The Panel resolved that consent be refused for Development Application
No. D/2021/1445 for the reasons outlined below. Reasons for Decision The application is refused for the following reasons: Unacceptable noise
and amenity impacts (A)
The
proposed development is likely to result in unreasonable noise and amenity
impacts, as it does not: (i)
address
the likely impacts of the development on the occupants of surrounding
residential land uses; (ii)
consider
the potential cumulative noise impacts from the proposed and existing late
night premises in the area; (iii)
consider
the potential impacts from patrons arriving and leaving the site en masse as is typical for a function centre use; (iv)
provide
sufficient information to enable an accurate or detailed assessment of the
potential noise impacts to be undertaken; (v)
satisfactorily
demonstrate that the recommended noise emission restrictions are appropriate
for the proposed use, will adequately protect the surrounding resident’s
amenity, or will be capable of being complied with; and (vi)
provide
adequate measures to eliminate or control unreasonable noise impacts on
nearby residential land uses. The proposed development is therefore
contrary to and fails to satisfy: (vii)
Section
4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. (viii)
Clause
1.2 of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012,
including the aim at part 2(h) of the clause. (ix)
Objective
(b) at Section 3.15 'Late Night Trading Management' of the Sydney Development
Control Plan 2012. (x)
Objective
(h) at Section 3.15 'Late Night Trading Management' of the Sydney Development
Control Plan 2012. (xi)
Objective
(k) at Section 3.15 'Late Night Trading Management' of the Sydney Development
Control Plan 2012. (xii)
Section
4.2.3.11 'Acoustic privacy' of the Sydney Development Control Plan 2012. Unacceptable Plan of Management (B)
The
Plan of Management is unsatisfactory given that: (i)
the
proposed management practices would be difficult to carry out and enforce and
not likely to be adequate; (ii)
it
has not been demonstrated that noise and amenity impacts on residential
properties could be effectively managed; (iii)
it
has not been demonstrated that use of the outdoor areas could operate in
accordance with the proposed recommended patron and operating hour
restrictions; (iv)
the
proposed management measures rely on constant monitoring of the outdoor
terrace areas; and (v)
the
proposed management practices seek to encourage patrons to behave in a
particular manner but cannot guarantee or enforce the terms of the management
plan. The proposed
development is therefore contrary to and fails to satisfy: (vi)
Objective
(c) at Section 3.15 'Late Night Trading Management' of the Sydney Development
Control Plan 2012. (vii)
Objective
(n) at Section 3.15 'Late Night Trading Management' of the Sydney Development
Control Plan 2012. (viii)
Section
3.2 "Plan of management requirements' at Schedule 3 of the Sydney
Development Control Plan 2012. Does not promote orderly development (C)
The
proposal does not promote the orderly use of the land, given that: (i)
the
dual use of the site, for a restaurant and function centre, would be
difficult to manage given that each use would have different patron
capacities, different hours of operation and different plans of management. The proposed
development is therefore contrary to and fails to satisfy: (ii)
Object
(c) at Clause 1.3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Site unsuitable for the development (D)
The
proposed development has not satisfactorily demonstrated that: (i)
the
site is suitable for the development given its proximity to sensitive
residential land uses. The proposed
development is therefore contrary to and fails to satisfy: (ii)
Section
4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. (iii)
The
B3 Commercial Core zone objectives of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan
2012. (iv)
Objective
(a) at Section 3.15 'Late Night Trading Management' of the Sydney Development
Control Plan 2012. Impacts on the public domain (E)
The
proposal has the potential to impact negatively on the amenity of the street
and public domain, given that: (i)
it
has not been demonstrated that there will be no queuing on the footpath. The proposed
development is therefore contrary to and fails to satisfy: (ii)
Objective
(a) at Section 3.2.2 'Addressing the street and public domain' of the Sydney Development
Control Plan 2012. Not in the public interest (F)
The
proposal is unsatisfactory having regard to the submissions made in
objection; and is contrary to the public interest. The proposed development is therefore
contrary to and fails to satisfy: (i)
Section
4.15(1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. (ii)
Section
4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. Carried
unanimously. D/2021/1445 |