Solotel Pty Limited v Council of the City of Sydney

[2005] NSWLEC 322

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Solotel Pty Limited v Council of the City of Sydney [2005] NSWLEC 322

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Solotel Pty Limited

RESPONDENT
Council of the City of Sydney

FILE NUMBER(S):

11449 of 2004

CORAM:

Moore C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :-
Noise
.

DATES OF HEARING:

15 March and 10 May 2005

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

05/10/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr P Clay, barrister (15 March)
Mr G Pignone, solicitor (10 May)
SOLICITORS
Kemp Strang

RESPONDENT
Mr S Kondilios, solicitor
Maddocks Solicitors

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Moore C

10 May 2005

11449 of 2004 Solotel Pty Limited v Council of the City of Sydney

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

JUDGMENT

1 This is an appeal against the refusal by the Council of the City of Sydney (the council) of an application to build a deck protruding from the Green Park Hotel at 360 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst (the premises) over a vacant allotment adjacent to the premises on its southern side (which allotment is owned by the trustees of St Vincent’s Hospital). The intention is that the deck area would be used as an outdoor bar area for the premises.

2 On 15 March, I inspected the premises in company with the representatives of the parties. I inspected premises nearby to the northwest, which overlook the site and about which there were noise concerns expressed by residents of those premises. I also inspected the exterior of a number of other premises to the southeast and northeast of the site where similar resident concerns had been expressed.

3 As a consequence of informal evidence taken on site (and evidence given during a subsequent hearing in court), the position became agreed between the experts that if there were a comparatively minor modification to the shapes and dimensions of the external deck area which involved a chamfering of its south-western corner, that chamfering (together with the proposed acoustic protection walls, which walls will have an inward pointing element at their upper parts), would provide effective acoustic shielding for all otherwise potentially effected residents.

4 As a consequence of the applicant proposing those amendments to the plans and the preparation of revised plans giving effect to them I am satisfied that there is no adverse impact on surrounding residences which would warrant refusal of the appeal.

5 Therefore, when a set of revised plans are filed, orders will be issued upholding the appeal and granting a consent in terms of the agreed conditions which have been filed electronically in the proceedings. In order to ensure that appropriate control is retained over the proceedings, I direct the applicant to file a revised set of plans agreed to by the council by 24 May 2005.

6 The matter is set down for callover before the Registrar on 31 May 2005. In the event that the agreed plans are filed pursuant to the direction, I will make orders in chambers to give effect to this decision and I will vacate the call over before the Registrar on 31 May. I grant liberty for the parties to re-list the matter before me at 9am on two days notice if required.

7 As a addendum to this decision, I note that, during the course of the view, Mr Clay, barrister for the applicant, volunteered (in response to a concern raised by one of the resident objectors with respect to noise emanating from the existing activities on the premises) that the applicant was prepared to agree to a condition that required the windows to the pool room area (being windows on the east of the premises) be closed from 10pm in the evenings. I further direct that a revised condition to give effect to that be filed electronically with the Court by 24 May. I will add it to the otherwise agreed conditions when it is received.

Commissioner of the Court