Canham v Campbelltown City Council [2004] NSWLEC 575

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Canham v Campbelltown City Council [2004] NSWLEC 575 APPLICANTS Geoffrey and Kerry Canham PARTIES : RESPONDENT Campbelltown City Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 10817 of 2004 CORAM: Moore C KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- . Development Control Plan 79 LEGISLATION CITED: Campbelltown Local Environmental Plan 2002 . CASES CITED: Zhang v Canterbury City Council (2001) 115 LGERA 373; . DATES OF HEARING: 18 October 2004 EX TEMPORE 10/18/2004 JUDGMENT DATE :

Applicants in person

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr D Baird, solicitor Marsdens

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Moore C

18 October 2004

10817 of 2004 Geoffrey and Kerry Canham v Campbelltown City Council

JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal pursuant to s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 against the refusal on 2 December 2003 by Campbelltown City Council (the council) of an application for the erection of a carport at 26 Kalyan Avenue, Bradbury (the premises). 2 The reasons that the council has given for the refusal of the application are, in effect, that the structure is proposed to be built in front of the building alignment and that, as a consequence of that and the provisions of Development Control Plan 79 (the DCP), it would have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding area. 3 Mr Baird, solicitor for the council, has taken me to the provisions of the Campbelltown Local Environmental Plan 2002 (the LEP). 4 The property is zoned Residential 2(b) and development of the nature sought is subject to the provisions of the objectives of the zone. 5 Mr Baird has submitted to me that it is in conflict with the provisions of objective 2(e)(ii) and that it is not visually integrated with the surrounding buildings in that it is contrary to a further objective of the zone which is the encouragement of a high quality standard of development which is aesthetically pleasing, functional and relates sympathetically to nearby and adjoining development. 6 The specific provisions of the DCP prayed in aid by the council are those relating to setback which are set are out in some detail and, relevantly, require a front building line setback from the public street boundary in the range of 5.5 to 7.5 m. The proposal does not comply with this. 7 However, the setback provisions also provides that a building may be built to a zero lot line to the side and rear boundaries or a reduced front setback subject to assessment of site suitable and circumstances. 8 There is an expansion of that provision in the subsequent material which include this and exception the following: