Imperial back in court
The Imperial Hotel’s long-awaited reopening in six weeks is under threat after Shadd Danesi yesterday launched fresh court action.
In the midst of a recession Danesi said he had no choice but to file court papers against the City of Sydney this week over what will be a half-empty dance floor.
He is seeking a further increase on the 442 patrons approved by the council last year, claiming the downstairs area was built to fit more than 500 patrons by itself, and refuting reports he was trying to cram people in.
It would be better for everyone if those 300 people were inside, out of the rain and off the street, he told Sydney Star Observer.
In what looks like the greatest depression since the 1920s, Council is harming the venue. I’m just trying to run a small business.
But the City of Sydney is standing by its decision to limit the Imperial’s patron numbers.
The City conducted a comprehensive and thorough assessment of a development application for internal alterations and to increase the patron capacity of the Imperial Hotel, a City spokesperson said.
The premises already had restrictions on patron numbers from a previous Land and Environment court decision and the City resolved to allow an increase in patron capacity from 306 to 442 people consistent with the previous court judgement.
The City’s decision was based on balancing the need to ensure this iconic gay venue continues to thrive with the need to protect residential amenity, and patron safety particularly when people arrived at or left the premises.
Danesi has previously warned of potential street violence if patrons were left queueing outside.
The venue’s front bar does not have an entertainment licence and has no restriction on numbers.
A hearing date before the Land and Environment Court is yet to be set, but Danesi anticipated the venue would still open within six weeks.
The Imperial Hotel refurbishment is innovation masquerading as renovation. It will be a death trap if Mr Danessi has his way: the Building Code of Australia regulations only allows for one person per square metre.
His design will inflate this and is only driven by the rattle of cash register coins.
Peoples’ lives are at risk here.
His fatuous claims that loitering customers will make additional noises on the street, just means two things; (1) they should come back later, or (2) should have arrived earlier. A public footpath should not be turned into a private waiting room.
And his proposed pink stilleto on the roof is just a big piece of kitsch crap: it does not honour the Priscilla movie, it exploits and degrades it.
It is not Sydney council’s role or locals’ responsibility to financially line a developer’s back pocket.
In fact, there is no right to develop enshrined in any LEP, DCP, state planning law or regulation or Act of parliament.
Mr Danessi should spend his developer dollar elsewhere.