34 Expert town planning evidence was given by Mr Gough for the applicant and Mr Brown for the council. The two experts had prepared a joint report, which was tendered in evidence as Exhibit 4. That report dealt with the two contentions, the first being safety and security and the second, the public interest. The experts agreed that the only substantive issue raised in the objections related to the matters raised in the first contention.
35 Both experts had visited the site a number of times including one visit at night, each on a different Sunday evening.
36 Mr Gough advised that on the night he had visited the site, one floodlight, which is the one attached to the front wall of unit 16 was operational. The gate was open and there was no lighting along the central driveway or any part of the site that he could observe from the roadway. He had not entered the site however had observed a security guard at the business at the front left when viewing the site from the road.
37 Mr Brown had also visited the site during the evening and had entered the site parking his vehicle across the area where the gate was located in case it was closed when he was on site. He was not aware that it was not operational. Unit 1 was occupied at the time and no lights were on in any other part of the complex.
38 When asked whether the site was quiet at night, Mr Gough stated that it was however he did not consider it to be isolated as it is on route to the detention centre and he observed cars passing the site at night. He considered the area to be busy during the day. Mr Brown considered the site to be quiet and had been startled by unexpected activity that occurred during his visit.
39 In relation to the security implications of the brothel, Mr Gough stated that there would be a need for the gate to remain open all the time and that is what the application proposed. He did state however that if the owner's corporation required the gate to be closed at night, options such as an intercom could be used and the gate opened remotely. As that option required the consent of the owner's corporation, which had not been provided because of the opposition to the proposal, it was not subject of the application.
40 Both experts agreed that the gate, if operational, would provide a degree of security to the site. I agree.
41 In relation to the proposal for a security guard to be on site from 7pm to 7am, to install sensor lighting and upgrade the complex's lighting to Australian standards, Mr Gough said that this was an essential element of the proposal but was required to appease the concerns of the owners of other units within the complex. He explained that the security guard would be employed to ensure the safety and security of the whole complex, not just those persons associated with the brothel.
42 In relation to the activities of the security guard, Mr Gough advised that there would be not set pattern but they could assess people entering the site, patrol the entire site and provide an active presence on throughout the complex. He considered this presence to be a better security solution than the gate.
43 Both experts agreed that the detail provided in the Statement of Environmental Effects about the security arrangements was to be read in conjunction with the Plan of Management submitted to the council with the application and that lighting being on and upgraded to Australian Standards, if it did not already meet that standard, and the provision of a security guard would significantly improve security and visibility of people on the site.
44 I note that the NSW Police Crime Prevention Officer has recommended the installation of CCTV and lighting to comply with the relevant Australian standards along with other safety and security recommendations including the operation of the gate via remote control and use of video intercom. This latter requirement would address the concerns of the occupants of the complex about the operation of the gate after normal business hours. All of the conditions recommended by the police have been incorporated into the draft "without prejudice" conditions of consent and there was no dispute in relation to those conditions.
45 Mr Brown highlighted the vegetation on site adjacent to Unit 16 which filtered the view from the proposed manager's office and staff room and may restrict the view of any CCTV installed. He agreed that CCTV would improve the site security but was concerned that it wouldn't cover the entire site or the area outside the site.
46 Both experts agreed that there is already CCTV installed to the walls of some of the units. This was evident during the site inspections as was the use of alarm systems, also attached to the external walls of the units.
47 Mr Gough confirmed that all security devices could be fitted within the boundaries of the Unit 16 strata lot and that no works would be required to common property.
48 When asked about the type of people likely to attend the brothel, Mr Gough stated that he has not seen unauthorised or intoxicated people visit brothels. Mr Brown agreed that patrons of the brothel would not cause criminal or anti-social behaviour.
Conclusions and findings
49 The site of the proposed brothel is within the area specifically designated by the council for the use. Whilst brothels are permitted with consent in all General and Light Industrial zones, Clause 33 of the LEP reduces the land available to locate a brothel to areas included on the map which have been considered suitable by the council for the purpose. Subject to a review of the matters required under s79C of the Act, this fact must weigh in favour of the application.
50 The application meets all the standards established under the council's planning instruments for the establishment of a brothel.
51 There is clear concern amongst the proprietors of other businesses within the strata complex about the operation of the brothel. Whilst I recognise that concern, the test to be applied is that stated by Lloyd J in New Century Developments Pty Limited v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2003] NSWLEC 154, where his Honour stated: