Hack and anor v Randwick City Council (No 2) [2010] NSWLEC 1075

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Hack and anor v Randwick City Council (No 2) [2010] NSWLEC 1075

APPLICANT Gregory Hack and C. Wang PARTIES : RESPONDENT Randwick City Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 10258 of 2009

CORAM: Brown C

KEY ISSUES: APPEAL :- Brothel Closure Order

LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

CASES CITED: Hack, Hack and Anor v Randwick City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1053

DATES OF HEARING: 16 February 2010, written submissions 23 March 2010

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6 April 2010

APPLICANT Dr S Berveling, barrister SOLICITORS Russo & Co LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr P Clay, barrister SOLICITORS Shaw Reynolds Bowen & Gerathy

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Brown C

6 April 2010

10258 of 2009 Gregory Hack and C. Wang v Randwick City Council

JUDGMENT 1 COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against two Brothel Closure Orders being Order No. 1 in the Table to s 121B and s 121ZR of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EPA Act) issued by Randwick City Council (the council) requiring the applicants to cease using Unit 6, 878-890 Anzac Parade, Maroubra for: a. the purpose of a brothel; or b. the provision of sexual acts or sexual services in exchange for payment; or c. the provision of massage services (other than genuine remedial there appeared massage services) in exchange for payment. 2 The appeal was considered in conjunction with two other separate but related appeals for the same site. Appeal No 10796 of 2009 was an appeal against the refusal by the council of DA/586/2009 to use the site as a brothel and Appeal No 10842 of 2009 was an appeal against the refusal by the council to modify Development Consent No. 778/2005 for a remedial massage therapy centre to allow the site to be used as a brothel. On 16 March 2010, Orders were made dismissing Appeal No 10796 of 2009 and Appeal No 10842 of 2009 (Hack, Hack and Anor v Randwick City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1053). 3 On 16 March 2010, Final Orders were not made for Appeal 10258 of 2009 as Dr Berveling, for the applicant, and Mr Clay, for the council, made differing submissions on the councils Orders, including a question of whether the Orders were invalid. Given the findings on the unsuitability of the site for a brothel in Appeal No 10796 of 2009 and Appeal No 10842 of 2009, I allowed the parties to make further short submissions on the form the Orders should take prior to making Final Orders. It was agreed that any submissions should be filed by 23 March 2009. 4 As set out in the earlier judgment, the submissions made by Dr Berveling and Mr Clay, were: Dr Berveling, for the applicant, submits that that the Order is invalid as it does not comply with the requirements in s 121F – s121K of the EPA Act and also that no reasons were given for the Order.