First Choice Stress Relief v Inverell Shire Council

First Choice Stress Relief v Inverell Shire Council - [2005] NSWLEC 259 - NSWLEC 2005 case summary — Zoe

[15]

6 The other persons who gave evidence were Mr John McCosker the proprietor of the adjacent building next door to the subject site to the east known as the McCosker Bus Service, which runs a bus facility in the township and local area. He considers that the bus depot responds to clients, the office is open and at times children may attend the premises where the bus depot is in search of lost articles. It is noted that there is not a bus stop near the subject premises. He is of the opinion that the proposal is not consistent with the area and should not be allowed on the subject site. Mr McCosker also noted that there was an oval some 400 m from the subject premises 7 Mr Barry Bradley also gave evidence. He has a business on the opposite side of the road to the subject site and he supports council's original refusal of the application and he considers it will impact or affect businesses within the area and attract unruly people. 8 Ms Turner also considers that the proposal is inconsistent and not sympathetic to the values of the town and that families would be impacted if such a development goes ahead. 9 Mr Rudd is concerned about the impact on children in the town and the fact that children under 18 may be on the premises, not working as such, but impacted by the operation of a brothel if children are present. He considers that it is not an appropriate land use for the area. 10 Mr Wigg, expressed concern about the social, environmental and economic impact and the impact on the public of the proposed development. He considers the site is unsuitable for a number of reasons, including the high school and the hospital being in view. He is concerned that the environment be protected and the brothel should not be allowed. 11 Mrs Stewart also gave evidence. She is of the view that the proposed brothel is not consistent with the values of the town and it is something, which would bring immorality to the area. She also is concerned about the impact on families and possible family breakdowns if a brothel is allowed in the area.

[17]

14 The subject site is zoned Industrial under the Inverell LEP 1988 and brothels are permissible in this zone, as well as other zones, with consent. Council also has a Development Control Plan, the Inverell Shire Council Development Control Plan No. 15. It sets out a number of criteria and objectives for brothels. In particular: "to ensure that all brothels, which are established within the area of the council are appropriately regulated to ensure that any brothels that are established are located where they are compatible with other land uses; to minimise the impact of brothels on nearby land uses particularly residential areas and other sensitive uses; to minimise public health risks to both sex workers and their clients; and to establish criteria against which the development proposal for the site will be assessed." 15 Council also has a number of controls under s 6 where council shall not approve the establishment of brothels on land within the following areas: "Business residential or rural zones as defined in the Inverell LEP, within 50 m of the boundary of the above zones, within 200 m of any established church or place of public worship, hospitals, places regularly frequented by children for recreation or cultural purposes, public recreation reserves, schools in any location more than 3 km from the Inverell post office and brothels are not to be located within remote areas or areas where support services are not conveniently at hand." 16 There are also restrictions in the DCP for the size of brothels "not to have more than four rooms used for the purposes of prostitution." There are also a number of criteria against which development applications must be assessed: the site's location; likely impact of the proposed development on land uses, particularly residential and sensitive land uses; the streetscape; visual impact of the development; landscaping; traffic issues; pedestrian access to the site; submissions received as part of the notification process; the signage is to be restricted to 0.5 sq m in area.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (44 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)