CTS Strathpine Pty Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council; Westfield Management Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council & Anor [2006] QPEC 111

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: CTS Strathpine Pty Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council, Westfield Management Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council & Anor [2006] QPEC 111 PARTIES: CTS STRATHPINE PTY LTD Applicant PINE RIVERS SHIRE COUNCIL Respondent And WESTFIELD MANAGEMENT LTD Applicant PINE RIVERS SHIRE COUNCIL First Respondent and CTS STRATHPINE PTY LTD Third Respondent FILE NO/S: BD 800/2006 BD 1445/2006 DIVISION: Planning and Environment PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 31 October 2006 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 5, 6 October 2006 JUDGE: Rackemann DCJ ORDER: CATCHWORDS: APPLICATION FOR DECLARATIONS AS TO PROPER CHARACTERISATION OF INTENDED USE – whether proposed pharmacy a ‘shop’ or ‘showroom’ – meaning of -- 1 of 17 -- 2 food or groceries – ancillary use, whether incidental to, subordinate to and necessarily associated with - whether the inclusion of food or groceries within the range of goods to be offered for sale constitutes an ancillary use to a principal showroom use or results in the whole of the proposal being characterised as a shop The Australian Gas Light Co v The Valuer General [1940] 40 SR (NSW) 126 Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd v Cairns City Council (1997) 2 Qd R 31 BCC v Bemcove Pty Ltd (1998) 104 LGERA 1 City of Springvale v Heda Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 57 LGRA 298 Livingstone Shire Council v Brian Hooper & Ors [2004] QPELR 308 Noosa Shire Council v Settlers Cove Development Pty Ltd (1996) 93 LGERA 232 Slattery v Bishop [1919] 27 CLR 105 Westfield Management Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council & Anor [2005] QPELR 534 Westfield Management Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council & The Warehouse Group [2004] QPELR 337 Woolworths v Caboolture Shire Council & anor [2004] QPELR 550 Yu & Leung v BCC [2006] QPELR 102 COUNSEL: Mr Gallagher QC with him Mr Trotter for Westfield Management Ltd Mr Skoien of Counsel for Pine Rivers Shire Council Mr Hughes SC with him Mr Houston of Counsel for CTS Strathpine Pty Ltd SOLICITORS: Minter Ellison for Westfield Management Ltd Deacons for Pine Rivers Shire Council MacDonnells for CTS Strathpine Pty Ltd [1] The central issue to be determined, in each of the proceedings, is whether a proposed large pharmacy is a “showroom”, “shop” or some other use, for the purposes of the Transitional Planning Scheme for Pine Rivers. A “pharmacy” is not a separately defined purpose under the Scheme. [2] CTS Strathpine Pty Ltd (CTS) proposes to locate its large pharmacy on land within the Commercial zone, at Strathpine, but removed from the Central Business zoned -- 2 of 17 -- 3 areas of the Strathpine Business Area, within which Westfield Management (Westfield) has a major shopping centre. A “showroom” is “permitted development” within both the Commerical zone and the Central Business zone. A “Shop” is “permitted development” within the Central Business zone but is “prohibited development” within the Commercial zone.1 [3] The subject site is situated at 130 Gympie Road, Strathpine. The building, intended to be occupied by the pharmacy, is currently vacant. It has a gross floor area of 1050 square metres. The gross floor area of the proposed pharmacy is 900 square metres, with the remaining 150 square metres to be occupied by medical suites. The building is adjacent to “The Warehouse” business, which has been the subject of other earlier court proceedings.2 [4] If the pharmacy were a shop, as is contended by Westfield and by the council, then it would fall within column 5 of the relevant table of development, an impact assessable development application (with attendant public notification and potential third party appeal rights) would be required and its “prohibited development” status, while not creating a bar to an application, would be taken to be an expression of policy that the use is inconsistent with the intent of the zone (s 6.1.2(3)). If, as Westfield contends in the alternative, the pharmacy were an innominate use, then it would fall within column 4 and would still require an impact assessable development application, but would not have the status of “prohibited” development. If, as CTS contends, the pharmacy were a “showroom”, then no impact assessable application would be required. 