After years of representation, our local
community became a winner last Friday, 22 December with the duty free store in
the “Citygold” building finally closed down.
In addition on the same day, the L & E
Court upheld Council’s previous refusal for a DA for the brothel at 134
Abercrombie (on Cleveland).
The close down of the duty free store
followed Council’s refusal earlier this year for the operator to “legitimise”
their illegal operations. Unfortunately
the operators continued to operate illegally, even after the DA was
refused.
Catching the operators in the act, so that
legal action could be taken was then a
long and drawn out process, dependent on the community having to let
Council know when the store was operating illegally. The store has now finally ceased its
operations, with Council Officers verifying the fixtures and fittings have now
been removed.
The building is now being renovated for
lease and any new business is likely to need a DA. If you see the premises operating in the
interim, please contact Council – suggested contact point at Council is
Giovanni Cirrillo who is aware of the history of these premises.
In the case of Oasis, the Judgement from
the L & E Court was issued also last Friday.
This follows Councils refusal earlier this
year for another DA, which followed last years Appeal in the L & E
Court. Last years Judgement upholding Council’s
refusal, unfortunately was based on issues relating to design rather than
impact on the local community which allowed a new DA to be lodged this
year. In the interim however Council had
put through tighter controls for anti-clustering provisions, which effectively
allowed Council to refuse the new DA this year. The applicant however again
chose to take the DA back to the L & E Court allowing it to continue to
operate.
Whilst we were have been particularly
concerned about the management of this particular
file at Councils end over the last few years, action taken by Council’s Senior
Solicitor recently gave us hope that something would be done. Fridays Judgement now means that Council can
now take action in Court to close down Oasis and we are assured this will
follow in January. We note the
application through the Court may allow the operators a little time to close
down its operations.
Importantly, the anti-clustering provisions
in Council planning controls demonstrate that they do they are designed to
prevent the establishment of another brothel within 75 metres of another
approved brothel.
In the case of Oasis, there is another
smaller operation, called the Kastle which is located directly opposite, and
historically operated more discretely.
However the operator had allowed its consent approval to lapse. A key to the outcome for Oasis was consent
approval for the Kastle. This occurred
only days before the Hearing. Another
factor was that a Council Planner in “internal correspondence” did not see both
premises being so closely located together as issue. The Commissioner did not understand this
position and fortunately considered the anti-clustering provisions which lead
to the Judgement.
Its worth noting that sadly the long
standing community complaints whilst located on Council’s files and submitted
to the Court (it appeared they had not previously been presented) were not
enough to convince the Commissioner that the DA should be rejected on other
grounds.
In terms of the Judgement’s impact on the
proposed brothel for the former Blackmarket site – we see the Judgment as
having a positive implication, because another brothel is operating close by on
Regent Street;
its main entrance is off Chippen
Lane.
We are looking at the Oasis Judgment and
also another recent Judgment for MIstys in Potts Point, so we can see what can
be done about this proposed brothel. We
note anti-clustering provisions apply when a proposed site is within 75 metres
of another premises – the calculation is assessed from the centre of the
proposed premises to the immediate entrance of the other premises.