Voorderhake v Campbelltown Council [2004] NSWLEC 521

Voorderhake v Campbelltown Council [2004] NSWLEC 521

The proposed development was refused because it was predominantly residential and significantly inconsistent with the Business/Retail precinct objectives and essential requirements in DCP 85, putting at risk the orderly planning of the 10(c) zone, and because its excessive height, bulk and scale were incompatible with surrounding development and would be overbearing, dominating and intrusive in the streetscape and locality.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application F980/2003 / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application for Mixed Retail/commercial/residential Development' 'consistency With Planning Controls' 'development Control Plan' 'height, Bulk and Scale' 'visual Impact' 'streetscape and Character']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent'] ['development Application for Mixed Retail/commercial/residential Development' 'consistency With Planning Controls' 'development Control Plan' 'height, Bulk and Scale' 'visual Impact' 'streetscape and Character']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application F980/2003 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed development was inconsistent with Development Control Plan No. 85 - Business and Comprehensive Centre Zones.' 'Whether the proposed development, by its design, would have an unreasonable and unacceptable impact on the character of the area and the streetscape by way of height, scaling and massing of the proposed buildings.' 'Whether the proposed development adequately addressed domestic waste disposal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed development was refused because it was predominantly residential and significantly inconsistent with the Business/Retail precinct objectives and essential requirements in DCP 85, putting at risk the orderly planning of the 10(c) zone, and because its excessive height, bulk and scale were incompatible with surrounding development and would be overbearing, dominating and intrusive in the streetscape and locality.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application F980/2003 for the demolition of an existing shopping centre and the construction of a mixed retail/commercial/residential development and associated car parking on the site known as the Bradbury Shopping Centre, 69 Jacaranda Ave, Bradbury is refused.' 'The...