Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1231

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1231 Hearing dates: 10, 11 October 2013 Decision date: 28 November 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey C Decision: (1)The appeal is dismissed. (2)Development application No DAP - 13 - 94 for a medium density development comprising 102 dwellings and associated uses at Lot 1, DP 786901, No 236 Richmond Road, Woodcroft is refused (3)The exhibits be returned except for 1, J, K, L, O and P. Catchwords: Development Application: Medium density development: traffic impacts, shared zone accessway, internal road design, car parking, common open space. Legislation Cited: Blacktown Development Control Plan 2006 Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 1988 Draft Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 2013 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)

Blacktown City Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr M Staunton, barrister (Applicant) Mr D Loether (Respondent) Solicitors Hunt & Hunt (Applicant) Bartier Perry (Respondent) File Number(s): 10242 of 2013 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Background 1COMMISSIONER: This appeal was lodged against the deemed refusal of a development application for a medium density housing development comprising 88 x 2 - storey townhouses and 14 villas, each with 3 or 4 bedrooms. The application includes associated open space, parking and a road system relying on 'Shared Zone' accessways. The proposed accessway will be privately controlled by some form of community or strata body corporation. The site is located at No 236 Richmond Road, Woodcroft. 2This Shared Zone road concept for the proposed internal accessways is derived from the RMS "Shared Zone Policy" (Policy). The Policy contains design guidelines and specifies the appropriate locations for this concept where all pedestrians and vehicles can safely use the road area. Another key requirement of Shared Zones is that they are attractive and interesting places that reflect local needs and activities. 3Insofar as a number of contentions were initially raised, the Applicant undertook amendments, which resulted in the satisfaction of a number of the contentions. These amendments include a revision of the buildings presentation to Richmond Road as suggested by the planners. The remaining issues include: * Traffic impacts; in terms of external impacts arising from the development, internal road design and traffic control, management of on - site parking, pedestrian path provision/ safety and the general access amenity associated with the 'shared zone' access ways. * Car parking; in terms of the convenience of the location of secondary private car spaces that are separated from the main dwelling. Also, the acceptability of the distribution of the visitor car parking throughout the development. * Common open space; whether the secondary common open space area adjacent to Units 38 and 39 is well placed. 4However, during the appeal a number of detailing matters arose, which resulted in the submission of further amended plans (marked Ex P) and supplementary documents (marked Ex O). These amendments include the provision of a pedestrian path along the two sections of the main access road (Vasanta Crescent). I deal with these amendments subsequently.