1 Subject to an exception, expressed in the table of development, which is not relevant for present purposes 2 See Westfield Management Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council & Anor [2005] QPELR 534 -- 3 of 17 -- 4 [5] The proposed pharmacy is intended to be similar to one at Browns Plains, which was inspected during the course of the hearing. That features: • A dispensary area with an extended area, behind barriers, for “behind the counter” pharmaceuticals; • A large, freely accessible, area used for the display of a variety of goods offered for sale. This display area includes shelving (arranged in aisle formation and as wall racks) and free-standing “bins”, as are commonly encountered in many retail outlets. While stock is generally arranged into various product categories, it is within the one overall area which presents, as Mr Buckley said, as “one integrated offering”. As Mr Walkley pointed out 3 , its larger area, relative to a typical suburban pharmacy, provides scope for the display of a larger range and greater depth of product lines; • A bank of check-outs, near the front of the pharmacy, where customers purchase their selected goods prior to leaving; and • An associated storeroom area. The pharmacy presents as a single integrated activity,4 with ancillary storage. [6] For the purposes of the Transitional Planning Scheme, the expression “shop” is defined as follows: “Shop means any premises not elsewhere defined herein used for the sale, or displaying or offering articles for sale, by retail; the term includes any ancillary preparation of food”. 3 See Ex 9 p 21 4 A map of the Browns Plains store is Figure 1 in Mr Walkley’s report -- 4 of 17 -- 5 [7] The proposed pharmacy would involve the sale, the display and the offering for sale, of articles by retail. By reason of the opening words of the definition however, the proposed pharmacy will not be a shop if it falls within a purpose “elsewhere defined”. This is not a case where resort need be had to a “best fit” approach for characterisation.5 It is not a case of an innominate use. If the proposal fits within the description of a purpose elsewhere defined, then it will be so characterised. Otherwise, it will comfortably fall within the definition of a shop. [8] Given the scheme definitions, it is also not a case where the characterisation issue depends upon the ordinary meaning of a ‘shop’ or ‘showroom’.6 [9] It was contended, on behalf of CTS, that the proposal fell within the description of a purpose “elsewhere defined” and, in particular, is a “showroom”, which is defined as follows: “Showroom – any premises used for the hire of videos, computer games or similar articles or for the sale, or the displaying or offering of articles for sale, by retail, where: (a) the goods offered for sale do not include food or groceries other than fresh fruit and vegetables; (b) any articles displayed or stored on the premises are fully enclosed within a building; (c) any building, or sole occupancy unit within a building, so used has a gross floor area greater than 300 square metres; the term includes, the use of the premises for ancillary storage, or any other purpose ancillary to such use of the premises, but does not include an hotel and/or contractor’s depot;”. [10] It has already been observed that the proposal would involve the use of premises for the sale or the displaying or offering of articles for sale, by retail. Sub-paragraphs 5 See Yu & Leung v BCC [2006] QPELR 102 and Livingstone Shire Council v Brian Hooper & Ors [2004] QPELR 308 6 Westfield submitted that its characterisation sat well with that ordinary meaning. -- 5 of 17 -- 6 (b) and (c) of the definition would also, in this case, be satisfied. The obstacle to acceptance of the proposed pharmacy as a showroom, lies in the proposal to include, within the range of goods offered for sale, food or groceries (as those terms are commonly understood) other than fresh fruit and vegetables. [11] The products which are intended to be offered for sale and sold from the proposed pharmacy are more particularly listed in a 383 page exhibit to the affidavit of Mr Farrell filed on 20 March 2006. A 492 page list of products sold at the Browns Plains store from 22 August 2005 to 15 June 2006 is appended to the report of Mr Leyshon. [12] The words “food or groceries” are ordinary English words. The meaning of “food” is straightforward enough. It is “what is eaten or taken into the body, for nourishment”.7 As Brabazon QC DCJ pointed out in Westfield Management v Pine Rivers Shire Council (Supra) at 543 however, the word “groceries” has a less certain scope. Food items would not ordinarily be excluded from qualifying as groceries, although not all food items would necessarily also be groceries. The definition requires that the goods offered for sale do not include food “or” groceries. [13] Traditionally at least, the word groceries was used to refer to the type of goods commonly sold by a grocer.8 The business of a grocer has been described as dealing in “food and household provisions”9 or as dealing “in foodstuffs and other household supplies” 10 or trading, in general, in “all articles of domestic consumption, except those that are considered the distinctive wares” of another11 or 7 See Macquarie Dictionary. This meaning was also adopted in Woolworths v Caboolture Shire Council & anor [2004] QPELR 550 at 558 para 31. 8 See Slattery v Bishop [1919] 27 CLR 105 at 109. See also the definition of groceries in the Collins Dictionary of the English Language. 