Bird v Hawkesbury City Council [2000] NSWLEC 4

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Bird v Hawkesbury City Council [2000] NSWLEC 4 APPLICANT: Howard Bird PARTIES : RESPONDENT: Hawkesbury City Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 10989 of 1999 CORAM: Talbot J KEY ISSUES: Construction & Interpretation :- whether a brothel is commercial premises as an office LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: Londish v Knox Grammar School and Ors (1997) 97 LGERA 1; Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Limited (1996) 186 CLR 389 DATES OF HEARING: 19/01/2000 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/24/2000

APPLICANT: Mr D P Wilson (Barrister) SOLICITORS: Malcolm McDonald & Co

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT: Mr P D McClellan QC With Mr J E Robson (Barrister) SOLICITORS: Abbott Tout

JUDGMENT: IN THE LAND AND Matter No. 10989 of 1999 ENVIRONMENT COURT Coram: Talbot J OF NEW SOUTH WALES Decision Date: 24 January 2000

Howard Bird Applicant v Hawkesbury City Council Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is seeking development consent to use premises in zone (4a) Industrial General for the purpose of a brothel.

2. The council has made an application for the Court to determine the following question as a preliminary issue:- Whether a brothel is prohibited development in zone (4a) Industrial General under Hawkesbury LEP 1989?

3. Commercial premises are defined in the LEP as follows:- "commercial premises" means a building or place used as an office, but does not include a building or place elsewhere specifically defined in this clause or a building or place used for a purpose elsewhere specifically defined in this clause