Waite v Blacktown City Council [2008] NSWLEC 55

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Waite v Blacktown City Council [2008] NSWLEC 55

APPLICANT David Peter Waite PARTIES : RESPONDENT Blacktown City Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 11010 of 2007

CORAM: Tuor C

KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- information centre, safety of traffic access and egress

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 LEGISLATION CITED: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Roads Act

CASES CITED: Bowyer v Manly Council [1996] NSWLEC 141

DATES OF HEARING: 08/02/2008

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 8 February 2008

APPLICANT Mr D. Williams, solicitor of Whitehead Cooper Williams LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

RESPONDENT Mr T. O'Connor, solicitor of Houston Dearn O'Connor

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Tuor C

8 February 2008

11010 of 2007 Waite v Blacktown City Council

JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against the deemed refusal by Blacktown City Council (the council) of a development application under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (DA 07/1590) for an information centre at 879 Richmond Road, Marsden Park (the site). 2 The site, its context, the history of the application are in the Statement of Facts and Contentions. The main issue in dispute is stated as: 1. Access and Egress to the subject land Whether the proposed development is satisfactory with regard to safe entry to and egress from the subject land. Particulars: Richmond Road is an arterial road in the control of the Roads and Traffic Authority. The Roads and Traffic Authority have advised that they do not support the provision of a seagull treatment at the access to the subject land and that the traffic movements to and from the site should be controlled by a left in/left out arrangement. The Roads and Traffic Authority have not provided details or conditions of any particular device or controls for traffic management for the subject land. The approval of the development in the absence of adequate traffic controls is not considered to be in the public interest. 3 Mr C Hallam, traffic consultant, was appointed as a single expert to address the issue in dispute. 4 Mr Hallam assessed the application and considered that the increase in traffic would not exacerbate the impact of the current traffic levels. He examined the road network, traffic figures and traffic accident history for the site. He noted that there are no accidents recorded that appear associated with the current use of the site. 5 Mr Hallam stated that: