms one. The contribution of those houses to the character of the street must be assessed in the context of the street as a whole.
- [20]To regard his Honour’s observations as going further, to support the proposition that character must be assessed as of all one kind or another might involve an over-reading of His Honour’s reasons. In any event however, I respectful prefer the approach of Dorney DCJ in Lucas v Brisbane City Council.[4] There, the court was concerned with the proposed demolition of a house of traditional character in a street the relevant section of which had a numerical predominance of post-1946 dwellings. There were 24 properties in the relevant section of the street which comprised:
- 7 pre-1946 traditional houses within a demolition control precinct (DCP)
- 2 pre-1946 traditional houses not within the DCP
- 5 post 1946 houses
- 10 modern multi-unit developments
- [21]The appellant in that case sought to rely upon the same passage from the judgment in Leach to support the proposition there can only be one (predominant) character. His Honour, in rejecting the submission, said:[5]
“…the visual character of the street is that which the street exhibits as a distinguishing feature. As such, in a street such as this, it is decidedly artificial to conclude that a predominate character (whatever that means) determines, for every building in the street, the character which must be considered for the purposes of P1. As remarked earlier, A1.4 is clear when it relies on “no” relevant character. The omission of the opposite element in P1 tell against the notation of character being necessarily either all or nothing.”
His Honour was there dealing with the corresponding provisions under the previous town plan, but his remarks remain apposite. As was submitted for the respondent, a predominance of post-1946 dwellings cannot, of itself, necessarily lead to a conclusion that the street has an homogenous modern character.
- [22]Having noted that the expert called by the appellant in Lucas had conceded that the visual character of the relevant street could be described as mixed and that the other expert had described it as varied, His Honour went to say, in relation whether the building contributed positively:
“It is only if one can characterise the visual character has a significantly predominant one and, thereby, exclude the fact that there is any realistic co-existing character at all which has any significance to do with a pre-1946 character that one could conclude that it (the house) did not contribute positively to that”[6]
- [23]His Honour’s reference to whether there is any “realistic” co-existing character of the relevant kind is consistent with this Court’s approach to assessing compliance with criteria which are expressed in absolute terms. Accordingly, AO5(d) would be satisfied if it was demonstrated that the street could not realistically or reasonably be described as having any traditional character.
- [24]Ultimately, in the course of oral submissions, counsel for the appellant acknowledged as follows[7]:
“…obviously it’s more favourable for my client’s case if one has to be adopted rather than the other, simply on the sheer numbers of it, present in this case, but looked at fairly, I think that the approach of his Honour Judge Dorney is the appropriate approach”.
- [25]Insofar as the second and third propositions are concerned, reliance was placed upon Mariott v Brisbane City Council[8] where the Court was concerned with an application for demolition of a house in a street composed of 57 properties only some of which were within the overlay. The properties within the street comprised:
8 pre-1947 traditional character houses within the overlay
4 pre-1947 houses not in the overlay
2 vacant lots
1 large modern commercial building
3 backyards to post-1946 properties in the next street
1 post-1946 block of flats
38 post-1946 houses
- [26]
“…the appropriate way to approach the assessment of PO5(c) and AO5(c) and (d) in this case is to consider the relevant street, and not simply that part of it which is within the overlay.”
- [27]Her Honour preferred the views of Mr McDonald over that of Mr Elliott because of:[10]
“the latter’s focus on that narrow part of Sydney Street in which houses covered by the overlay are located.”
- [28]
“It is not enough to say that because the house represents traditional building character, and is included within a group of such houses covered by the overlay, it therefore makes a positive contribution to the visual character of the street”.
- [29]In this case, consistently with that approach, the mid-block group of 3 houses of traditional character are relevant, but the fact that the subject house forms part of that group does not necessarily dictate that its demolition must be assessed to be in conflict with the assessment criteria.
