Azzopardi v Campbelltown City Council

[2007] NSWLEC 119

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Azzopardi v Campbelltown City Council [2007] NSWLEC 119
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Ron Azzopardi RESPONDENT Campbelltown City Council
FILE NUMBER(S):	10988 of 2006
CORAM:	Moore C
KEY ISSUES:	Development Consent :- Modification application Consent orders
CASES CITED:	A R Design and Campbelltown City Council (2006) NSWLEC 93
DATES OF HEARING:	26 February 2007
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	26 February 2007
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Ms M-L Taylor, solicitor Norman Waterhouse Solicitors RESPONDENT Mr A Seton, solicitor Marsdens Law Group

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Moore C

26 February 2007

10988 of 2006 Ron Azzopardi v Campbelltown City Council

JUDGMENT

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

The consequence of the Court’s decision in this appeal is the modification of the detailed conditions an existing development consent. These conditions are not reproduced as part of this decision but are available for inspection at the Council. In addition, a copy the Court’s Orders and the conditions may be obtained from the Court’s registry upon payment of a fee. Details of the fee payable and process for obtaining a copy of the Orders and conditions are available on the Court’s web site at

1 COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 against the refusal by Campbelltown City Council (the Council) on 26 September 2006 of an application to modify plans for a development at Ruzac & Broughton Streets, Campbelltown (the site).

2 The original application was dealt with by me in a decision I gave on 27 February 2006 in A R Design and Campbelltown City Council (2006) NSWLEC 93. In the course of that decision, I dealt with a number of matters relating to bulk in scale and streetscape presentation, particularly streetscape presentation to Ruzac Street and the impact on the neighbours immediately to the north-east and south west in Ruzac Street.

3 The effect of that decision, in addition to requiring significant modification of the waste management facilities on the site, was the conversion of the development space now proposed to be a villa known as Unit 13 from a two storey set of dwellings to a single storey villa and also to the elimination of one of the units in the Ruzac Street frontage.

4 Neither of those major streetscape and privacy impact issues are altered by this application. The effect of this application is to seek to divide what had been proposed to be one dwelling at the western end of the Broughton Street frontage into two and to divide the two dwellings immediately behind it into three. The result of this will be the reinstatement of the numerical yield of the site without significant alteration to the floor space ratio or any impact to the residents of Ruzac Street.

5 During the course of the inspection this morning, I had the opportunity of hearing evidence from Mr Boon and Mr Robinson, residents of Ruzac Street, who raised a number of matters of broad principle and one specific matter warranting being addressed in these proceedings. These matters of broad principle, I am satisfied, are ones, which in effect, were dealt with by the broad matters canvassed by me in my earlier decision.

6 Mr Boon specifically raised the question of the adequacy of parking and the question of whether the addition of two further residences on the site would satisfy the numerical controls for parking.

7 I have been taken to the provisions of cl 3.9 multi-dwelling housing of the Campbelltown Sustainable City Development Control Plan (the DCP) which requires that each multi unit housing development shall provide a minimum of a single garage for each dwelling therein and one additional visitor car parking space for every two units, or part thereof.

8 I am satisfied that for each of the individual units, as a consequence of the re-design of the basement car parking, there is at least, and in most, if not all, cases, double parking spaces for each of the dwellings and that the number of visitor car-parking spaces, which will be raised from ten to eleven as a consequence of this modification application, have been satisfied. As a consequence the provisions of cl 3.9(b) and 3.9(c) of the DCP have been satisfied.

9 The sole matter which was of concern to me, on an examination of the plans, is that of the rear upstairs balcony of proposed Unit 5. As a consequence of an amendment to the plans agreed to by Ms Taylor, solicitor for the applicant, that balcony will be moved to the opposite face at that level and a pair of nib walls at each end of that space will be incorporated in the plans to provide greater privacy protection to the residents in the future of Units 4, 10 and 11.

10 As a consequence of that, I am satisfied that the proposed consent orders agreed to between the parties are appropriate to be made in the upholding of this appeal.

11 In saying that, I am satisfied with the information provided to me by Mr Seton, solicitor for the respondent, that the residents were notified of the terms of the proposed consent orders by correspondence on 1 February. Although there have been minor corrections to the consent orders, I am satisfied that they have not been changes of substance and thus the provisions of the relevant paragraph of the Consolidated Practice Direction have been satisfied.

12 The effect of that is that the appeal is upheld by consent and the orders that have been proposed to be made will be made subject only to the requirement that there will be a need to file revised plans to reflect the terms of the alterations to the first floor of Unit 5 as agreed. I therefore give the following directions:

1. The applicant is to file and serve revised plans by the close of business on Thursday 1 March;
2. The respondent is to file and serve revised consent orders by the close of business on 2 March. Those to be filed in accordance with Practice Direction 2 of 2005 and a separate Court e-mail sent advising of that;
3. The matter is set down for callover on Thursday 8 March;
4. If directions 1 and 2 are complied with I will make orders in chambers and vacate the callover;
5. Leave on 48 hours to re-list the matter in the event of a dispute arising out of directions 1 and 2;
6. The exhibits other than exhibits A and 8 are returned; and
7. Matter adjourned to call-over on 8 March.

Tim Moore

Commissioner of the Court