An adult shop in East Dubbo will not be allowed signs visible from the road, after Dubbo City councillors fell in line with a ruling from the Land and Environment Court.

In 2006 the court ruled Passions adult shop should be able to open less than 200 metres away from the nearby Dubbo Presbyterian church. But it limited Passions’ signage.

Council staff recommended allowing a new sign facing north be agreed to.

But at Monday night’s council meeting councillors felt that was against the court ruling which said there should be no obvious sign or indication of Passions’ use, either from the road or a nearby church.

Instead they will allow Passions an extra sign on its front window, and one on the façade wall - both facing west and therefore not the road.

It is a rare win for the Presbyterian church which has argued against the presence of the sex shop near its building.

According to church personnel Passions has in the past 12 to 18 months flouted the ruling allowing it only one sign by erecting other signs. When council requested Passions remove the signs, it did so but asked they be made legal.

The church’s Rev Wayne Connor told the council meeting it was clear from the Land and Environment Court ruling - which he distributed to councillors - that Passions was only allowed to originally open if its presence was “discreet”.

“It should not be apparent from the street,” he told councillors.

“The limited signage should give no indication of the nature of the use of the premises.”

The church and some Dubbo councillors are also frustrated by the presence of Passions’

logo-painted van parked in the street.

But councillors have noted they can do nothing about it.

Council was worried about allowing Passions extra signage, since it went against the

Land and Environment Court ruling.

Cr Richard Mutton, whose amendment allowing Passions one extra sign was adopted, said he was “disturbed” council could ignore the court ruling.

“This is a restricted business and signage needs to be discreet,” he said, noting that the illegal signs were in “defiance” of the court’s ruling.

Council also requested a review of provisions relating to restricted premises, to ensure more “definitive” provisions are applied when assessing any further restricted businesses such as adult shops.