Markets 
City of Perth councillors have gone against staff recommendations and denied an adult store’s request to operate a sex-on-premises site in the heart of the city, suggesting they take it to Northbridge instead.
While three elected members voted in support of the Pink Rabbit Club venue on Barrack Street operating as an LGBTQI+ community safe space, the vote on Tuesday night required an absolute majority and thus failed to get over the line.
The development application sought to allow the Pink Rabbit Club to run an adults-only exclusive club for consensual sexual activities at 129 Barrack Street.
Currently, the building operates as an adult retail shop – known as Pink Rabbit Adult Boutique – on the ground floor, but the development application would see the upper floor become a space for “social connection, education and consensual sexual activity”.
The report to council noted the applicant, Rowe Group, described the space as being designed to “foster a sex-positive, inclusive, and affirming environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and other identities within the community”.
“As an 18+ exclusive club, it emphasises social connection, education, and consensual intimate activities in a non-judgmental setting. Members are united by a shared interest in fostering LGBTQI+ community connections, including safe discussions, social interactions, and consensual activities (including those of sexual nature) that support personal expression and well-being,” the applicant said in the report.
Speaking in favour of the venue, councillor Liam Gobbert said the proposal offered no reasons for objection.
“Should the clientele be a factor in determining this matter, it would amount to an interference, I believe, in a landowner’s private enjoyment of their lot,” he said.
“I do think it is worth mentioning, though, having said that, that the proposed clientele to being the LGBTQIA+ community is a good thing.
“Safe spaces for any historically or contemporaneously marginalised, disadvantaged, or persecuted parts of the community are a good thing, and that a private landowner is seeking to provide that type of a safe space in our city without government support should be seen as a good thing.”
Councillor Lisa Ma, who also supported the proposal, said the council should respond directly to the concerns raised by the community about this item “because, underneath the language of location and antisocial behaviour, the real discomfort for many is the sex-on-premises nature of this venue”.
“So on location, let’s be honest about what’s really being asked: not ‘is Barrack Street suitable’, but ‘should this kind of activity exist anywhere in our city at all?’,” she said.
“Sex-on-premises venues aren’t exactly new or exotic. They operate lawfully across Australian capital cities, always as private membership-based clubs, and precisely because of that, that structure keeps the activity consensual, controlled, and out of the public view.
“Again, this proposal follows that exact model: upstairs, no signage, no street presence, members only. If we reject here on locational grounds, in my opinion, we’re not solving a planning problem.
“We’re saying we’d rather this activity stay unregulated and out of sight somewhere we don’t have to think about.”
Despite their championing for the approval, fellow council members were not prepared to budge.
Councillor Catherine Lezer said there was a place for inclusive safe spaces in the city – but it was not on Barrack Street.
“The submissions and the ratepayers tell me a venue for adult activity does not belong here,” she said.
“Barrack Street in 2026 is a vastly different place from the COVID-recovery vacancy landscape of 2022, when the Pink Rabbit retail-only store was approved. There are now shops, cafés, restaurants, family apartments, hotels, renovated heritage buildings, and Barrack Street continues to improve.
“I urge the owner to perhaps consider Northbridge, an entertainment precinct suited for this type of venue. This is simply the wrong use in the wrong place.”
Similarly, councillor Chris Patten said an entertainment precinct would be a “much better location” for a sex-on-premises site.
Councillor Viktor Ko said one of his main concerns was that members would have to pay for a membership to attend the venue.
“I cannot agree with charging for membership. It goes against the model of inclusion. It goes against the model of actually including and welcoming people,” he said.
“And from my research, I can’t find any other business in the city that actually offers the same service as this. So if we do approve this, this will be one of its one of its only businesses in the city that offers this.”
Gobbert warned that refusal of the development application could result in an expensive State Administrative Tribunal hearing.
“I couldn’t see any [reasons] in this DA. Is there a legitimate reason to refuse the DA, and what’s the going rate for defending a SAT case at the moment? Is it $25,000 to $30,000 of ratepayers money?” he asked the council staff.
Acting chief executive Maria Cooke said amenity impact claims were not strong enough to warrant a refusal, and that SAT rates, depending on the length of the hearing, could cost tens of thousands of dollars.
The recommendation to approve the sex-on-premises site was lost 4-3. Councillors Raj Doshi and Adam Pacan were absent from the meeting and therefore did not vote.
Perth Lord Mayor Bruce Reynolds made an alternative motion to refuse the application because the venue would “adversely impact upon the amenity and character of the locality … by way of adverse noise, reduced public safety, and residential and social behaviour”.
It was approved 5-2 with councillors Ma and Gobbert voting against it.
From our partners
Read the full article here
