Kim v Strathfield Council [2006] NSWLEC 653

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Kim v Strathfield Council [2006] NSWLEC 653

Applicant: Lisa Kim PARTIES : Respondent: Strathfield Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 10334 of 2006

CORAM: Roseth SC

KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- noise impact of karaoke rooms

DATES OF HEARING: 17/10/2006

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/25/2006

Applicant: LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr D Perrignon, solicitor of Jacob Jang Respondent: Mr T O'Connor, solicitor of Houston, Dearn O'Connor

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Roseth SC

25 October 2006

10334 of 2006 Lisa Kim v Strathfield Council

JUDGMENT 1 Senior Commissioner: This is an appeal against the refusal by Strathfield Council (the council) of a development application to extend the hours of operation of an existing music studio (karaoke premises) at No 5 Strathfield Square. 2 The applicant has development consent to operate until 11pm. It has applied to extend its operation until midnight on Friday and until 2am on Sunday morning. Following notification, the council received 14 submissions from residents living nearby. With the agreement of the parties, the Court appointed Mr S Cooper, an acoustic consultant to assess the noise impact of the premises. At the hearing on 17 October 2006, Mr Cooper told the Court that the premises themselves did not generate any noise that might disturb nearby residents; however, the behaviour of patrons after they left the premises (particularly in the carpark) did generate noise that exceeded the Environment Protection Authority of NSW (now Department of Environment and Conservation) (EPA) standard. 3 The applicant has submitted a Plan of Management, which was the subject of discussion and negotiation between the parties and Mr Cooper. In Mr Cooper's opinion, the best way to resolve this matter is to grant a consent allowing the extended hours for a period of three months. At the hearing the parties agreed to Mr Cooper inspecting the premises during these three months, so that he can report whether the applicant complies with the Plan of Management and whether the noise impact associated with its activities meets the EPA standard. 4 However, following the conclusion of the hearing the parties changed their mind (or at least the applicant did) and advised the Court that it should dismiss the appeal by consent.