Ambercone Pty Limited v Rockdale City Council [2000] NSWLEC 96

Ambercone Pty Limited v Rockdale City Council [2000] NSWLEC 96

Development Control Plan No 36 and clause 6.2 were not invalid. Clause 6.2 created more detailed provisions supplementing the Ordinance, did not prohibit brothels, and did not fetter the council's consideration under s 79C or under clauses 46B(1) and 46B(2) of the Ordinance. Properly construed, clause 6.2 limited only rooms used for the purposes of prostitution and any office, not every room in the brothel.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Class Four Application for Declarations and Class One Proceedings Involving Questions of Law / Judgment on Validity of Development Control Plan No 36 and Clause 6.2
Outcome
The questions in the class one proceedings were answered in the negative and the class four application was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['development Control Plans' 'brothels' 'development Consent' 'validity of Planning Controls' 'council Discretion']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Control Plans' 'brothels' 'development Consent' 'validity of Planning Controls' 'council Discretion']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class Four Application for Declarations and Class One Proceedings Involving Questions of Law / Judgment on Validity of Development Control Plan No 36 and Clause 6.2

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Development Control Plan No 36 is invalid.' 'Whether clause 6.2 of Development Control Plan No 36 (Brothels) is invalid.' "Whether clause 6.2 impermissibly fetters the council's consideration of a development application for a brothel." 'Whether clause 6.2 restricts all rooms in a brothel or only rooms used for the purposes of prostitution and an office.']

Ratio Decidendi

Development Control Plan No 36 and clause 6.2 were not invalid. Clause 6.2 created more detailed provisions supplementing the Ordinance, did not prohibit brothels, and did not fetter the council's consideration under s 79C or under clauses 46B(1) and 46B(2) of the Ordinance. Properly construed, clause 6.2 limited only rooms used for the purposes of prostitution and any office, not every room in the brothel.

Court Disposition

The questions in the class one proceedings were answered in the negative and the class four application was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Each of the questions asked in the class one proceedings are answered in the negative and the Court directs that the parties be at liberty to approach the Registrar within 7 calendar days in respect of any further re-listing of the class one proceedings.' 'The application be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the...