Council blasts Souths over pokies appeal

City of Sydney councillors have railed against South Sydney Leagues Club’s decision to appeal to the Land & Environment Court for a Section 96 amendment to its club redevelopment, calling a meeting with club representatives in a last-ditch effort to force reconsideration of their position.

Council last year approved the club redevelopment, but with heavy reservations about the placement of poker machines on the first floor of the club, just one level above a supermarket. Council was legally advised it would find it difficult to oppose the development on the basis of the machines’ location.

“At that time, we were told that legally, we didn’t have much of a leg to stand on, so it was more about trying to pressure them morally,” said Councillor John McInerney. “The fundamental problem is that the location of poker machines cannot by controlled by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. If it’s a registered club, they have the right to install poker machines, and there’s basically nothing we can do.”

Greens Councillor Irene Doutney said she was “disappointed” at the proposed amendments. “I’m really dying to hear how they are justifying doubling the size of the balcony, doing the opposite of what we asked for,” she said. “The balcony was a real sticking point when it came to Council – it overlooks a preschool, and they were going to look at how they mitigated the effects, maybe even make it smaller. No-one wants to stop the club being completed, but they’re making it very difficult for councillors to support them.”

A note from Souths CEO Ken Stewart to members stated: “Whilst the S96 was approved in the City of Sydney Planning Department, and further recommended for approval to the Councillors and Lord Mayor, unfortunately it was refused at this level. The Board felt very strongly that the amendments to our original Development Application needed to be implemented to ensure we can offer our members a viable venue with facilitates any member would expect. We therefore appealed the Councillors’ refusal.”

But Cr McInerney said he believed Souths had broken an undertaking to Council. “The decision we passed at Council was, I thought, a promise from Peter Holmes à Court and the club they would do all they could to not have pokies in the club,” he said. “I’ve yet to see proof that they have tried, as they promised, to operate without pokies.”

Souths chairman Bill Alexiou-Hucker said the board had twice developed revenue models to fund the club without poker machines, but said there was simply no alternative stream in existence at the moment which would allow the club to open without pokies.

The case may ultimately not wind up in court, with Mr Stewart’s note claiming a conciliation meeting with Council to resolve the two parties’ differences was scheduled for Tuesday, May 4.