Public Interest
10. Whether the proposed modification should be approved having regard to the matters raised in submissions received by council.
10 Attending the on-site hearing for the respondent are:
- Mr S Patterson, solicitor
- Ms C Rose, solicitor
- Mr J Condonaris of Waverley Council
- Ms P Murray of Minter Ellison
- Mr D Grace, resident
- Ms K Harvey, resident
- Mr S Pearce, resident
- Mr N Huxtable, resident
- Mr P Paech, resident
11 The following attended the on-site hearing on behalf of the applicant:
* Mr G Green, solicitor
* Mr R Bennett, solicitor
* Mr & Mrs E & N Sansone, applicant and operator of shop
* Mr S Sansone, employee of shop
12 There was considerable evidence from both sides.
13 The residents suffering the impacts of the business operations drew attention to the pizza oven exhaust fan. It had been particularly noisy disturbing sleep in the apartments in No. 14 such that those adjacent to the laneway could not sleep and had to move bedrooms. The fan was often left on all night, and the restaurant was open on occasions to 1 am with cleanup and rubbish and bottles being dumped into garage bins in the laneway after that time. One apartment on the ground floor could not be rented due to the noise and smells.
14 The fan had been serviced recently and was quieter than previously but still prevented sleep. It was supposed, under a condition of the 2004 consent, to be assessed by an acoustic engineer to ensure it complied with the relevant statutory standards. This had not been done.
15 The applicant said there is a garbage store on the lease of Shop 1, but it was not used because other people in 68-70 Campbell Parade left bins/rubbish in the laneway.
16 The applicant said it would renovate and use the garbage bin storage area and comply with other conditions to minimise smells/unsightly rubbish etc. in the laneway. Also the applicant sought a new trial period time limit to the consent to be dated for 1 year from today. It sought closing times of 11 pm 7 days with 11.30 pm in daylight saving periods and other changes to which I shall refer later.
17 Mr Fletcher overall said the history of non-compliance although a factor was not of itself a reason to refuse the amendments. He supported most of the changes subject to conditions.
18 The respondent in cross-examination discovered Mr Fletcher had only visted the site twice in the afternoon. Most of the problems complained about had occurred from 10 pm - 1 am. So he had not seen the non-compliances in operation and their impacts. In fact, he said he could not hear the exhaust fan when he visited.
19 I could hear the fan at the s 34 Conference during midday street noise including in the rooms of No. 14 Lamrock Avenue.
20 Nevertheless Mr Fletcher said if the applicant complied with conditions the unacceptable impacts would go away.
21 In dealing with such matters it is true the Court must presume compliance and provided the conditions are adequate Mr Fletcher's opinion should become reality. The council is there to enforce compliance if needed.
22 The most efficient way of dealing with this evidence and submissions is to go through the Issues and Conditions seriatim.