Sydney Modern Gallery

I object to this proposal and urge DPE & the Minister to defer any decision and to require its re-consideration, due to:
1. its irreversible adverse impact on the landscape character of the Domain, which is open, grassed and available to all users (not just art lovers);
2. its irreversible adverse impact on the Domain's open space (for the same reasons);
3. As the principal building on that prominent position the Art Gallery stands proud, with views to either side allowing a proper appreciation of its setting on the ridgeline of the harbour finger leading to Mrs Macquarie's Chair.
4. Installing the new structure proposed beside the building will not erode, but completely remove the sense of the setting of the building. And will remove the sense of scale and integrity of that imposing front.
5. Viewlines beside the Art Gallery - to the harbour and the ridgeline of Kings Cross - allow the existing Art Gallery to be seen as part of the cultural crucible of the city of Sydney - in a botanical, open space setting.
6. The new building will irreversibly and adversely impact the open landscape character north of the gallery over the RMS Land Bridge. The existing Domain views to and from the harbour to this ridge line of open space (and the gallery as an object set in open space surrounds) should remain intact.
7. The new building is awful. The intent of the new building might be about the provision of space for paintings but it looks more like a very big shelter shed. And in truth is probably more about weddings and conference venue.
8. Describing open space as "under utilised" land is misguided - at best. This sort of attitude is outdated. Open space is imperative not only for the health of the community but to provide setting and curtilage - in this instance for the Art Gallery. And to provide a setting for a public building which the public holds dear.
9. While the Greater Sydney Commission has a whole of city view this proposal is limited and appears to have not considered an annexe building/ facility for Sydney Modern, such as the Tate in London - or Hobart's MONA a ferry ride from the CBD) - or the asylum complex at Callan Park (where Sydney University's Sydney College of the Arts is departing) which certainly has the space and scale and security required for an art collection

SSD 6471 - SYDNEY MODERN (SM), ART GALLERY OF NEW SOUTH WALES (AGNSW)

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to raise the following objections to the planned development which is to be Sydney Modern.

. Who owns the land - The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust own/control nearly 60% of the Domain land that the AGNSW wish to take for the SM project. I consider this takeover should not occur until satisfactory commercial arrangements have been made to compensate the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust;

. Green Open Space - there should be no loss of open space. I strongly object to the Art Gallery of New South Wales taking over what I consider to be passive green open space which is a valuable part of the green lungs of City of Sydney. This section of The Domain is used by trainers and their followers, dog handlers and their "charges", then there are those people who want passive green open space.

. SM Building Alignment - all buildings should be stepped back to be in alignment with the front entrance of the present AGNSW building.

. SM Building Height - the western entrance and any building height facing Art Gallery Road and Mrs Macquaries Road should not be above the road levels.

. SM Front Entry Roof on Art Gallery Road - I don't see the need for this structure. The space should be added to the green space with Australian/Sydney plantings. Overseas visitors are always curious about the Australian planting areas and would partly compensate for the loss of so many tree removals. Perhaps these plants could be relocated to this parcel of land which SM is taking over(squatting);

. Woollomooloo Gate exit from the RBG Sydney - SM should not be seen from the Royal Botanic Garden paths and lawns/gardens leading up to this Gate, hence my request that all buildings and their roofs should be below the level of the road/footpath.

. SM to fit in with the topography of the land - there has been some attempt to achieve this but I consider more should be made of it;

. SM only achieving 40% Gallery Space - I'm appalled at this small amount being allocated to gallery space considering the taxpayers of New South Wales
are providing in excess of $240M. For a building that is taking up so much passive open/green space I feel that the taxpayers of NSW are being robbed.

. Traffic/Road system - I strongly object to the proposal that a round-about should be place anywhere near the Royal Botanic Gardens Woolloomooloo Gate/Mrs Macquaries Road/Access Road area. There has been no consideration given to the 441 bus stop, school buses dropping children off to the Royal Botanic Gardens/Art Gallery, tourist buses that visit Mrs Macquaries Chair, the general public driving into Mrs Macquaries for parking let alone the number of pedestrians who use the present crossing. I consider that before any decision is made on this subject that negotiations occur with the RBGT, Sydney Buses, tour bus companies and the police.

