“A tenancy granted to persons who are residing in a group situation for periods of a week or less for the purposes of bucks and hens nights, parties or for the use of escorts or strippers, is, in my opinion, not consistent with a use or occupation by a family or household group in the ordinary way of life, and therefore, not consistent with the use of the property as that of a “dwelling-house”…. Inherent within the term “domicile” is, as a long line of authority in this jurisdiction has established, the notion of a permanent home or, at the very least, a significant degree of permanence of habitation or occupation…  

(The Respondent) readily agreed that she could not guarantee compliance with the House Rules or the Code of Conduct.

…the harm caused to the environment is not limited to the undermining of the planning regime.  The adverse impact on the amenity and wellbeing of the (Residents) has been, as the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates, severe.

​

By leaving it to the Court to determine this important issue, the council, by its inaction, has, in my opinion, failed to fulfil its core functions and has failed its constituents.”

​

“There is a difference in the living and activity patterns and behaviour of short and long-term residents...  Short term residents have no long-term interest in the maintenance of the amenity within the building or the surrounding area… 

​

The proposal will require extensive building upgrades for fire safety and for access for persons with a disability. The proposal will likely lead to a disproportionate financial burden on long-term residents, in terms of retrofitting the building, and as well, for operational repairs and maintenance.”  

​

New South Wales Land and Environment Court Case Law