Halpin v Sydney CC [2005] NSWLEC 243

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Halpin v Sydney CC [2005] NSWLEC 243

APPLICANT RJ & JT Halpin

PARTIES : RESPONDENT Sydney City Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 11619 of 2004

CORAM: Hoffman C

Appeal :- Alterations and additions to a hotel - heritage - public interest. KEY ISSUES:

City of Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2002 LEGISLATION CITED: Sydney Heritage Local Environmental Plan 2002

DATES OF HEARING: 11/05/2005 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 05/11/2005

APPLICANT Mr L. Gyles, barrister instructed by Mr D. Hand, solicitor of David Hand Solciitor

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

RESPONDENT Mr C. Leggat, barrister instructed by Ms L. Finn, solicitor of Abbott Tout

JUDGMENT:

ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hoffman C

11 May 2005

11619 of 2004 RJ & JT Halpin v Sydney City Council

JUDGMENT 1 I hereby publish my reasons in this class 1 appeal No. 11619 of 2004 between RJ & JT Halpin and the City of Sydney in regard to the refusal of alterations and additions to No. 2-6 The Broadway in Sydney's CBD. It is on the corner with Regent Street. 2 The property is known as 'The Sutherland Hotel' or under its current trading name 'The Bar Broadway'. It is a heritage item under the Central Sydney Heritage Local Environmental Plan 2002. It is item 5006 in that statute. The key component of that statute is cl 8(c), which essentially requires any alterations and additions or changes to a heritage item to be consistent with the terms of the conservation policy for that item. 3 The issues in the appeal were: 1. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the heritage item inconsistent with the Central Sydney Heritage Local Environmental Plan 2002. 2. The proposal is inconsistent with the conservation policy contained in the Heritage Inventory Assessment Report for the building pursuant to cl 8 of the Central Sydney Heritage Local Environmental Plan 2002. 3. It is not in the public interest to approve the application having regard to the above impact to Issue 1 and the inconsistency referred to in Issue 2. 4 The hearing was attended for the respondent by * Mr C. Leggat, barrister instructed by Ms L. Finn of Abbott Tout Solicitors; and * Mr J. Poulton, Heritage Town Planner for the Council gave evidence.