Halpin v Sydney CC

[2005] NSWLEC 243

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Halpin v Sydney CC [2005] NSWLEC 243

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
RJ & JT Halpin

RESPONDENT
Sydney City Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

11619 of 2004

CORAM:

Hoffman C

KEY ISSUES:

Appeal :- Alterations and additions to a hotel - heritage - public interest.

LEGISLATION CITED:

City of Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2002
Sydney Heritage Local Environmental Plan 2002

DATES OF HEARING:

11/05/2005

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

05/11/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr L. Gyles, barrister
instructed by
Mr D. Hand, solicitor
of David Hand Solciitor

RESPONDENT
Mr C. Leggat, barrister
instructed by
Ms L. Finn, solicitor
of Abbott Tout

JUDGMENT:

ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hoffman C

11 May 2005

11619 of 2004 RJ & JT Halpin v Sydney City Council

JUDGMENT

1 I hereby publish my reasons in this class 1 appeal No. 11619 of 2004 between RJ & JT Halpin and the City of Sydney in regard to the refusal of alterations and additions to No. 2-6 The Broadway in Sydney’s CBD. It is on the corner with Regent Street.

2 The property is known as ‘The Sutherland Hotel’ or under its current trading name ‘The Bar Broadway’. It is a heritage item under the Central Sydney Heritage Local Environmental Plan 2002. It is item 5006 in that statute. The key component of that statute is cl 8(c), which essentially requires any alterations and additions or changes to a heritage item to be consistent with the terms of the conservation policy for that item.

3 The issues in the appeal were:

1. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the heritage item inconsistent with the Central Sydney Heritage Local Environmental Plan 2002.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the conservation policy contained in the Heritage Inventory Assessment Report for the building pursuant to cl 8 of the Central Sydney Heritage Local Environmental Plan 2002.

3. It is not in the public interest to approve the application having regard to the above impact to Issue 1 and the inconsistency referred to in Issue 2.

4 The hearing was attended for the respondent by

• Mr C. Leggat, barrister instructed by Ms L. Finn of Abbott Tout Solicitors; and
• Mr J. Poulton, Heritage Town Planner for the Council gave evidence.

5 For the applicant there was:

• Mr L. Gyles, barrister instructed by Mr D. Hand of David Hand Solicitors.
• Also attending was Mr M. Connell representing the applicant;
• Ms L. Matthews, Manager of the hotel,
• Mr Munro, architect of the proposal; and
• Mr G. Brooks, heritage architect.

6 The hearing was held on-site on 11 May 2005, and the Court makes the following findings.

7 The two expert heritage specialists had conferred both before the hearing and during the hearing, and produced in Exhibit ‘A’ an annotated copy of the plans of the application. The annotations were in red so that they could be easily distinguished from the actual plans, which were in black. The applicant agreed to these plans except for one component of them and that was related to an existing masonry curved wall within an existing corridor, it was to become part of the new Gaming Lounge in the development.

8 The existing Gaming Lounge was currently in what had been in the original hotel a Saloon Bar. It was proposed to relocate the poker machines into an area that was a corridor from the original Saloon Bar to the Broadway. The corridor was to be enlarged using other rooms, which were currently used as an office and a storeroom and disused toilets and part of the existing kitchen. The storeroom and the disused toilets were originally the Ladies Parlour.

9 The changes were intended to enable the original Saloon Bar to be used as a lounge area and restore the social activity of its original purpose. Both heritage specialists saw this as a benefit to the conservation of the hotel, and the retention of its viability as a longstanding site of the hospitality industry, and also as an item of heritage.

10 There were certain changes to the fabric of the original application proposed by the heritage specialists, which would enhance the retention of its character and fabric whilst permitting the alterations to take place.

11 The key to their deliberations as mentioned in the issues was the conservation policy for this site held in the Heritage Inventory Assessment Report. Without reading the whole of that policy I will focus on the statement in regard to the interior. It said:

“The ceramic wall tiles and coffered ceiling to the Public Bar and tiling to the Saloon Bar should be retained. The existing layout and planning on the ground and second floors should be retained as well as internal joinery and fittings. As the first floor has already undergone extensive modification, proposals for new work to this area should be considered, however any significant fabric should be retained.”

12 The particular part of this policy that the respondent emphasized was:

“The existing layout and planning on the ground and second floor should be retained as well as internal joinery and fittings.”

13 The part of the policy that the applicant emphasized was:

“The ceramic wall tiles and coffered ceiling to the Public Bar and tiling to the Saloon Bar should be retained.”

14 The key to the difference between the arguments appeared to me to be that the respondent saw the reference to existing layout and planning on the ground floor to refer to the whole of the ground floor; whereas the applicant saw the emphasis on the Public Bar and Saloon Bar being the pre-eminent requirement and the remaining areas, being service areas to those principle spaces, were less important in their heritage significance.

15 During oral evidence, Mr Brooks indicated that particular section of curved wall in the old corridor that was proposed to be removed. It was intended in the final design to have a boxed-down section of the ceiling where the wall currently existed, such that its position could be seen as one passed through the new Gaming Lounge. As one entered the corridor from what was the original Saloon Bar, one would see the outer curved masonry wall as it existed, directing persons around towards the Broadway entrance, and the inner curved masonry wall of the corridor would be represented by the boxed-down pattern in the ceiling. A cornice to match the existing Interwar Functionalist Style would be included on each side of the boxing.

16 Mr Poulton, had taken what he considered to be a practical attitude to the conservation policy in agreeing to the change of the corridor into the new Gaming Lounge and the removal of a large straight section of the inner wall of the corridor so that the original Ladies Parlour and associated toilets could be demolished to enlarge the space for the poker machines.

17 In order to understand his point of view, the observation could be made that when one looks at the original plan of the hotel in his report, the sweeping curves evident in the Public Bar and the old Saloon Bar and the corridor to the Broadway are a major component of the heritage significance of the interior of the building as an Interwar Functionalist Style.

18 Mr Poulton accepted that the exterior of the building, as it is largely intact, is the most important component of the heritage significance. However, the interior has a role to play, and its interpretation as part of that style is important. He felt that the retention of the inner curved masonry wall of this main corridor to and from the original Saloon Bar was an important part of the experience of moving through the building.

19 Both heritage specialists agree that the original tiles of the corridor were probably under the current applied finish, and could be revealed during construction. If they were not of sufficient condition to be retained they could be replicated, so that the original wall finish of the corridor could also be shown. The same situation occurred in the original Saloon Bar, that was the existing Gaming room, and the original tiles or matching new wall tiles would be the wall finish in the proposed change to a Lounge.

20 Taking that into account and walking through the doors from the original Saloon Bar, it was clear to me, that the retention of the curved section of masonry wall on the inside as well as the outside of the turn, would give a person walking through the building a clear indication of the original corridor and an experience similar to the original space. Once around the curve, then the boxed-down section of the ceiling leading towards the exit doors to Broadway would continue the interpretation of the original plan and an experience of that entry and departure sequence.

21 The retention of the wall did not reduce the number of machines that could be placed into the proposed new Gaming Lounge, although it might reduce its flexibility somewhat. This was not an unreasonable imposition upon the operation of the hotel given its heritage significance, and there being no apparent adverse effect on its financial viability as a result of that requirement.

22 The draft conditions required the involvement of a heritage architect during construction in order to ensure that appropriate conservation measures were taken during final design and construction, and also that there would be liaison between the applicant’s conservation architect and the council heritage specialists on any matters of detail that require refinement during the process.

23 Given the above, the Court has concluded the there are no reasons sufficient to refuse the proposal provided that the annotated changes in red in Exhibit ‘A’, were carried out. This did mean that the drawings in Exhibit ‘A’ were inadequate for the publication of consent and therefore it would be necessary to adjourn the proceedings to enable appropriate documents to be prepared.

24 As is apparent from the reasons I have formed the view that the appeal be upheld subject to the following directions:

1. The applicant submitted that the annotated plans in Exhibit ‘A’ are pressed except for the retention of the inner curved masonry wall and tiles of the existing corridor leading from the proposed lounge to the Broadway entry. That is to become part of the proposed Gaming Lounge. The Court does not accept the submission to delete the curved inner wall and tiles and requires they be kept as marked in Red on Annexure ‘A’.

2. The plans with alterations as marked in Red in Exhibit ‘A’ shall be redrawn to become suitable for the issue of a consent.

3. The new plans and the conditions in Exhibit ‘5’ with updated condition ‘1’ to reflect the new plan numbers to be filed at Court within 14 days of 11 May 2005. The conditions to be filed in electronic form.

4. The matter is adjourned to allow the parties to comply with directions (1-3 above) and upon receipt of plans reflecting my directions, I will make Orders in Chambers.

____________________
K G Hoffman
Commissioner of the Court
Ljr/rjs