‘We are all heartbroken’: Perth adult shop vows appeal after being told no sex in the city

A Perth adult-shop owner has vowed to appeal a council decision refusing a sex-on-premises space above his business in the CBD.

“This wouldn’t have affected anyone, you wouldn’t have even known it was there,” Pink Rabbit Adult Boutique owner Nicholas Needham told this masthead.

“So I am heartbroken, we are all heartbroken. There were no negatives to this proposal.”

Councillors went against staff recommendations on Tuesday night and denied Needham’s proposal to operate an adults-only exclusive club for consensual sexual activities at 129 Barrack Street.

While three elected members were in support of the Pink Rabbit Club venue, the vote on Tuesday night required an absolute majority and thus failed to get over the line.

Needham said he would be appealing the decision with the State Administrative Tribunal as soon as possible.

“We were hoping councillors would be able to see through the negative comments from fringe members of the neighbourhood,” he said.

“There are venues like this that exist all over the world, in every capital city, so I’m not sure why it’s an issue for the City of Perth.

“It will be beneficial for us to have the recommendation [from the planning department] when we go to SAT.”

Needham said moving the venue to Northbridge was not feasible for a small business, and instead wished the councillors could have seen past the sex-on-premises part of his proposal.

“We are a small business, it would cost us tens of thousands of dollars to pick up and move,” he said.

“This proposal is about community. I wish they could have seen past the sex because for the majority it’s not about sex, it’s about having a safe space to come and congregate and meet people from a similar walk of life.”

Currently, Needham’s business operates as an adult retail shop 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 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.”

Speaking in favour of the venue at Tuesday night’s meeting, 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,” Gobbert 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 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, cafes, 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-premise 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.”

Needham said he didn’t understand how Ko would expect his business to operate without charging a fee.

“I have rent, lights, and air conditioning. It’s a business. I’m not sure if he was acting on incorrect information. However, the membership is free. We aren’t charging to become a member,” Needham said.

“We are charging a small fee to access the space, and it wasn’t a big fee, we were looking at $20 a week.”

Gobbert foreshadowed Needham’s SAT appeal, warning the council on Tuesday that refusal could result in an expensive hearing.

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-premise 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 on the grounds that 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.