Johol Nominees Pty Ltd v Muswellbrook Shire Council [2014] NSWLEC 1071

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Johol Nominees Pty Ltd v Muswellbrook Shire Council [2014] NSWLEC 1071 Hearing dates: 8 April 2014 Decision date: 17 April 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. DA 225/2013 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling at 200 Bridge Street, Muswellbrook for the purposes of a sex services premises (brothel) is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A. 3. The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibits 1 and E. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: sex services premises - brothel - unsuitable location because of the proximity of dwellings and places regularly frequented by children - unsuitable access - noise impacts Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Muswellbrook Local Environmental Plan 2009 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Johol Nominees Pty Ltd (Applicant) Muswellbrook Shire Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr G Tyrell, solicitor (Applicant) Mr A Pickup, solicitor (Respondent) McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant) Local Government Legal (Respondent) File Number(s): 10015 of 2014

Judgment 1COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal by Muswellbrook Shire Council of DA 225/2013 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling at 200 Bridge Street, Muswellbrook (the site) for a sex services premises (brothel). 2The proposed development includes: * internal modifications to add shower facilities to the existing three bedrooms of the dwelling for three self-contained working rooms, * demolition of an existing carport in the rear yard to accommodate six off-street car parking spaces, as well as a disabled compliance access ramp, with access via a right of way (ROW) from Wilkins Street, * staff facilities and a reception area, * 24 hours a day, seven days a week operation, and * four staff, plus security personnel, as required. 3The council maintains that the application should be refused as the proposal: 1. is located in an unsuitable location because the site is "in close visual or physical proximity to the entry of a premises used as a dwelling house" and "near or within view from ...premises used frequently by children", 2. has unsuitable access for the anticipated vehicle movements, 3. will create unacceptable noise impacts, 4. does not adopt a number of the councils conditions of consent, and 5. has an inadequate Plan of Management. 4A number of local residents provided evidence on the site inspection and supported the concerns of the council plus other additional concerns, including: * devaluation of properties and businesses, * prominent location, and * will attract undesirable people to the area.