Nick's Seafood Bar & Grill and No. 7 King Street Wharf Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council

[2008] NSWLEC 1145

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Nick's Seafood Bar & Grill and No. 7 King Street Wharf Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council [2008] NSWLEC 1145

PARTIES:

APPLICANTS
Nick's Seafood Bar & Grill (11090) and
No. 7 King Street Wharf Pty Ltd (11092)

RESPONDENT
Sydney City Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

11090 of 2007 and 11092 of 2007

CORAM:

Hoffman C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Consent :- conditions of consent

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

DATES OF HEARING:

14/04/2008

 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 

18 April 2008

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
G. Young, solicitor
of Sir James Martin Chambers

RESPONDENT
Mr S. Kondilios, solicitor
of Maddocks

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hoffman C

18 April 2008

11090 of 2007 and
11092 of 2007 Nick’s Seafood Bar and Grill Pty Limited (11090) and No.7 King Street Wharf Pty Limited (11092) v Sydney City Council.

JUDGMENT

1 Commissioner: This is two appeals heard together in regard to two adjacent restaurants in Darling Harbour both seeking occasional use as Places of Public Entertainment. The council granted approval to both using identical conditions, in the case of 11090 of 2007 the consent is DA1754/2007, and in the case of 11092 of 2007 the consent is DA1755/2007. Both appeals are in regard to Conditions Nos. 4A, 9, 16, 17, 28 and 32.

2 Appearing at the on-site component of the hearing were, for the respondent: Mr S Kondilios, solicitor; Ms N Johnston, solicitor; Ms S Gillett, para-legal; Mr A Labutis, town planner.

3 Appearing for the applicant were: Mr G Young, barrister; Mr P Misan and Ms M Staples for the applicants; Mr R Creighton, town planner; and Mr A Martin, town planner.

4 The parties advised at the commencement of the hearing on-site that agreement had been reached on amended wording of the disputed conditions. Since the new wording had not yet been committed to paper, the parties sought leave to forward them to Court for issue of Orders in Chambers.

5 Amongst the resolved disagreements were:

• The council had termed the premises as hotels when they traded as restaurants.
• The maximum number of seats in each restaurant had been confused due to there being “inside” seating and “outside” seating, the latter being beside the Kings Wharf concourse.
• The security staff the council had wanted is too onerous and unnecessary for restaurants and appeared to be linked to the mistaken identification of the premises as hotels.
• Incorrect naming of the applicant company.
• The restaurants would not always trade as Places of Public Entertainment. It would only be on specific occasions and the conditions should reflect that.
• Some matters of BCA compliance.

6 Having received the new wording for the affected conditions, I see no reason sufficient to refuse the appeals.

7 Therefore the Orders of the Court are:

1. Appeal No. 11090 of 2007 is upheld for the existing licensed restaurant at No.34 The Promenade, King Street Wharf, Sydney to have the additional use as a Place of Public Entertainment, subject to the conditions in Annexure A hereto.
2. Appeal No. 11092 of 2007 is upheld for the existing licensed restaurant at No.54 The Promenade, King Street Wharf, Sydney to have the additional use as a Place of Public Entertainment, subject to the conditions in Annexure B hereto.
3. The documents filed with the Court are retained.

___________________

K G Hoffman
Commissioner of the Court
ljr