Adverse impacts attributable to the Paddington Inn
62In undertaking this analysis, I do not consider it appropriate to draw the inference that, because the Paddington Inn is licence premises trading until the late evening and that such antisocial behaviour is exhibited by patrons of such premises at times not inconsistent with the trading hours of these premises that all elements of that behaviour must inevitably have been caused by patrons from the Paddington Inn. This approach is consistent with the approach I have taken in earlier proceedings (see Borg Architects earlier cited).
63There are three separate elements to the antisocial behaviour as earlier set out.
64With respect to smashed bottles and glasses, I have the uncontradicted evidence of the residents together with my own observation of smashed glass in the garden during the course of the site inspection to be satisfied that the complaints of this nature are valid.
65However, the only specific complaint capable of investigation as to the source of the smashed or discarded bottles or glasses is the evidence of Ms O'Neill, a local resident who gave evidence on site and in court. Her description of the glasses that she had found abandoned on her front launch was of glassware of varying sizes with a multi-facetted pattern around the lower part of the glass. She produced a glass from the London to demonstrate that this abandoned glassware was not consistent with that used at those premises, the London Tavern being closer to her home than the Paddington Inn.
66Mr. Clay, barrister for the applicant, tendered evidence that demonstrated that the glassware used by the Paddington Inn was not of a design consistent with the design described by Ms O'Neill. I was also provided photographic evidence that the Grand National Hotel glassware was, in fact, consistent with the glasses described by Ms O'Neill. As a consequence, her evidence cannot provide any direct linkage with the Hotel on this point.
67As another consequence, I am not able to be satisfied, merely because of the existence of a liquor selling facility at the Paddington Inn selling drinks package in glass bottles, that the shattered glassware in the street can be attributed to sales from the Paddington Inn with any degree of certainty to permit any adverse conclusion to be drawn against those premises. As a further consequence, I disregard, in its entirety, the issue of smashed glass in the streetscape or discarded glassware as being capable of specifically contributing to the refusal of the application for increased patron numbers at the Paddington Inn but it does provide an element for my consideration of the general overall behavioural landscape in the vicinity.
68I turn, now, to the question of rowdy behaviour and street noise.
69First, it is to be observed that there is widespread complaint by the objectors about such behaviour that has led me to the conclusion that such incidents are not isolated but occur on a regular occurrence, particularly on weekend evenings.
70I do have specific evidence from two witnesses asserting that they have observed late night noisy behaviour that they attribute to patrons going to or coming from the Hotel.
71First, such evidence was given by Mr Grigg who resides in premises in William Street. He conducts a business at the ground level and lives at the upper level. He described having had to move his bedroom from the front of his premises to the rear because of the increase in street, particularly on Thursday and Friday and Saturday evenings. His evidence was of specifically observing persons who made this sleep disturbing noise going into the hotel and being persons who had travelled from the London Tavern to do so. Although tested by cross-examination during the course of the informal site evidence, his evidence was clear, concise and uncontradicted. He did not resile from the evidence he gave during the course of his brief cross-examination. I accept his evidence in its entirety.
72Second, Ms O'Neill whose evidence concerning glassware has been earlier considered by me gave evidence on this point. She lives in William Street, to the north of the London Tavern. She described, during the course of the informal evidence given during the site inspection and locality walk around, an incident of observing up to 200 people coming down William Street from Oxford Street.
73As I understood her evidence, large groups such as that which she was describing were not considered by her to be an unusual occurrence. She described the rowdiness of their behaviour and specifically described the place from which they had come as being the Paddington Inn.
74I am unable to give significant weight to this evidence, in my view. I have reached this conclusion not because I do not accept that they may be large groups of people behaving in such a fashion and that there may be (indeed are likely to be) alcohol fuelled drivers for such behaviour.
