3 The hotel is a heritage item under the planning statutes, and the windows will have the same fanlight as the existing with the lower panel of the window to be concertinas. The sill of the window will be raised a little to enable the installation of a "dry bar" along the sill line. This is a bar counter that can accommodate stools so people can sit with their drinks at the open windows. Apparently it is a "dry bar" because there is no equipment for beer pulling or liquor sales, it is only for patrons to sit at.
4 The drawings show the windows in aluminium, but the applicant said during the hearing the windows will be in timber to match the existing. The Sports Bar includes a large wide screen TV on the back wall facing the street and some other smaller TV screens to show several sports simultaneously, or, for a major event, the same program on all TV's. The Sports Bar also has pool tables. The Gaming Room is in an adjacent area, but not visible from the street. The Bottle Shop has fixed glazed windows and a set of entry doors all in a matching design for the heritage item requirements of the building.
Contentions
1. The proposed modification should be refused as it will have an unacceptable impact on the use by pedestrians of the footpath adjacent to the proposed new bi-fold windows.
Particulars
(a) It is likely that during daytime trading hours patrons of the hotel will be consuming alcohol in close proximity to the public footpath adjacent to the bi-fold windows which will:
1. encourage the congregation of patrons of the hotel on the footpath outside the hotel and adjacent to the windows, and
2. alienate the usage of the footpath from general public access, and
3. intimidate some sections of the community who utilise the footpath.
2. The proposed development should be refused in so far as it will result in an overdevelopment of the predominate use of the site, being the sale and consumption of alcohol.
Particulars
(a) The consumption of alcohol in close proximity to the public footpath and congregation of patrons of the hotel on the footpath adjacent to the proposed bi-fold windows (referred to in contention 1) is likely to expand the use of the hotel into the public domain which constitutes an overdevelopment of the site.
3. The proposed development should be refused insofar as it is inconsistent with the objectives for Zone No. 3A (General Business Zone) identified in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 ("RLEP 1998").
Particulars
(a) Having regard to the likely adverse impact on the use by pedestrians of the public footpath adjacent to the proposed bi-fold windows and the overdevelopment of the site, the proposed development is inconsistent with the following objectives in clause 13 of RLEP 199$:
1. Objective 1(a) which is to maintain the viability of existing business centres'; 2. Objective 1(b) which is to facilitate development of land, in places identified by the Council as suitable to be used as business centres, for commercial, retail, residential and community purposes:
(iii) by enhancing employment opportunities and servicing the needs of the local and regional community, and
(v) by providing and enhancing pedestrian and public open space areas for shoppers and workers, and
(vi) by maintaining and improving the environmental and aesthetic qualities of the City of Randwick.
3. Objective 1(c) which is ` to minimise the impact of development on adjoining and nearby residential zones':
4. The proposed development should be refused insofar as it is not in the public interest having regard to the abovementioned issues.
The evidence
5 The evidence is that another consent for the Beach Bar has approved similar windows to the Sports Bar on both Arden St and Coogee Bay Rd. On the latter frontage they extend down to near the floor level with concertina style panels.