. Loss of Revenue to the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust will occur with the removal of the parking spaces outside the Art Gallery of NSW as well as those spaces near the Land Bridge on the eastern side of Mrs Macquaries Road. Obviously the Art Gallery of NSW are not concerned, I understand it is of concern to the RBG&DT.

. Location to Open Space South/East of AGNSW - I consider this location to be far more suitable for SM. It's near The Domain Carpark, St James Railway Station, Pedestrian Bridge to Woolloomooloo. In the EIS there is mention that this site was unsuitable. I'm sure with innovative archectural design and access to the AGNSW it would have been achieved with the loss of less Green Open Space. I request that the Department of Planning and Environment demand that the AGNSW reconsider this location.

. Visitation Numbers - In the EIS figure 46 - Attendance and Major Cultural and Recreational Institutions there is no mention of the numbers visiting the Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney, the Annual Report of 2011-12 shows that 3,544,344 people visited these gardens and the Annual Report 2016-2017 records 5,222,464 visitors. Is this ignorance on the part of AGNSW?

Whilst I understand that the AGNSW wishes to increase its gallery space for modern art it should not be at the loss of so much green open space and at such a huge cost to the taxpayers of NSW considering that only 40% is to be allocated to gallery space.

Roslyn Wheeler
14/19-23 Stewart Street
GLEBE NSW 2037.

The public discussion on this has been unacceptably lax. Why would you need to take over the Botanical Gardens. Once the natural attributes of our city are eaten away by the built environment we will never get them back. There is no excuse for this build, its lack of public transparency and arrogance. So very sad that this is even deemed an appropriate action. STOP.

I wholeheartedly support the submission of the Trust of the Royal Botanic Gardens.

In addition to the number of encroachments Sydney Modern is planned to make on RBG land currently enjoyed by the public for a range of beneficial activities, I would like to protest strongly the land grab by the current Art Gallery buildig in planning a paved forecourt to replace 40 car spaces, a bus stop and a very useful drop-off point for handicapped, infirm or elderly visitors to the Art Gallery. There is no logical reason for this forecourt except delusions of grandeur. The public is certainly not a priority.

I must also p[protest the building for which the drawings look like nothing so much as a slightly glorified school shelter shed. This building is to be built almost opposite the magnificent Woolloomooloo Gate - what a bizarre contrast.

Please reconsider at least some of the more outrageous elements of this plan.

Director Key Sites Assessments, Planning Services
NSW Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39, Sydney, NSW 2001
Dear Sir / Madam,

"SYDNEY MODERN" - ART GALLERY OF NSW - SSD 14_6471

As advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald of 15.11.17, on 16.11.2017 the NSW Department of Planning and Environment placed on public exhibition documents relating to a proposal by the Art Gallery of NSW Trust to erect buildings on existing parkland known as the Sydney Domain, situated immediately to the north of the present Art Gallery of NSW in Art Gallery Road, Sydney. This submission is in response to those exhibited documents and other material in the public domain.

I object to the proposal in total.

I object to the loss of, and alienation of, public open space by vested interests. The subject lands, generally known as Domain Lawns 26, 27 and 30 of the Domain's Wooloomooloo Precinct were largely created as public parkland by the building of the "land bridge" over the Eastern Distributor motorway in 1999. The NSW government proudly claimed at the time that the land bridge created nearly one hectare of additional parkland.

Such public open space must be retained for public recreation, given the expected long term increase in Sydney's population, which will be increasingly housed in residential flat buildings without private gardens. I note that other public green space is increasingly under attack from development - e.g. - Parramatta Park, for a new stadium, and Moore Park, by a recently built footbridge, the "merging" of a new "Allianz" stadium with Driver Avenue and the adjacent parkland, and proposed road-building encroachments on Moore Park's southern and western boundaries.

I object to the site chosen, as there is ample alternate under-developed or degraded land to the east of the present Art Gallery, including the possibility of air-rights development over the Eastern Distributor motorway and a city council works depot.

I object to the Trust's failure to make public the 2012/13 Master Plan on the project, in which, I understand, alternative sites were considered.

I object to the limited time allowed for public submissions to be prepared for this project. It is actually less than one month, despite the fact that the proposal has been debated in the public arena for more than two years. I object to the timing of the exhibition, falling is it does in the period immediately prior to the Christmas holidays.

