Ziade v Randwick City Council - [1999] NSWLEC 255

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Ziade v Randwick City Council [1999] NSWLEC 255

PARTIES

APPLICANT
Ziade

RESPONDENT
Randwick City Council

NUMBER:

10230 of 1999

CORAM:

Pearlman J

KEY ISSUES:

Development :- parking and traffic impact

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998
Randwick Development Control Plan No 2
Randwick Development Control Plan 1998

DATES OF HEARING:

10/12/1999; 10/13/1999; 11/04/1999

DATE OF JUDGMENT DELIVERY:

11/29/1999

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr P C Tomasetti (Barrister)
SOLICITORS
Gregory J Halpin
RESPONDENT
Mr D P Wilson (Barrister)
SOLICITORS
Bowen & Gerathy

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND 10230 of 1999

ENVIRONMENT COURT Pearlman J

OF NEW SOUTH WALES 29 November 1999

JACK ZIADE

Applicant

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

Respondent

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This appeal concerns the Ritz Cinema at Randwick.

2. The applicant, Mr Jack Ziade, has appealed against the deemed refusal by Randwick City Council “(the council”) of his development application to increase the number of cinemas at the Ritz.

The proposed development

3. The proposed development involves the demolition of an existing building at 39 St Pauls Street, Randwick, located immediately adjacent to the existing Ritz Cinema at 43 - 47 St Pauls Street. The proposal involves erecting, in place of the demolished building, two additional cinema auditoriums providing total seating for 345 people, as well as provision for eight off-street parking spaces, and an administration office and a staff room. It is intended to carry out minor alterations to the existing cinema building so as to provide a link between the existing and new buildings.

4. The intention is that the facade of the new building will match the extensions to the existing Ritz Cinema to the east, it being intended to restore the symmetry of the existing building.

5. The Ritz Cinema is located in an area of Randwick known locally as “the Spot”, which is largely centred around St Pauls Street and La Perouse Road.

6. It has operated as a cinema since it was first built in 1937. In the beginning, it had only a single cinema screen with seating for approximately 1000 people, and it made no provision for on-site parking.

7. In 1996, the council granted development consent to extensions to the Ritz Cinema, involving the provision of three extra cinema auditoriums and restoration of the original auditorium. A condition of development consent required the applicant to make a financial contribution to 35 additional on-street car parking spaces in the vicinity.

8. The 1996 development consent also imposed a condition limiting the number of patrons on the site at any one time to 1233. This was later modified to 1253 pursuant to an application under s 102 of the unamended Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The applicant has indicated to the Court that he is willing to comply with a condition which continues to limit the number of patrons to 1253.

9. The current development application was lodged with the council on 12 November 1998.

The statutory…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ziade v Randwick City Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] NSWLEC 255
Decision Date: 11/29/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ziade v Randwick City Council involved a dispute between the applicant, Mr Jack Ziade, and the respondent, Randwick City Council, concerning the applicant's development application to increase the number of cinemas at the Ritz Cinema in Randwick. The primary issue before the court was whether the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on parking and traffic in the area, known locally as "the Spot." The court considered evidence from various witnesses, including local residents, business owners, and traffic experts, who expressed concerns about the current parking and traffic situation in the area, which they attributed in part to the Ritz Cinema. The applicant argued that the proposed development would not exacerbate these problems due to anticipated declines in attendance levels at the cinema, resulting from increased competition from larger multiplex cinemas.

After evaluating the evidence, the court found that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on parking and traffic in the vicinity of the Ritz Cinema. The court accepted the applicant's evidence that attendance levels at the Ritz Cinema would decline due to competition from new or expanded cinema multiplexes, which would lead to a reduction in parking demand. The court also noted that the applicant had agreed to limit the maximum number of patrons at the cinema to 1253, which would further mitigate any potential parking and traffic issues.

Accordingly, the court determined that the proposed development application should be granted development consent, subject to certain conditions to ensure compliance with environmental, traffic, and building standards. These conditions included requirements for parking, building materials, drainage, and noise emissions, among others. The court rejected some conditions proposed by the council as either unreasonable or unnecessary, while accepting others with minor modifications.

In summary, the court found that the proposed development would not significantly impact parking and traffic in the area and granted development consent subject to specific conditions aimed at mitigating any potential adverse effects.

Orders