75The reservations that I have that caused me to set aside her evidence are geographically related. First, I do not consider I have a satisfactory basis upon which I could discount, entirely, a significant possibility that such groups of persons, at least to some extent, could have come from the London Tavern. Second, more significantly, between Ms O'Neill's residence and the Paddington Inn, there is a bend in the road that would make it difficult, if not impossible, particularly late at night, to observe a precise origin for such groups of people.
76The final aspect of the detail of complaints of antisocial behaviour in the neighbourhood concern public vomiting, urination and defecation. There are a number of elements of evidence in the objections from local residents on this topic. First, one local resident, at pages 48 and specifically 49 of Exhibit 6, says:
Patrons leaving the hotel vomiting on local footpath, urinating in public and causing a general nuisance all having a negative impact on residential amenity.
77Although this is uncontradicted and the author was not required for cross examination, I am not prepared to accept this as specific evidence of such behaviour being occasioned by patrons of the Hotel. It is not precise as to time or date or as to how the author observed such activities in a fashion that would enable her to be certain that those behaving in such a fashion were, in fact, patrons of the Hotel rather than from other licensed premises in the vicinity. However, I certainly do accept this as uncontradicted and reliable evidence of the existence of such behaviours, in a general sense, arising from the existence of alcohol fuelled behaviours.
78Second, at pages 65 and (specifically) 66 of Exhibit 6, another local resident makes assertions concerning urination in the laneway where this behaviour is, at least in part, inferentially ascribed, because of proximity to the Paddington Inn, to patrons of the Hotel. For similar reasons to that described immediately prior, I do not accept that this can establish a direct linkage but I do accept it is uncontradicted and reliable evidence of such behaviours in a general sense. It is also appropriate that I note that, in the exhibit to which I have referred, there are eight other citations of public urination by persons who might reasonably be concluded to be patrons of licensed premises in this locality or, if not such patrons, to be alcohol fuelled in this behaviour.
79There are, however, from the bundle of police reports that are in evidence, two specific incidents about which I have evidence of public urination by patrons of the Paddington Inn.
80First, on 2 August 2009, plainclothes police observed a person walking to the doorway entry to a block of residential units and not come out. The police report describes the officers following this person into the doorway entrance in witnessing him urinating on the wall within the entrance area of these residential premises. The police report says:
When confronted by police to stop urinating the POI [ person of interest ] said no, let me finish. After further requests the POI turned around to police.
.................................
The POI stated he'd been drinking all night at the Paddington Inn, Oxford Street, Paddington and was leaving to catch a taxi home with friends.
81The second incident occurred on 15 August 2009. On this occasion, the incident involved uniform police working outside the Paddington Inn. While the police were speaking with security guards at the front of the Hotel, the police observed a number of persons walking out of the Hotel. Shortly after, police observed one of these persons urinating on the wall outside a local hardware store. The police report says:
Upon questioning the male in regards to urinating on the wall the accused stated "How have I offended you, I didn't do anything, your an idiot."
82Although both of the above incidents took place in August 2009, in my view that does not render them irrelevant because of their age. The circumstances are such, I am satisfied, that, because police are unable to devote, for understandable policing demand and resourcing constraints, any significant effort to behaviours of this nature, observations of these incidents are merely serendipitously coincidental and are relevant in the present context of demonstrating that it is reasonable to assume that elements, from within a broader incidence of such behaviour in this locality, can be attributed to patrons from the Paddington Inn.
83I was also taken, during the course of the site inspection, to a laneway running along the rear of properties fronting William Street. The laneway is a pedestrian thoroughfare only and, on the residents' evidence and from observation of discarded, used toilet paper during the course of the site inspection, it is used as an outdoor defecation facility. It is likely (indeed almost certainly) that these unsatisfactory behaviours are alcohol consumption arising behaviours, but there is no basis upon which I could conclude any attribution to patrons of the Paddington Inn. I merely accept that they are part of the general pattern of unacceptable alcohol fuelled behaviour in the locality.