I object to the fact that the proposed buildings would destroy the long distance vistas currently available to be enjoyed by the public from Art Gallery Road to the east and north east, over Wooloomooloo, Sydney Harbour, and its foreshores.

I object to the Application's fascination and preoccupation with the EXTRNAL elements of the proposed buildings. An art gallery should be more concerned about the INTERNAL exhibition spaces and their impct, convenience, and attrctiveness to gallery visitors. An extension to the east of the present gallery would be more compact and thus more convenient for patrons. It could also be built for considerably lower capital and maintenance costs. One hectare of valuable public open space of the Domain would thus be preserved for public recreation, now and into the future.

I object to the control which the Art Gallery administration might attempt to exercise over the greatly constrained public areas adjacent to the proposed buildings. The public would be forced to follow the paths provided, and wend its way around such obstacles as cafe furniture and gardens, whereas children, for example, can currently enjoy ball games or other larger-space activities on the existing grassed lawns should they choose to do so.

I object to the "artists' impressions" accompanying the Application, which present the buildings as "floating pavilions" apparently made almost entirely of glass, whereas most of the external walls and roofs must of necessity be of opaque materials. It amounts to a brazen misleading of the public.

I object to the opinionated language used in the exhibited documents, all of it tilted at justifying the proposal, and most of it unattributed, so the reader has no way of checking the credentials of the author(s). Take, for example - " The Gallery expansion is sited to maintain the green character of Central Sydney's easten edge...", and (the buildings) "connect the Gallery to the Domain, Botanic Garden and neighboring precincts" (page 28, Vol 1). The Gallery and the Botanic Garden are obviously already connected by Art Gallery Road and open space, a far preferable environment in the view of this writer. There is yet another opinionated, unattributed comment in "the impact on the view corridor should be positive" (page 30, Vol. 1). I object to such bias in the application documents and disagree wholeheartedly.

I strongly object to the description of the land bridge as "underused".

It is farcical that the Environmentl Impact Statement should conclude that "the proposal is considered to have a positive, reasonable and/or acceptable level of impact on its surrounds" (page 5, EIS). That impact, surely, must be for the public to decide, and it will.

The Art Gallery must abandon its plans for a privatised "function centre" on what is now public open space, and focus on the quality of the internal exhibition spaces and curatorial aspects of any expansion plans it might have.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Eadie
21 St Georges Cres.
Drummoyne, NSW, 2047.

15 December 2017.

This is a most exciting and long overdue expansion of the Art Gallery of NSW. The designs work well in the context of the landscape and the challenges of the site and the transformation of the former oil tanks is an unexpected bonus - not unlike the tanks at Tate Modern. There is clearly no intrusion on the Domain and the Botanical Gardens and any environmental impact has been sensitively and imaginatively handled so that the extension will enhance the area.
The Gallery - and Sydney - desperately needs additional space to display its superb collections - especially those of Indigenous art - and to hold world class exhibitions. My response is overwhelmingly positive.

I welcome an expanded space to show more opportunity for local contemporary artists, indigenous collections and projects.
The re-purposing of abandoned oil tanks is a great use of dead space and urban renewal.
It has my support.

I object to the proposed Art Gallery of NSW extensions as currently on exhibition on the basis of:

1 intrusion and alienation of current public green and open space by hard edged modern "look at me now" type built infrastructure;

2 the diagrams and illustrations suggest a reflective built form that will jar with the current approach to the historic Domain and Botanic Gardens precinct;

3 the surface spread of the new extension will diminish the historic and green ambience of the area with potential to increase vehicular congestion in an already busy site;

As a supporter/member of AGNSW since moving to Sydney in 1985 and a regular visitor to the gallery, I have been disappointed with the limited easily available information about the EIS for this proposed extension. While I appreciate the constraints of the present building to house and display what should be an ever expanding collection I believe the entire proposal should be re-considered. Such reconsideration should include the possibility of creating a related gallery on an appropriate and public transport accessible site in western Sydney. That said, the option of adapting the existing built and historic oil terminal infrastructure and site, perhaps with a creative underground gallery link, in a way that does not compromise its heritage, should be explored as a part of any extension proposals.

