89 It is, as I understand the position, well accepted that the role of management is to minimise such behaviour and to ensure that any incidents are isolated and, if possible, dealt with promptly by the staff or contractors of the premises.
90 For the reasons canvassed earlier, there is no recorded history, let alone an adequate recorded history, from which to conclude that the implantation of a revised security and noise management plan would in fact lead to the minimisation of such behaviour and assurance to the residents that any incidents would be likely to be isolated and dealt with promptly by the staff or contractors of the premises.
Conclusions
91 Although I am satisfied that two of the three issues contended as warranting refusal do not lead to such a conclusion (albeit one does warrant a trial period being imposed), my degree of uncertainty that any additional anti-social behaviour of departing retained patrons or additional newly attracted patrons can be managed to protect the nearby residential areas warrants refusal of this application.
92 I emphasise that, in reaching this conclusion, I am taking a precautionary approach as a consequence of my lack of confidence in the outcomes of the present security management regime and the fact that there is no satisfactory past performance upon which confidence could be founded that implementation would, in fact, lead to the minimisation of low level antisocial behaviour and that any incidents would be likely to be isolated and dealt with promptly by the staff or contractors of the premises. In reaching this conclusion, I specifically note that I am assuming that, contrary to the past performance of the applicant and the owners, any conditions would be observed in their entirety. My lack of confidence is a qualitative doubt not a quantitative one.
93 It may be that a better supervised and more rigorously applied (and recorded) use of presently conditioned numbers of security personnel could lead to an improvement in existing amenity which would give some future consent authority the necessary confidence that increased numbers of later departing patrons would not have such impacts on the nearby residential area as to warrant refusal of some future application. However, it is not appropriate to base my determination of this application on a mere speculation of this occurring.
Orders
94 The orders of the Court, therefore, are:
1. The appeal is dismissed;
2. Development Application 715/2003 for a Place of Public Entertainment Authority for a hotel known as the Coach and Horses Hotel located at 147 Avoca Street, Randwick is determined by the refusal of development consent;
3. Costs are reserved; and
4. The exhibits are returned