Trebincevic v Campbelltown City Council [2007] NSWLEC 557

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Trebincevic v Campbelltown City Council [2007] NSWLEC 557

APPLICANT Samir Trebincevic PARTIES : RESPONDENT Campbelltown City Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 10071 of 2007

CORAM: Murrell C

KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- Impact on adjoining property, privacy overlooking, amenity of proposed dwellings - solar acces and relationship of open space, streetscape presentation, character of area.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 LEGISLATION CITED: Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Development Control Plan 2005 Campbelltown (Urban Area) Local Environmental Plan 2002

DATES OF HEARING: 07/05/2007 and 08/05/2007

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31 August 2007

APPLICANT Ms A. Pearman, barrister Instructed by Mr S. Peters of Peters Lawyers LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

RESPONDENT Mr A. Seton, solicitor of Marsdens Law Group

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Murrell C

31 August 2007

10071 of 2007 Samir Trebincevic v Campbelltown City Council

JUDGMENT 1 This judgment is for an appeal under s97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against the refusal by Campbelltown City Council of a development application for a dual occupancy development at the property known as No. 32 Claremont Circuit, Glen Alpine. 2 The Court met on site the first morning of the hearing and heard from a number of resident objectors, including Ms Leanne Powell of No. 30 Claremont. She advised the Court that she had been attracted to the area because of the size of the lots to allow space around the dwellings for privacy from adjoining neighbours. She is concerned that the living areas are upstairs and the balconies will be used for as the primary open space areas. She also expressed concern about the lack of parking or visitor parking for the two dwellings proposed on the single allotment and that the character of the area would be adversely impacted and against the covenant for the area that does not allow dual occupancy development. She expressed concern that the garages would represent more than 50% of the frontage and that the character or uniqueness of Glen Alpine should be preserved.