City of Perth council LGBTQIA+ sex club refusal planning firms, Digi Mart USA News (Perth, Western Australia): Three planning firms have refused to defend the City of Perth’s rejection of a proposed LGBTQIA+ sex club, with council staff warning the decision could be difficult to justify at the State Administrative Tribunal. Councillors were told on Tuesday night that all three firms approached by the city had declined to take on the case after considering the planning grounds for refusing the controversial development.
Planning and sustainability director Maria Cooke said the firms had questioned whether the council’s reasons for rejecting the application could be defended under the planning framework. “A refusal on the basis of those planning merits is very difficult to, I guess, defend from the planning framework that is before them,” Ms Cooke said.
She said planning experts had to put their qualifications and professional reputations on the line when representing a client, and the three firms had been unwilling to do so.
“In the case of those three planning consultants, they weren’t prepared to take the case, given they felt, or they considered, that council’s reasons for refusal were not founded,” she said. Councillor Catherine Lezer asked whether the city had explored options beyond the three firms and whether further attempts had been made to secure representation.
Ms Cooke said staff were continuing to investigate other options to ensure the council would be properly represented if the dispute proceeded through the tribunal.
Councillor Chris Patton asked whether the three firms had given the city identical responses. Ms Cooke said she was “not privy” to the specifics of the conversations, but the feedback centred on the difficulty of defending the original refusal on planning grounds.
The dispute centres on a revised application to transform the upstairs floor of adult retail business Pink Rabbit Club at 129 Barrack Street into a private, members-only 18-plus LGBTQIA+ venue. The proposed club would allow consenting adults to socialise and, if they chose, engage in intimate activities.
The original proposal was rejected by council in July over concerns about its impact on the surrounding area’s amenity and character, including noise, public safety and potential anti-social behaviour.
Following mediation on August 28, the State Administrative Tribunal asked the applicant to provide amended plans and further information before the city reconsidered its decision. The revised proposal, now recommended for approval by planning officers, includes a five-year approval period, a reduction in patron numbers from 50 to 35 and slightly restricted operating hours.
Entry would be limited to registered members, with no casual visitors, walk-ins or guests permitted.
Planning officers have maintained the amended management plan addresses several concerns, including member safety, emergency procedures, cleaning practices and safer sex standards. They have also warned councillors that any further refusal must be supported by defensible planning grounds rather than moral objections.
At Tuesday night’s meeting, the applicant’s representative and town planning law specialist Alex McGlue warned that rejecting the application without proper grounds could expose the city to adverse costs orders at the tribunal. A second refusal could leave ratepayers facing an estimated $30,000 to $50,000 in defence costs, on top of about $10,000 already spent on the tribunal proceedings, excluding staff time.
The council is expected to make a decision on the revised proposal at its November 27 meeting.
