Stewart -v- Tweed Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 1319

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Stewart -v- Tweed Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 1319 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

APPLICANT Susan Stewart PARTIES : RESPONDENT Tweed Shire Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 10431 of 2010

CORAM: Dixon C

KEY ISSUES: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION :- Brothel

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 LEGISLATION CITED: Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 Tweed Development Control Plan 2008

DATES OF HEARING: 12 August 2010 and 21 and 22 September 2010

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22 November 2010

APPLICANT Ms A Pearman (barrister) SOLICITOR Stacks The Law Firm LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr M Staunton (barrister) SOLICITOR Maddocks Lawyers

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Dixon C

22 November 2010

10431 of 2010 Stewart v Tweed Shire Council

JUDGMENT Summary 1 This appeal, pursuant to section 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), concerns an application for the establishment of a brothel for 7 sex workers in an existing factory at 2/36 Enterprise Avenue, Tweed Heads (the site). 2 The purpose built brothel is proposed over two levels and when lodged comprised: (a) Lower floor: 289m2 including foyer; reception; waiting area; bar; office; staff room; laundry; executive room; and two work rooms. (b) Mezzanine floor: 143m2 in area including four workrooms. (c) Eleven car parking spaces on site (19 spaces overall). 3 Despite a council report recommending approval of the application the council determined on July 2010 that the locality and the deficiency in the Socio Economic Impact Statement submitted by the applicant under Clause17 (2) of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 (LEP) justified a refusal of the application. Council's principal contention in this appeal (despite the amendment of the application and additional evidence) is that the Court will also form that opinion and dismiss the appeal. 4 However, the evidence does not support such a finding. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that any deficiency in the socio economic impact statement, which was before the council, has been addressed by the amended application. Following an assessment under section 79C of the EPA Act including a consideration of the matters raised by clauses 8, 17(2) and 17(3) of the LEP and section A13 of the Tweed Development Control Plan 2008 (DCP), I have decided to grant a conditional approval to the amended development for a trail period of 12 months.