- [30]Mr Elliott was rightfully mindful of Her Honour’s observations when he approached his task in this case. Indeed he acknowledged that “my evidence is, I guess, shaped to a certain degree by my experience in” the Mariott case.[12] It became apparent however that he regarded the decision in Mariott as requiring that the assessment of character be undertaken on an “all or nothing” basis, by reference to what predominates in the street, such that a particular type of building character must predominate in order to be assessed as influencing the character of the street or streetscape.[13] That is, in my respectful view, an over-reading of Her Honour’s approach in Mariott and is not reflective of the tests in the relevant provisions of the planning scheme. As was submitted for the respondent, there is nothing in the planning scheme provisions that requires the street to have a homogeneity of, or even predominance of, buildings of traditional character for retention of a building of traditional character in the street to be justified.
- [31]In reaching the conclusion that, in Mariott, the house in question did not make a positive contribution to the visual character of the street, Her Honour did say that the street was predominantly modern rather than traditional[14], but that was an observation about the facts. Her Honour agreed with the character assessment of Mr McDonald where evidence in that case was as follows[15]:
“In summary, the visual character of Sydney Street is generated by a predominance of modern houses dispersed along both sides of the street. Both in terms of numerical minority and lack of visual prominence, the mix of the subject building and the few other pre-1946 houses that remain under demolition control in the street is so diluted within the street that it fails to generate sufficient traditional character to be characterised as a street having traditional character. Instead the numerical superiority and visual impression of the post-1946 development in the street generates an overall modern building character.”
- [32]Her Honour’s reference to what predominated was a reference to relevant evidence. It does not follow that numerical predominance will inevitably justify a finding that a given street has no traditional character (a finding that Her Honour did not even make in Mariott[16]) or that a building of traditional character does not contribute positively to the visual character of the street. It should be noted that Mr McDonald’s assessment, which Her Honour preferred, relied not just on the numerical predominance of ‘modern’ buildings but also on a lack of visual prominence of the pre-1947 buildings in that street.
- [33]Whilst a numerical predominance of non-traditional character buildings in a street is doubtless a relevant factor it does not, in and of itself, establish conformity of a proposed demolition with the relevant provisions of the planning scheme. A more evaluative assessment is required. Ultimately, in the course of oral submissions, counsel for the appellant accepted that it is not simply a matter of numbers.[17]
- [34]To aid my understanding of the evidence, including in relation to the visual character of the street and the subject building’s contribution (if any) to that character, I had the benefit of an inspection of the site and street. I am mindful, however, of the limited purpose of the site inspection and, in particular, that I must act on the evidence.
- [35]Mr Kennedy (the expert called by the respondent) gave evidence to the effect that:
even though Williams Avenue has a mixture of traditional “timber and tin” character houses and post-1947 houses, it exhibits traditional character;
the group of three traditional “timber and tin” character houses, of which the subject forms one, are on relatively large allotments[18] and positioned in the middle of the avenue and impart a strong traditional character to the street
the subject house is a fine example of a traditional “timber and tin” high set bungalow and makes a very strong statement to the visual character of Williams Avenue.
- [36]There was some attempt by Mr Elliott to minimise the contribution of the other two character houses in the mid-block group of three, on the basis that they are not in good condition and their ‘potential longevity’ is questionable.[19] If they were structurally unsound and not capable of structural repair they would be susceptible to approval for demolition pursuant to PO5(b) and AO5(b). If they were to be demolished then the assessment of the character of the street may be affected and the case for retention of the subject building weakened, but that is, at this point, speculative and not something to which weight should be attached. There is no sufficient evidence to establish that they are susceptible to demolition on this basis.
- [37]In his trial report Mr Elliott also expressed the view that the traditional building character displayed by those houses is limited given their general state of disrepair, but he accepted, in cross examination, that the policy makes no mention of the condition of a house in making an assessment of character. He also conceded that the houses do, in fact, exhibit both traditional character and traditional building character.[20]
- [38]Mr Elliott expressed the view that the character of the street is in transition to an even more modern character both within and outside the overlay.[21] Indeed, he confirmed that what might happen in the future was a significant matter affecting his opinion.[22] What is called for, however, is an assessment of present visual character.
