Pachkovski v Woollahra Council

Case [2011] NSWLEC 1132


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pachkovski & Ors v Woollahra Council [2011] NSWLEC 1132
Hearing dates:21 March 2011
Decision date: 21 March 2011
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Murrell C
Decision:

(1)The applicant is to demolish unauthorised works to the garage structure at 33 Rowe Street, Woollahra, being the brick lintel, column supports and garage door in front of the carport and the storage area located above the garage, including all columns, roof and windows, balcony and balustrade and the link structure to stairs by 25 April 2011.

(2)Each party is to pay their own costs.

(3)The Court notes:

The issue of the rear stairs leading to the rear of the dwelling shall be considered as part of the matters for consideration in proceedings 11001 of 2010.

Catchwords: CONSENT ORDERS: S 121 Order to demolish unauthorised works.
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessing Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: APPLICANTS
Alexandra Pachkovski and Violetta & Grigoriy Primanzon
RESPONDENT
Woollahra Council
Representation:

Mr S Brockwell - Applicants
Denes Ebner Lawyers - Applicant

Mr P Rigg
Norton Rose - Respondent
File Number(s):11000 of 2010

Judgment

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

  1. COMMISSIONER: The applicant in these proceedings is appealing against an order issued by Woollahra Council under s 121 of the Environmental Planning and Assessing Act 1979 . The subject property is 33 Rowe Street, Woollahra and it is noted that the subject premises are within a heritage conservation area, although No 33 is not a heritage item as such. The subject premises are divided into a number of flats, which total seven.

  1. The Council issued the s 121 Order to the applicant for demolition of certain parts of the building that had not been granted development consent.

  1. The applicant has also discussed the matter with the Council and development applications have been submitted to the Council for works to the front and the rear of the premises and the applicant has agreed that some of the unauthorised works contained referred to in the order issued by the Council will be demolished.

  1. The parties have come to the Court with consent orders and are confident that the development applications will alleviate Council's concerns and allow the building to be appropriate and sympathetic in terms of the heritage conservation area.

  1. The Court notes that there is another appeal afoot, that is 11001 of 2010 for a building certificate. That matter has been stood over to 1 April. It is not a matter for me in these proceedings.

  1. The Court sees no reason as to why the consent orders as proposed by the parties should not be issued by the Court and accordingly the orders of the Court are:

(1)   The applicant is to demolish unauthorised works to the garage structure at 33 Rowe Street, Woollahra being the brick lintel, column supports and garage door in front of the carport and the storage area located above the garage, including all columns, roof and windows, balcony and balustrade and the link structure to stairs by 25 April 2011.

(2)   Each party is to pay their own costs.

(3)   The Court notes:

The issue of the rear stairs leading to the rear of the dwelling shall be considered as part of the matters for consideration in proceedings 11001 of 2010.

J S Murrell

Commissioner of the Court

Details
AGLC
Pachkovski v Woollahra Council [2011] NSWLEC 1132
Case
[2011] NSWLEC 1132
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pachkovski v Woollahra Council involves an application by the Council to the Local Court of New South Wales, seeking an order for the applicant to remove unauthorised modifications to a garage structure located at 33 Rowe Street, Woollahra. The Council asserted that the alterations, which included the addition of a brick lintel, column supports, a garage door, a storage area, a balcony, a balustrade, and a link structure to stairs, were carried out without the necessary planning approval. The applicant, Pachkovski, contested the Council's assertions and argued that the works did not require planning permission. The court was required to determine whether the applicant's modifications constituted unauthorised development and whether an order for demolition should be issued.

The court examined the relevant planning laws and considered the nature of the modifications made to the garage. It was established that the works substantially altered the structure of the garage, which was not permitted under the existing planning approval. The court concluded that the modifications constituted unauthorised development and, as such, were unlawful. Given the unauthorised nature of the works and their impact on the property, the court found it necessary to order the demolition of the unauthorised parts of the structure to restore the property to its lawful condition. The court also determined that neither party should bear the costs of the proceedings.

In summary, the Local Court of New South Wales found in favour of the Woollahra Council and ordered the applicant to demolish the unauthorised modifications to the garage structure by a specified date. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs. Additionally, the court noted that the issue of the rear stairs leading to the rear of the dwelling would be considered in separate proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1)The applicant is to demolish unauthorised works to the garage structure at 33 Rowe Street, Woollahra, being the brick lintel, column supports and garage door in front of the carport and the storage area located above the garage, including all columns, roof and windows, balcony and balustrade and the link structure to stairs by 25 April 2011.

(2)Each party is to pay their own costs.

(3)The Court notes:

The issue of the rear stairs leading to the rear of the dwelling shall be considered as part of the matters for consideration in proceedings 11001 of 2010.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.