Sydney Sport and Leisure Pty Limited v City of Sydney Council [2013] NSWLEC 1090

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sydney Sport and Leisure Pty Limited v City of Sydney Council [2013] NSWLEC 1090 Hearing dates: 18 April 2013 Decision date: 19 April 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Development application DA2012/730 to use an existing building at 22 Burton Street Darlinghurst for a brothel is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A. 3. The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibit 3. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: use of existing building t for a brothel - proximity to residential properties - proximity to other restricted premises - incompatible hours of operation Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 South Sydney Local Environmental Plan 1998 Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 Cases Cited: Stockland Development Pty Limited v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 472 Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 466 Zhang v Canterbury City Council (2001) 115 LGERA 373 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sydney Sport and Leisure Pty Limited (Applicant) City of Sydney Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr A Gough, solicitor (Applicant) Ms S Duggan SC (Respondent) Solicitors Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant) City of Sydney Council (Respondent) File Number(s): 11218 of 2012

Judgment 1COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal by the City of Sydney Council of Development Application No D/2012/730 to use an existing building at 22 Burton Street, Darlinghurst for a brothel. The brothel will contain five working rooms and operate from 10am to 2am, 7 days per week. The brothel is to specialise in bondage and sado-masochistic services. 2The council maintains that the application should be refused because: 1. this site is not suitable as it is adjacent to, and overlooked by, a residential property, and will affect the amenity of the area. 2. the site is not suitable as it is within 75 m of an existing approved restricted premises. 3. the hours of operation are incompatible with the surrounding residential uses. 3The council did not press the contentions relating to the impacts on the surrounding road network, and on-site parking. The public interest is addressed as part of the contested contentions, and the contention relating to the adequacy of the plans was not a matter, in my view, that required any further action by the parties.