To: Dept of Planning
From: Arahni Sont
15 December 2017
Sydney Modern Project
State Significant Development
DA SSD 6471 3/11/17
Development Application and Environmental Impact Statement
Grounds of Objection

I wish to endorse the Grounds of Objection written and submitted by the parties mentioned below. In addition, I would like to highlight my Grounds for Objection as a long time resident of Sydney and member of the Art Gallery Society of NSW. I am an amateur sculptor, an art collector and owned an art gallery in Africa. I am a former investment banker and Advisor to various organisations including the Government here and overseas.
1. The loss of public green space in an area adjacent to a major city CBD - the area provides oxygen, is actively and passively used by office workers during the day and visited by tourists as well as local residents
2. The huge bulk of the building - the Art Gallery has been expanded in recent years and could be increased by building on the south east corner playing fields and using the storage tanks below. I do not believe that the people of NSW would be best served by a more than doubling in size of the AGNSW. As the Chesterman submission states, the VOID at Barrangaroo could also be better used.
3. There is no Budget to fund the ongoing operational costs of such a major building.
4. Sydney would be better served by building an outstanding Gallery in Parramatta esp since the Greater Sydney Plan is to have 3 cities in one.

The Chesterman/Andrews/Appleton and Donald Grounds for Objection
These Grounds of Objection have been hastily prepared following the release of the DA and EIS on 3/11/17. The group who, in consultation with many other concerned people and organisations, have prepared this material are:- * David Chesterman AM, urban designer and architect, designer of the land bridge beside the gallery and the Eastern Distributor and an acknowledged authority on heritage , landscape and view impacts of major projects. * Ros Andrews, former Trustee of the Royal Botanic Garden and Domain Trust, former Chair Australian Horticulture and Landscape Foundation and NSW Institute of Horticulture. * Gillian Appleton, former Trustee of the Royal Botanic Garden and Domain Trust and former Chair NSW Arts Advisory Council. * Bruce Donald AM, senior lawyer, former Chair, Environmental Defenders Office and former Australian Heritage Commissioner.
The EIS and its appendices are voluminous documents many years in the preparation, publicly funded at very substantial expense, in the millions of dollars, for the purpose of making the case for the Art Gallery of NSW extension. The reports of the many paid advisers to AGNSW inevitably and unsurprisingly support the proposal; otherwise they would not have been included in the EIS. This means that the consent authority has a very heavy public obligation to critically review every element of the EIS and where appropriate seek further completely independent advice which is not retained by the proponent itself.
These grounds of objection, necessarily limited to the key factors involved, have been voluntarily prepared in just a matter of weeks to comply with the deadline of 15th December, the traditional "Christmas DA!". It would not be possible in the time allowed to respond to the whole EIS and supporting material. These grounds have been made available to many interested parties who have requested access to them for the purpose of those parties endorsing all or part of them as they wish.
The need for the expansion of the cultural facilities of NSW
It is acknowledged that the cultural needs of Greater Sydney and the State of NSW are in need of a major expansion of the resources devoted to art in all its manifestations and presentations. The central role of AGNSW in the many elements of that expansion is also acknowledged because of its status and expertise as the venerable art institution. However that expansion is not best served by the Sydney Modern Project where it is at present located or the manner in which it is now designed.
This proposal should not be approved
The overriding objection to the location and design of this proposal, and the fundamental reason why it should not be approved, is because of its negative impact on and inconsistency with the heritage, natural and public open space values of:-
* the Domain,
* the surrounds of the grand and historic AGNSW gallery and
* the entrances to the Royal Botanic Garden and Mrs Macquarie's Point, with their defining stands of trees and public views over the adjacent Domain lands to the Harbour beyond. This loss of public amenity is unnecessary as the cultural objectives can be equally if not better achieved in other places and in different ways without building on this location.
The proposed development of Sydney Modern will have a 7830 sqm footprint which is equal to the loss of 1.935 acres of green space to a built environment. The Domain is considered to be the most extensive, publicly accessible and intact cultural landscape in Australia after being opened for public use and recreation in the 1830's. It forms an open space link between the Royal Botanic Garden and Hyde Park. It includes mature plantings of Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay Fig) [circa 1880's], Flindersia australis (Crows Foot Ash), Araucaria cunninghamiana (Hoop Pine) and Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Palm).