9 The Australian Oxford Dictionary 2nd Edition 10 Collins Dictionary of the English Language 11 See the second meaning of ‘grocer’ in the Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edition 1989 -- 6 of 17 -- 7 as dealing “in general supplies for the table and in other articles of household use”12 . [14] In recent times, it has become more difficult to define the expression by reference to the stock in trade of a particular kind of trader13 , since there is now a significant overlap in the product lines carried by different retail outlets. That is so, as much for pharmacies and, say, supermarkets, as it is for other forms of retailing. In this respect, the joint report of Mr Leyshon and Mr Walkley noted that: “…over time, the “lines” between retail pharmacies and grocery stores/supermarkets have become blurred as they relate to certain types of products. As a consequence of changes in marketing strategies and legislation as applies to pharmacy orientated products an increasing range of products traditionally sold only by pharmacies are now also sold by grocery stores and supermarkets. Similarly pharmacies have, in many cases, endeavoured to broaden their appeal by increasing their range of products sold beyond traditional pharmacy products into giftware, confectionery and grocery products…”, and “...modern-day grocery stores or supermarkets retail a very wide range of products which are unlikely to be included in any definition of groceries.” [15] It may be accepted that groceries are, these days, often sold in retail outlets other than supermarkets and that supermarkets, in turn, often sell goods other than just food or groceries. The ordinary meaning of “groceries” however, continues to be associated with items of general household supplies. [16] Even a cursory inspection of the product lists, reveals many items of food and many ordinary household items of a kind which would fall within the ordinary meaning of the word “groceries”, albeit that those items do not predominate. 12 Macquarie Dictionary 13 See T68 l48 -- 7 of 17 -- 8 [17] The extent to which the pharmacy, stocked as intended, would involve the sale of food or groceries was investigated by Mr Leyshon and Mr Walkley. Predictably, there was no difficulty in identifying food items. The product list was found to include 958 food items, being 6 per cent of the product lines, which is a similar proportion to that of the Browns Plains Pharmacy. Food sales also amounted to 6% of total sales at the Browns Plains store.14 This category includes, among other things, baby food, tea, coffee, pasta, confectionery, nuts, cereal, soft drinks and fruit juices. [18] There was, also predictably, some disagreement over whether particular lines fell within the meaning of “groceries”. Mr Leyshon and Mr Walkley assumed that groceries are: “products used for basic household/personal maintenance and cleanliness and which are purchased and consumed by persons or households on a regular basis”. They used the word ‘basic’ to describe products which are widely available and for general use by consumers, rather than those with some special property which would limit their use and availability. They assumed that products which, by regulation, could only be sold at pharmacies were not groceries. [19] I am conscious that the ordinary meaning of an English word is not a matter for expert opinion15 and I have not treated their assumptions as evidence of meaning. The meaning assumed by them, for the purpose of their exercise however, sits comfortably with the view I have taken of the ordinary meaning of the word. 14 See p 109 Mr Walkley’s report 15 See eg The Australian Gas Light Co v The Valuer General [1940] 40 SR (NSW) 126 at 137, City of Springvale v Heda Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 57 LGRA 298 -- 8 of 17 -- 9 [20] Each agreed that there were a number of grocery items which the pharmacy proposed to sell (agreed groceries). Those included items such as regular (unmedicated) toothpaste and shampoo, facial and toilet tissues, batteries, laundry and dishwashing detergents and other items listed in the joint report. “Agreed groceries” comprise about 9 per cent of the products on display at the Browns Plains store. [21] Those which each agreed were not groceries (agreed non-groceries) comprised about 70 per cent of the products in the Browns Plains sales report and around 84 per cent of sales. They include many items said to be basic to the operation of all pharmacies. The agreed non-groceries were described in the joint report as pharmacy-only medicines, medicated health and beauty products, specialised vitamins and minerals, non-basic cosmetics, photographic equipment and surgical appliances. [22] There are other products which each believe are arguable, as to whether they are groceries or not (possible groceries). Possible groceries account for about 8 per cent of products and 3 per cent of sales at Browns Plains. There are others which Mr Walkley considered to be groceries but Mr Leyshon did not (disputed groceries). There were two sub-categories of these which, in