- [39]It was submitted that Mr Kennedy’s approach is inconsistent with this court’s approach in other cases, particular in Mariott. I do not accept that. Mr Kennedy did not ignore the buildings outside the overlay nor did he ignore any of the buildings in the street, whether they were pre-1947 or post-1946 buildings. He acknowledged that the character of development in the street was mixed but, having carried out an assessment of the street as a whole, concluded that the street retained traditional character and, indeed, strong traditional character and, in that context, the subject house makes a positive contribution.
- [40]When pressed on what character he would assign to the street overall, if he were to have to choose between traditional or modern, he opined that (on that assumption – with which he disagreed) he would err towards traditional, notwithstanding the numerical predominance of post-1946 development. In that regard he pointed to the consistency, in character terms, of the pre-1947 houses as strengthening their statement of traditional character compared with the variation (1950’s to contemporary) in the modern (post-1946) buildings.[23]
- [41]In assessing the extent to which the post-1947 dwellings have eroded the influence of the houses of traditional building character Mr Kennedy also drew attention to the sympathetic aspects which the 1950’s houses bear to those of traditional character. It was pointed out for the appellant that in Marriott[24] it was said that, in an assessment for AO5(c), the loss of traditional character from a relevant street which would be occasioned by demolition of a particular house is not to be measured against those post-1946 houses which are sympathetic to traditional building character, as opposed to considering the loss in terms of the actual traditional building character present in the street. Here however, the appellant did not rely on AO5(c). Further, Mr Kennedy made it clear that he did not have regard to the 1950’s houses in assessing what buildings of traditional character exist in the street.[25] In any event, my ultimate conclusion is not dependent upon the extent to which the 1950’s houses might be said to be sympathetic to those of traditional character.
- [42]On the face of the joint report, Mr Elliott expressed views which were contrary to those of Mr Kennedy. In the course of a cross-examination (which counsel for the appellant fairly acknowledged was very effective), it became apparent that, but for his understanding of the approach required by Mariott, his assessment is not as different from that of Mr Kennedy as might first appear. In particular, Mr Elliott conceded the following in the course of cross-exanimation:
- The subject house is an excellent example of the 1920s bungalow and exhibits strong traditional building character and traditional character.[26]
- The subject house is readily visible from the street.[27]
- The other houses in the group of three are substantially unaltered[28] and exhibit both traditional character and traditional building character.[29] They exhibit traditional building form, roof styles, elements, detailing, materials and scale.[30] They have greater spacing (being on large lots with stables in the rear), but that is reflective of the historical association of Hendra with the equine industry.[31] They are noticeable from the street and similar to each other and, indeed, to the subject house.[32]
- The group of 3 makes a contribution to the character of the street.[33]
- The houses in the group (which are on large allotments) are certainly noticeable.[34]
- The contribution of the subject house and those other two are amplified by the fact that they are side by side.[35]
- The pre-1947 dwelling which has been moved into the street and located opposite the group of three is a good example of traditional character and traditional building character, adds to the traditional character of the streetscape and supports the sense of traditional character which one gets from viewing the group of three opposite.[36]
- Although, in the joint report, he had described the pre-1947 houses as “effectively dispersed and isolated by intermingled modern buildings”, [37]as one walks the street you can visually “join the dots” of the character houses.[38] In that regard:
- The street, at its intersection with Pleystowe Crescent, is effectively bookended by the two houses at the corner which are traditional timber and tin pre-1946 buildings, similar to others in the street and which form the initial impression of the street as one enters from that intersection.[39] Whist number 21 Pleystowe Crescent (on the northern side) presents its side to Williams Avenue, its front presents to someone entering the street from the intersection.[40]
