Galluzzo v Campbelltown City Council [2005] NSWLEC 522

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Galluzzo v Campbelltown City Council [2005] NSWLEC 522

APPLICANT John Galluzzo

PARTIES : RESPONDENT Campbelltown City Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 10285 of 2005

CORAM: Nott C

Development Application :- childcare centre for 74 children - amenity and character of the locality - visual impact - traffic and parking - approved subject to conditions KEY ISSUES:

LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 97

DATES OF HEARING: 27/07/05 and 14/09/05

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/29/2005

APPLICANT Mr R. Creighton, authorised agent (1st day) Mr A. Rowan, town planner (2nd day)

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr R. Baird, solicitor SOLICITORS Marsdens

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Nott C

29 September 2005

10285 of 2005: John Galluzzo v Campbelltown City Council

JUDGMENT

Introduction 1 This is an appeal against the council's refusal of a development application for a childcare centre at No. 1 Blomfield Road, Denham Court, on the north-eastern corner of the intersection of that road with Campbelltown Road. 2 I adopt the Statement of Basic Facts dated 27 April 2005 (exhibit 10). 3 The main issues at the hearing related to the impact of the proposed development on the character and amenity of the area and to traffic congestion and safety. The issues are more fully set out in a filed Statement of Issues (exhibit 9). As mentioned in the joint statement of the town planners, the council withdrew issues 7 and 8 (relating to setbacks and shade protection). 4 At the on-site hearing, I heard evidence from a number of local residents, including those who live immediately opposite the proposed development. I have also taken into account letters of objection from them and other persons who own properties in Blomfield Road, which is a rural-residential cul-de-sac serving about 13 residences. Ms A. Starr gave town-planning evidence for the council in support of the council's refusal of the application. For the applicant, evidence was given by: urban planner Mr A. Rowan; traffic engineer Mr C Hazell; and the applicant himself. There was also evidence from a Court-appointed traffic engineer, Mr R. West. 5 For the reasons given below, I have concluded that development consent should be granted, subject to the detailed conditions that have been generally agreed by the parties and in respect of which I have made some minor changes having regard to my findings.