total, represented about 6 per cent of products and 2 per cent of sales at the Browns Plains store. [23] I am conscious that the question of whether a particular product falls within the ordinary meaning of the word “groceries” is a question of fact for the court, rather than a matter of expert opinion. The exercise carried out by the experts in analysing the number of various product types and their relative proportions is not however, unhelpful, given the lengthy product list. -- 9 of 17 -- 10 [24] It is not necessary, in order to determine the central issue in these proceedings, to resolve the differences between Mr Leyshon and Mr Walkley, or to attempt to redo the exercise myself, or to arrive at a finding as to the precise extent of food or groceries. I was not invited to do so.16 [25] It is evident that it is proposed to carry many items of food or groceries, although those items would comprise a minority of the overall product offer and sales. The proposed pharmacy would therefore appear to conflict with sub-paragraph (a) of the definition of showroom. Ultimately, instead of cavilling with the proposition that the pharmacy would carry items of food or groceries, as those terms are commonly understood, Mr Hughes SC submitted that: 17 (a) The expression “food or groceries” should be given a particular meaning, in the context of the Transitional Planning Scheme or; (b) The sale of “food or groceries” at the proposed pharmacy would constitute an “ancillary use”, within the meaning of that term for the purpose of the definition of showroom. [26] It was submitted, on behalf of CTS, that given the exclusion of fresh fruit and vegetables, it was not possible simply to adopt the ordinary meaning of the expression “food or groceries”, that the expression was ambiguous and that a purposive approach should be adopted. It was submitted that the expression should be interpreted to mean the range of food or groceries (excluding fresh fruit and vegetables) expected to be found at supermarkets, rather than the more limited range intended to be offered at the proposed pharmacy. 16 T127 17 T127-8 -- 10 of 17 -- 11 [27] In support of that submission, reference was made to the statement of intent for the Commercial zone, which provides as follows (adopting the underlining from the submissions for CTS): “Commercial 16 The intent of the Commercial zone is to accommodate activities which complement the Central Business zone, but for which a central or shopping centre location may not be essential and may not, in some cases, be desirable. The zone is also intended in certain circumstances to accommodate particular commercial uses which are not established in conjunction with the Central Business zone, but which for reasons such as amenity are unsuited to alternative zonings. The zone is not intended to accommodate core retailing activities, such as grocery shopping, but does allow for retailing of non-food items in premises with large floor areas. The commercial zone is intended to contain activities which directly service the general public. Accordingly, showrooms, retail warehouses, hardware centres and car yards are all permitted in this zone. Late night activities, such as indoor sports centres and reception lounges, may also be expected in this zone in appropriate circumstances and/or subject to relevant requirements…” [28] Reference was also made to Development Control Plan No. 8 (DCP8), which contains the following provision with respect to commercial areas: “(8) Commercial: these areas are shaded light blue on the maps and indicate land zoned or developed for retail showrooms/warehouse, office, other business, entertainment and other community purposes and other land within the Development Control Plan area considered to be suitable for such development”. [29] The expressions “retail showroom” and “retail warehouse”, although used in those passages, are not defined purposes under the Transitional Planning Scheme. Clause 3.4.1 of Part B of DCP8 states that “the Town Plan uses the term “showroom” to describe retail warehousing activities. A definition of “showroom” is included in the Town Plan”. The retail warehousing referred to would therefore, appear to be that which meets the showroom definition. -- 11 of 17 -- 12 [30] It was submitted, on behalf of CTS, that the clear intention was to encourage core retailing, including grocery or supermarket shopping, in the Central Business zone rather than to discourage large pharmacies, selling a limited range of what might otherwise be regarded as “food or groceries”, from the Commercial zone, by excluding them from the definition of showroom. In short, the manifest intention for the exclusion of food or groceries in the definition of showroom is, it was contended, to exclude premises such as supermarkets, which are destinations for regular grocery shopping, rather than those pharmacies which include a limited range of food or grocery items in the goods offered for sale. [31] It was submitted, on behalf of the council, that the expression “food or groceries” was not