Land and Environment Court of New South Wales CITATION : Sendlhofer v Marrickville Council [2005] NSWLEC 57 APPLICANT Hilde Sendlhofer PARTIES : RESPONDENT Marrickville Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 11242 of 2004 CORAM: Moore C Development Application :- Demolitition of an existing lean-to structure KEY ISSUES: Renovation of existing bathroom and kitchen and the erection of six new studios. LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 DATES OF HEARING: 15 April, 2 May and 29 June 2005 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 06/29/2005 APPLICANT Mr R. Creighton, agent LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr G. Christmas, solicitor Marrickville Council JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES Moore C 29 June 2005 11242 of 2004 H Sendlhofer v Marrickville Council JUDGMENT 1 Commissioner: The application, which is presently the subject of this appeal, is an application to undertake extensive renovations, rebuilding and refurbishment of premises at 11-13 Lord Street, Newtown, where boarding house style accommodation is presently offered and is to be offered within the rebuilt premises. 2 The matter was originally dealt with by Marrickville Council (the council) by refusal. Following further consideration by the council and negotiations between the parties, including dealing with a number of social impact issues, the matter came before me on 15 April to report those negotiations. As a consequence, the matter was set down on 2 May for an on-site hearing to deal with the objector to the proposal, Mr T Woon, who lives in and owns the property adjacent to and on the eastern side of the premises. 3 On 2 June, when I attended the site with the representatives of the parties, I inspected the rear of Mr Woon's premises. It became obvious during the course of that inspection that the plans that were submitted by the applicant did not, in fact, accurately represent the nature of the structures that were located on Mr Woon's property nor potentially properly provide protection to those structures from interference during the applicant's construction processes. 4 As a consequence, I adjourned the matter and gave directions that would enable the applicant to prepare a revised survey plan for the council to consider in the context of providing the necessary protections to Mr Woon's property. 5 As part of that, I note that the applicant provided an undertaking that the additional costs of the council in considering the revised plans would be met by the applicant. As a result of that, the applicant has now filed a survey plan which is exhibit D and revised plans for which consent is sought, which is exhibit E in these proceedings. 6 Mr Christmas, solicitor for the council, has advised me that Mr Woon has been provided on 9 June (that being more than a fortnight prior to this hearing), in writing, with a copy of the revised conditions; a copy of the survey plan; and information confirming that the matter was to be dealt with by me today by way of consent orders between the parties. 7 I am now satisfied that the matters which were of concern to me on the site have been dealt with adequately and that it is appropriate that I should issue the consent orders sought by the parties. As a consequence, by consent the orders of the court will be: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Development application 200400270 for demolition of an existing lean-to structure and garden shed at the rear of No. 11-13 Lord Street, Newtown, being Lot 11 in Deposited Plan 70701; the renovation of an existing bathroom/kitchenette facilities to studios 1 to 6 and the erection of four new studios in the rear yard of the premises will be determined by the granting of development consent, subject to conditions which will be annexed to the orders. 3. The exhibits, other than exhibits D and E, are returned. Tim Moore Commissioner of the Court DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.