Three firms decline to defend City of Perth club refusal at SAT
Three planning firms declined to defend the City of Perth's refusal of a members-only venue at 129 Barrack Street; a vote on revised plans is due 27 November.
- Source Briefing
- Read original source · PerthNow
City of Perth councillors heard at a Tuesday night meeting, reported by PerthNow on 13 November 2026, that three planning firms asked to defend the council’s July refusal of a members-only venue at 129 Barrack Street all turned the work down.
Why it matters
The City of Perth refused the original application in July citing the likely impact on local amenity and character, with noise, public safety and possible anti-social behaviour named as concerns. The matter then went to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).
The news that moved today. Free email. Every weekday morning.
According to PerthNow, council planning and sustainability director Maria Cooke said the firms doubted the refusal reasons could be defended under the planning framework. She said a refusal on those planning merits was “very difficult to, I guess, defend from the planning framework that is before them”.
Ms Cooke said the consultants would not stake their professional reputations on the case because they judged the council’s reasons unfounded. She told the meeting she was not privy to the detail of each conversation.
The numbers
The dispute is over a revised application for the first floor above the Pink Rabbit Club adult retail shop at 129 Barrack Street, to become a private, members-only, 18-plus LGBTQIA+ venue. Planning officers now recommend approving the revised proposal, which PerthNow says includes:
- A five-year approval period.
- Patron numbers cut from 50 to 35.
- Slightly shorter operating hours.
- Registered members only, with no casual visitors, walk-ins or guests.
Officers say the amended management plan covers member safety, emergency procedures, cleaning and safer sex standards.
On cost, PerthNow reported that a second refusal could cost ratepayers an estimated $30,000 to $50,000 in defence, on top of about $10,000 already spent on the tribunal case, with staff time excluded.
Alex McGlue, a town planning law specialist acting for the applicant, warned the meeting that refusing without proper grounds could invite adverse costs orders at the tribunal.
Officers also cautioned councillors that any further refusal needs defensible planning grounds, not moral objections.
What’s next
After mediation on 28 August, SAT asked the applicant for amended plans and more information before the city reconsidered. Those revised plans are now before councillors, with a decision expected at the council’s 27 November meeting, according to PerthNow.
Cr Catherine Lezer asked whether the city had looked past the three firms. Ms Cooke said staff are still exploring other options so the council is properly represented if the dispute goes through the tribunal. Cr Chris Patton asked whether the three had answered the same way; Ms Cooke said their feedback focused on how hard the original refusal is to defend on planning grounds.
On 27 November councillors will either follow the officer recommendation and approve the revised plans, or refuse again and take the matter back to the tribunal.
Sources
Source: PerthNow.
More from the desk: another Perth planning dispute going to council, Bar Ole’s Iluka storage area.
Quick answers
What are the key numbers in this story?
firms declined: 3; patron cap: 50 to 35; estimated defence costs: $30,000-$50,000.
Where does this information come from?
This story cites PerthNow. Every source is linked on the page.
Sources
Filed by the AusDev Perth Desk. How we report.