used in the planning scheme as a reference only to a broad range of food or groceries as offered by a supermarket. It was pointed out that a “local store” is defined by reference to the sale, or the display or offering for sale, by retail of “food and other groceries”. It was submitted that “the identification of products as “groceries” should be derived from the nature of the purchase and use of the products themselves, rather than from the circumstances in which, or the places at which, those products may be sold at any particular time”. In short, a box of washing powder or a roll of toilet paper remains a grocery item and a Mars bar remains a food item, whether it is bought from a supermarket, local store, large pharmacy or other retail outlet. I accept that submission. [32] I was reminded of the well-established principles concerning the interpretation of planning schemes, 18 including the principles that they should be construed as a whole, in a way which best achieves their apparent purpose and broadly (rather than 18 See Westfield Management Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council & The Warehouse Group [2004] QPELR 337 at par 18 and Woolworths Ltd v Caboolture Shire Council & The Warehouse Group [2004] QPELR 550 at par 18 -- 12 of 17 -- 13 pedantically and narrowly), and with a sensible, practical approach. It is also worth bearing in mind the following passage of the reasons of Wilson SC DCJ in Woolworths Ltd v Caboolture Shire Council & The Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (Supra) at par 19, concerning the application of those principles where definitions are straightforward and use words and phrases of no special legal art: “The definitions here are, however, quite straightforward and use words and phrases of no special legal art… The Respondents are to be taken to have been aware of the relatively simple requirements they were obliged to meet to qualify as a retail showroom and care must be taken to ensure any impression of vagueness or uncertainty which emits from a reading of the various planning documents is not used to avoid proper compliance with those parts of it which are, comparatively, clear and certain. That is not to belittle or read down the principles or authorities referred to by Britton SC DCJ; rather, this is a case in which general statements in verbose planning schemes cannot be allowed to cloud the proper analysis of the few, relevant words which fall to be construed”. [33] Here, the definition of “showroom” and, in particular, sub-paragraph (a) which contains the reference to “food or groceries”, is relatively straightforward, and uses words of no particular legal art. Sub-paragraph (a) requires that the goods offered for sale “do not include food or groceries…”. It does not focus upon the extent or depth of the range of food or groceries offered. It does not focus on the relative proportion of food or groceries to other goods offered for sale. It does not focus on whether the food or groceries are being offered for sale in premises which are, or are akin to, a supermarket or on the type of shopping trip more generally. It simply requires that, whatever else is offered, food or groceries (other than fresh fruit and vegetables) are not included in the range of goods offered for sale. The proposal fails that requirement of the definition. [34] It may be accepted that a supermarket would also fail to meet the definition of a “showroom” and, if located in the Commercial zone, would be contrary to the intent of that zone. It might even be that supermarkets were specifically within the -- 13 of 17 -- 14 contemplation of the draftsperson. That is not to say however, that the definition was intended to, or does, only exclude supermarkets or like premises or that by giving the words “food or groceries” their ordinary meaning, any inconsistency or conflict would arise with the planning intent. [35] The intent of the Commercial zone includes references to allowing retailing of “non-food items” but not “grocery shopping”. The exclusion from the definition of showroom (which is “permitted development” within the zone) of those premises which offer goods which include food or groceries (subject to a limited exception) does not appear incongruous. As Mr Skoien pointed out, there may be good reasons (including limiting the scope for confusion, dispute and ambiguity concerning the extent of permissible groceries19 ) for adopting that approach.20 [36] It might be that a more limited exclusion, of the kind contended for by CTS, would also have been consistent with the planning intent, but that does not justify a departure from the ordinary meaning of the words which have been used. [37] I do not consider that the context requires or justifies attributing anything other than the ordinary meaning to the words “food or groceries” and I am satisfied that the proposal would fail to meet sub-paragraph (a) of the definition of showroom. [38] The remaining issue is whether the offering of food and groceries for sale is an ancillary purpose. [39] The argument for