Land and Environment Court of New South Wales Stonecost P/L v Manly C [2005] NSWLEC 178 CITATION : This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments. APPLICANT Stonecost Pty Limited PARTIES : RESPONDENT Manly Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 10610 of 2003 CORAM: Hussey C Appeal :- s. 96 modification to conditions of consent - hours of operation. KEY ISSUES: DATES OF HEARING: 05/04/2005 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 04/05/2005 APPLICANT Mr A JJ Thompson, barrister LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Ms L. Finn, solicitor of Abbott Tout JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES Hussey C 5 April 2005 10610 of 2003 Stonecost Pty Limited v Manly Council JUDGMENT 1 This matter deals with a s 96 modification to conditions of consent, namely the hours of operation of the Steyne Hotel at Manly, to which the parties have agreed to consent orders. 2 The original application provided a condition that allowed for a trial period of 12 months that was predominantly aimed at checking the amenity impacts of the revised hours. During that trial period the applicant has undertaken the work required by the conditions of consent and one of those conditions of consent, required the implementation of a complaints register. Now I am told that that complaints register has been available and in operation and there is no significant complaint registered about the amenity noise from this hotel. 3 I am satisfied that the s 96 application relates to the same development and also that the objectors have been notified of the consent orders and of today's hearing and have had the opportunity to come along and express their concerns. I have taken into account the two written objections from the objectors and I do not consider that it is reasonable to give them such weight, so as to reject the s 96 application. In terms of the merit consideration of the s 96, council lodges no objection to it and I have had the opportunity of reading the detailed statement of Mr Clancy and I find that the merits of this 96 modification are satisfactory. 4 Therefore, by consent the Court orders that: 1. The appeal be upheld. 2. The s 96(2) modification for the deletion of the trial period and condition 66 is allowed subject to conditions in annexure A. 3. The exhibits, may be returned. ______________________ R Hussey Commissioner of the Court ljr 16/11/2006 - Wrong Judgment placed on the internet. - Paragraph(s) 1-4 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.