Adams v Parramatta City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1057

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Adams v Parramatta City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1057 Hearing dates: 10 February 2016 Date of orders: 17 February 2016 Decision date: 17 February 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: Appeal upheld – see [29] Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: intensification of approved and existing brothel; Plan of Management; trial period Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 Cases Cited: Boers v Parramatta City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1097 Wei v Parramatta City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1046 Zhang v Canterbury Council [2001] NSWCA 167 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Robyn Adams (Applicant) Parramatta City Council (Respondent) Representation: Applicant: Mr D Briggs (Solicitor) Respondent: Ms K Law (Solicitor)

Solicitors: Applicant: D G Briggs and Associates Respondent: Matthews Folbigg Pty Ltd File Number(s): 10939 of 2015

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: In July 1999, the Land and Environment Court approved Development Application No. DA/190/1998 for the use of premises at 9 Seville Street, North Parramatta (the site) as a brothel with prescribed operating hours and a maximum of two sex workers, inclusive of the operator, on site at any one time. 2. Council's Statement of Facts and Contentions includes details of a modification application lodged with the council in 2006. Council refused this application. The applicant commenced Class 1 proceedings appealing council's decision but subsequently discontinued the action. 3. In March 2015, the applicant lodged with the council, a Section 96AA Modification Application seeking an intensification of the existing use from a maximum of two sex workers, inclusive of the operator, to three sex workers and a receptionist. 4. The application was advertised and one submission was received. The submission raised a number of very generic issues relating to s 96 applications and planning in general and nothing about the actual proposal. 5. The application was referred to internal departments and officers and to the Crime Prevention Officer at the Parramatta Local Area Command. 6. A report recommending approval of the Section 96AA Modification Application, subject to additional conditions, was prepared by the council's Development Assessment Officer. The fully body of the Council subsequently refused the application. 7. The applicant appeals council's refusal under s 97AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act).