Sincerely

Arahni Sont

The Sydney Modern development should not be placed in the proposed location where it takes up the public's green space of the Royal Botanic Gardens, destroys precious and distinctive harbour and garden/art gallery /city vistas and, where it would necessitate the removal of RBG vegetation and plantings.
*The proposed building design is not sympathetic with the architecture and landscape of its environs and its positioning and orientation is at odds with the historic and established public access to the AGNSW and the RBG across the Domain. Its shed form and too large footprint are ungainly and intrusive in a landscape characterised by historic architectural profiles, timeless garden and planting silhouettes and harbour vistas.
*The proposed building is alienating in the landscape and will introduce unwieldy, chaotic and clumsy patterns of people and vehicular movement and access focused on what is now a civilised and historic entry sequence into the RBG from the Domain and, onwards to Mrs Macquaries Chair.
*The site is very poorly served by public transport with limited public parking and adding this level of development will have a deleterious and unacceptable effect on the tranquillity of the surrounds of the Garden, Domain and, the Art Gallery in its present form.
*There is a massive mismatch between the aspirations of both the original Sydney Modern plan and this watered down, but equally intrusive plan and, the proposed site which is restricted and located within environs of national and state significance and, of great value to the people of Sydney and its visitors. Intrinsic to the RBG, the site is unique as historic green space inextricably linked to the harbour foreshores which also have historic significance.
*This proposal is being pursued in the absence of a New South Wales Cultural Plan and perpetuates the current emphasis on big expensive infrastructure at the expense of carefully thought out cultural development informed by studies of visitor and audience potential; specific cultural and heritage characteristics and opportunities; and the capacity for cultural initiatives to contribute to societal and economic development across NSW.
*Building Sydney Modern in this location will result in Sydney having 3 major art galleries (AGNSW, Sydney Modern and MCA) concentrated in the east around Sydney city and harbour. Parramatta is being trumpeted as the population centre of Sydney and, has a vibrant contemporary cultural diversity.
*The City of Parramatta's 2016 Cultural Discussion Paper highlighted the priority to have `an iconic gallery and exhibition space to rival that of any of the leading cities with inspiring installations, works of reflection and energetic public programs. Where you could experience the best of local, national and international visual artists and blockbuster touring exhibitions without having to leave the city' of Parramatta. Sydney Modern is the answer to Parramatta's cultural aspirations!

I am presently travelling overseas and, with the technology available to me, I am unable to create a file in PDF form for attachment. I am arranging for a letter to be submitted separately on my behalf, highlighting some of the many deficiencies I see in the SSDA/EIS for the Sydney Modern Project (SMP) as well the background to my objection to the proposal and the specific location of the proposed building.

However, if a standalone building is to be built on the proposed site, then the following conditions should apply, at the very least:

1. The RBGD Trust should be fully rcompensated for any loss of land, any loss of revenue raising capability, any costs to be incurred as a consequence of the construction process and any costs to be incurred in future, directly associated with management of landscape and traffic for the project.
2. Land to be transferred to the ownership/control of AGNSW should be restricted to the footprint only of the new building, as is case for the existing AGSNW building.
3. Plans for landscaping around the new building as well as traffic and pedestrian management along Art Gallery Road and Mrs Macquarie Road should be developed jointly by the RBGD Trust and the AGSNW.
4. Plans for the new building must be amended so that the entry pavillion and the entry plaza are bothe set back from Art Gallery Road and Mrs Macquarie Road at least as far as the existing AGSNW building is set back from Art Gallery Road.

Gillian Edmondson-Jones As a resident of Woolloomooloo's Finger Wharf, I am very concerned about the visual impact Sydney Modern will have upon the area.

I have the following concerns:

- Residents of the Wharf currently have a very green view as the area around the existing Art Gallery is filled with trees and plants. The new proposed structure will be very prominent when viewed from the Wharf and will dominate the view. The new building looks to be very large and above tree height. I am concerned that the new building will not blend in to the existing greenery and will spoil the ambiance of the area as it will be so prominent. The pictures of this new development do not show that greenery is being used to soften the starkness of the structure. I also concerned that many large trees and vegetation will be removed to accommodate an unsightly and large building. This large building may create more noise for residents of the Wharf.

