Liska v Sydney City Council

[2005] NSWLEC 66

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Liska v Sydney City Council [2005] NSWLEC 66

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
George Liska

RESPONDENT
Sydney City Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

11375 of 2004

CORAM:

Nott C

KEY ISSUES:

Appeal :- fire-safety order re a boarding house - notice confirmed - work to be done within 3 months

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s 121B order 6

DATES OF HEARING:

11/02/2005

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

02/11/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr G Liska, in person

RESPONDENT
Mr M Arch, solicitor,
Sydney City Council

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Nott C

11 February 2005

11375 of 2005: George Liska v Sydney City Council

JUDGMENT

1 The council served a notice to give a fire safety order and then the fire safety order itself, which was subsequently again served on the applicant, who is the owner of the premises at 98 Wilson Street, Newtown. The order is contained in the letter of 23 June 2004 from the council to Mr G Liska.

2 I have gone through with the applicant the points that are required to be complied with in that order. I am satisfied on the material before me that there should be no variation to the order and that the various items should be complied with.

3 There may be alternatives to some of the items in accordance with the Building Code of Australia, which a fire-safety consultant could suggest. But the cost of obtaining a consultant’s advice, the applicant said, would be probably greater than actually engaging a carpenter to put in the doors that are required by the order and in engaging an electrician to do the electrical work for the purpose of providing smoke detectors wired back to a main’s service. Therefore, the order as it is written will stand.

4 Then there is the question of time to be allowed for the carrying out of the work. The order has been available to the owner since October 2004 and it seems to me that notwithstanding the cash-short difficulties that the owner has, the work should be carried out within a period of three months. I propose to vary the order in that regard, and the period will run from the date of today’s order.

5 I do not think it is a matter that needs to be specifically dealt with, but I record that the applicant was concerned about a note in the order to the effect that a development application should be lodged with the council, as the council does not condone the use of the building as a boarding house. I regard this note merely as advisory and not going to the heart or substance of the fire notice. It could well be that the applicant has existing use rights or can find an early consent in respect of the use now made of the premises. The council in these proceedings is not seeking to prevent the use of the premises. The council has proceeded on the basis that the fire-safety requirements suitable for a boarding house should be met and those requirements apparently are less than what might be required for a residential flat building. I do not rule on the question of whether the use of the building is a residential flat building or a boarding house as regards the classification in town-planning terms, but I note that the council is not alleging in these proceedings any unlawful use.

6 Accordingly, the order of the Court is:

The order of the council dated under s 121(B)-6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 dated 23 June 2004 is confirmed as regards the works specified in items 1 to 5, and these works are to be carried out within three months of this order of the Court.

___________
A J Nott
Commissioner of the Court
rjs