CTS and the council proceeded on the basis that, if considered to be an ancillary purpose, the offering for sale of food or groceries would not disqualify the pharmacy from being a showroom. That assumes the inclusion, in the 19 cf Westfield Management Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council (supra) at 543 20 See para 3.5 of the written outline of submissions for the council -- 14 of 17 -- 15 definition, of “the use of the premises for ancillary storage, or any other purpose ancillary to such use of the premises” is not limited to ancillary purposes which would not cause non-compliance with sub-paragraph (a) of the definition. Westfield contended to the contrary. It is unnecessary for me to resolve that question since, for the reasons which follow, the inclusion of food or groceries in the goods offered for sale does not, in this case, constitute an ancillary purpose in any event. [40] The Transitional Planning Scheme not only defines a showroom as including an ancillary purpose but also defines “use” to include a use which is “ancillary” to the lawful use of premises. At first blush, that might be thought to be a more generous approach than appears in Sch 10 to the IPA, which defines a use as including a use which is “incidental to and necessarily associated with” the use of the premises. The Transitional Planning Scheme however, also contains the following definition of ancillary: “Ancillary – incidental to, subordinate to and necessarily associated with: the term refers only to activities conducted on the same site”. [41] Even if the offering for sale of food or groceries was said to be an incidental and subordinate purpose, it would still need to satisfy the “necessary associated with” test, in order to be regarded as ancillary. The expression “necessarily associated with” means the use must be unavoidably or inevitably involved, connected and associated with the principal activity.21 [42] It was pointed out, on behalf of CTS, that the food or groceries proposed to be offered for sale, would represent a relatively minor proportion of the goods offered 21 Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd v Cairns City Council (1997) 2 Qd R 31; BCC v Bemcove Pty Ltd (1998) 104 LGERA 1 at 3; See also Noosa Shire Council v Settlers Cove Development Pty Ltd (1996) 93 LGERA 232 at 244, Woolworths Ltd v Caboolture Shire Council (Supra) at 558 -- 15 of 17 -- 16 for sale, an even smaller proportion of the pharmacy turnover and would be composed of items which one might expect to find stocked by a pharmacy including many items with some association with health or wellness. It was pointed out that Mr Leyshon and Mr Walkley were in agreement that the proposed pharmacy would compete mainly with other pharmacies rather than grocery stores and supermarkets. [43] It might be that at least a number of the items have some association with health or wellness and that, with the trend towards overlapping product lines, referred to earlier, one might not be surprised to see a pharmacy offering some food or groceries for sale, but that is not the test. The issue is not whether pharmacies often sell some food or groceries, but whether the proposed pharmacy is a showroom and, in this respect, whether the offering for sale of food or groceries, to the extent that can be said to be an incidental and subordinate purpose, is necessarily associated with a (primary) showroom purpose. [44] The argument for CTS is perhaps somewhat more attractive in respect of the sale of some products in some circumstances, than others (such as washing powder). Having considered the whole of the proposal however, I am satisfied that the offering of food or groceries, as proposed, goes beyond the boundaries of a purpose which is unavoidably or inevitably involved, connected and associated with the so- called principal activity, even if it could otherwise be said to constitute an incidental and subordinate activity. [45] The proposed pharmacy, stocked as intended, would offer goods for sale which include food or groceries as part of an apparently single integrated offer. 22 The extent of food or groceries to be offered for sale is not trivial and cannot be ignored. In my view, the inclusion of food or groceries within the range of goods to be -- 16 of 17 -- 17 offered for sale, does not lead to the conclusion the proposal is for a principal showroom use and an incidental, subordinate and necessarily associated, ancillary shop use. 23 It leads instead to the conclusion the pharmacy would not meet the definition of showroom, with the result that it would be a shop for the purposes of the Transitional Planning Scheme. I decline to make the declarations sought by CTS. It was not contended that there was any discretionary basis to refuse the relief sought by Westfield. I will hear from the parties about the terms of final orders. 22 Compare Woolworths Ltd v Caboolture Shire Council (supra) at 599 G 23 or a purpose which would fall within the extended definition of use in the Transitional Planning Scheme or the IPA. -- 17 of 17 --