I would like to see:

a building that fits into the existing landscape and is camouflaged with trees and vegetation using rooftop gardens like the gardens on top of Lincoln Crescent site, including trees to reduce the visual impact of the building and noise.
The building needs to blend in and complement the local setting.

The current plan will dominate and overwhelm the existing view from the wharf to the City and will irreparably harm one of the finest areas in Sydney.

Please find attached a submission from the Sydney Business Chamber on the current EIS for the Sydney Modern project.

I am enclosing my opinion and reasons in attachment 1

To Whom It May Concern:

Re: Sydney Modern Project

The Tourism and Transport Forum (TTF) is writing in support of the State Significant Development Application SSD 14_6471 - the proposed expansion of the Art Gallery of New South Wales - known as the Sydney Modern Project.

The Tourism & Transport Forum Australia (TTF) is the peak industry group for the tourism, transport and aviation sectors. We are a national, member-funded CEO forum, advocating the public policy interests of the largest corporations and institutions in the Australian tourism, transport, aviation and investment sectors. Our members include multinational companies and ASX Top 200 companies.

The Sydney Modern Project will be a vibrant addition to Sydney's already world-renowned cultural landscape and TTF would like to congratulate the Art Gallery of NSW on developing such a forward-thinking and innovative proposal.

The Sydney Modern Project is expected to increase visitation to the Art gallery by 800,000 people per year, from 1.2 million currently. These extra visitors will be spending time and money not only at the new gallery but across the city. Cultural institutions play an important part in the attraction of visitors to Sydney and New South Wales. Tourism Research Australia data shows that in 2016, 67% of all international visitors to the State engage in cultural-based activities during their stay. Visiting cultural institutions is particularly important for visitors from key markets such as South Korea, Europe, United States, United Kingdom and China.

The Sydney Modern Project will greatly increase the city's capacity to host major international exhibitions, many of which currently only go to Canberra or Melbourne. These high-level exhibits are major draw-cards for host cities - for example, the Versailles: Treasures from the Palace, which showed at the National Gallery of Australia in 2016/17, attracted an estimated 200,000 visitors.

The project will also deliver an architectural landmark building for Sydney designed by Pritzker-prize winning architecture and design firm SANAA. Such a building alone will attract visitors to view it.

The Sydney Modern Project also presents an opportunity to showcase other Sydney galleries and institutions and remind visitors and locals about the variety of cultural opportunities within the city. Many of these institutions are members of TTF and we would welcome an opportunity to work with the Sydney Modern Project team, the NSW Government and our other cultural-based members to use this project, and the improved links it will generate between Woolloomooloo and the CBD, to develop and promote a cultural-based visitor trail that incorporates these amazing experiences.

TTF will be closely tracking the progress of the Sydney Modern Project and we look forward to a successful opening in 2021.

Please do not hesitate to contact myself or TTF's Tourism Policy Manager, Lucinda Millsom, if you require any further feedback, via 02) 9240 2007 or [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Margy Osmond
CEO

Since 1816 The Royal Botanic Garden (and Domain) have existed to further plant knowledge and provide a living aesthetic to Australia's first european settlement. An open space amidst an ever expanding major world metropolis.

All the people of Australia, particularly those of Aboriginal descent, should treasure this rich heritage site. Owned by the original inhabitants and subsequently walked on and preserved by Lady Macquarie and her prescient and thoughtful husband Lachlan, it is land not to be valued in any mercenary way but respected and preserved for ever as a sacrosanct site.

With the current NSW government awash with funds from housing stamp duty and gambling profits they should not be indulging a few powerful art elite in a self-aggrandising expenditure of public funds on land not theirs.

The quasi debate on this issue has featured contributions from ministers referring to -it is only open space- and -cranes in the air are a measure of our economic well being. This seems to be the extent of any heritage conscience in this government.

Many people believe that not all development is good.

If you want to raise this issue on a federal level you will find no minister for heritage or culture as far as I can determine. Again a telling sign of where priorities lie.

Please see attached submission from Sydney Harbour Association, PO Box 265, Rose Bay 2029 - Hylda Rolfe, Secretary (Home: 41 Cove Street Watsons Bay 2030)

please see attached letter

Please see attachment - thanks

Andy,
Please refer to my earlier submission. The upload failed so I am trying again.