- In between the bookends of traditional building character and the mid-block group of three buildings of traditional building character opposite the relocated house of traditional building character is number 9, which remains unidentifiably a pre-1947 character house.[41] It is not within the overlay, but still makes a contribution to the character of the street and imparts traditional character onto the character of the streetscape and the street.[42]
Whilst he had described the character of the street as “predominantly modern” in the joint report, the character is, he acknowledged, mixed with some modern and some traditional character.[43]
He therefore could not maintain that the street has no traditional character.[44]
Given that the street has a mixed character and that the subject house is an excellent example of traditional building character and traditional character, he accepts that the house contributes positively to the street’s character in its mixed form.[45]
- [43]The numerical predominance of post-1946 buildings in the street is relevant, gives the street an element of non-traditional character and provides an arguable case to permit demolition. On balance however, on the evidence, I am satisfied that this is not a case of a street properly characterised as simply being of a modern character with a few remnant pre-1947 character buildings which have no meaningful influence on the character of the street as a whole. Rather, it is a case of a relatively short street of mixed character in which notwithstanding the numerical predominance of more modern buildings (of different styles), the street, assessed as a whole, nevertheless retains (and retains as a distinguishing feature) traditional character to a significant degree by reason, in particular, of the influence of the traditional character buildings within it, including by reference to their attributes, location, consistency of character, relationship with each other and visual exposure to the street. In that context, not only is traditional character of significance in the street but the subject dwelling, being a fine and readily visible example of traditional building character, contributes positively to the visual character of the street.
- [44]For those reasons, I am satisfied that the proposal does not meet AO5(d) and fails PO5(c) of the assessment criteria.
- [45]Whilst compliance with the code can also be established by demonstrating compliance otherwise with the purpose and overall outcomes of the code, Counsel for the appellant acknowledged that “really, to be very blunt, if we have difficulties with performance otherwise 5(c), we have difficulties with everything”. I am, in any event, not satisfied that the proposed demolition otherwise meets the purpose and overall outcomes of the code.
- [46]Overall outcome (a), unlike the assessment criteria, refers to areas within the overlay (rather than the street). The proposed demolition involves the demolition, rather than protection, of a residential building constructed pre-1947 that is one of those that give the areas in the overlay their traditional character and traditional building character. Further, insofar as overall outcome (d) is concerned, the proposal does not protect a building which was constructed pre-1947 and which, I am satisfied, forms an important part of a streetscape which was established pre-1947, although that there has been subsequent infill residential development in the street.
- [47]For the above reasons, the appellant has not discharged the onus. The appeal is dismissed.
Footnotes
[1] T1-53.
[2] [2011] QPELR 609.
[3] At para 34.
[4] 2015 QPELR 671.
[5] Para 33.
[6] Para 37.
[7] 1-84.
[8] Supra.
[9] Para [43].
[10] Para [87].
[11] Para [95].
[12] T1-40.
[13] T1-41 ll 1-8.
[14] Paragraph 68.
[15] Para 55.
[16] Paragraph 80.
[17] T1-84.
[18] T1-45.
[19] Ex 4 pg 5.
[20] T1-32 ll 1-9.
[21] T1-38,39.
[22] T1-39.
[23] T1-46,47, T1-62,63.
[24] Para 66.
[25] T1-47 l 5.
[26] T1-31, lines 26-31.
[27] T1-31, line 33.
[28] T1-33, lines 1-6.
[29] T1-47 l 5.
[30] T1-32 ll 8-17.
[31] T1-32, lines 19-47.
[32] T1-33, lines 8-20.
[33] T1-33 l 23.
[34] T1-33 l 32.
[35] T1-33 ll 34-39.
[36] T1-35 ll 20-47.
[37] Ex 3 para 19.1(h).
[38] T1-36 l 14.
[39] T1-36 ll 20-35.
[40] T1-38 ll 5-10.
[41] T1-34 ll 8-12.
[42] T1-35 ll 16-19.
[43] T1-38 ll 40-46.
[44] T1-41 ll 23-28.
[45] T1-41 ll 30-35.