Chulatunga v Randwick City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1348

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chulatunga v Randwick City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1348 Hearing dates: 02 July 2018 Date of orders: 10 July 2018 Decision date: 10 July 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Blakely AC Decision: The orders of the Court are: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) The Development Application No. 535/2017 to construct a carport at 43 Boronia Street, Kensington, is refused. (3) The exhibits are returned except for exhibits 1 and 2. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: carport, parking at front of dwelling, streetscape, neighbourhood character, visual amenity, structural design, site frontage, on property parking, landscaping, visual domination. Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 The Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 The Randwick Environmental Plan 2012 Cases Cited: Zhang v Canterbury Council (2001) 115 LGERA 373 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Daluwatu Chulatunga (First Applicant) Tajma Chulatunga (Second Applicant) Randwick City Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Litigants in Person (Applicants) A Bowen, Eakin McCaffery Cox (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/3441 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: Development Application No. 535/2017 for constructing a carport over the car parking area at front of 43 Boronia Street Kensington, City of Randwick. For the reasons listed below I have determined to refuse the application. 2. The council maintains, in their Statement of Facts and Contentions, that the application should be refused because: * the proposed structure is out of character for the immediate neighbourhood areas; * the design of the agreed upon submission (no.5) is visually dominant on the streetscape * the propose structure is out of character with the adjacent single-family homes of the same style, * inadequate site frontage; * inadequate landscaping; * poor articulation with the surrounding street amenity; * out of character. 1. The applicant provided several sets of plans to the Council for consideration. The Council refused all of the alternatives. For the purposes of this determination the Council and applicant agreed on Option 5 as the only plan to be used for the Court's deliberations.