Australia, Nov. 30 -- Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal issued text of the following judgement on Nov. 27:

1. This review has been made by Finlay Bird ('applicant for review') under section 82(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) ('P&E Act') for a review of Merri-bek Council's ('Council') decision to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant an Amended Planning Permit ('MPS/2005/209/A') under section 72(1) of the P&E Act.

2. The proposed permit amendments[5] seeks approval for:

* Construction of a new pergola;

* Amendment to conditions 4 and 6 of the permit to allow the extension of trading hours and background music to be played in the courtyard;

* An amendment to the liquor licence to include the sale of take away liquor; and

* Extension of the red line area to include part of the service yard on the northern side of the subject land.

3. Council submits that the proposed amendments to the use and development of the review site is an appropriate outcome for the Brunswick Activity Centre ('BAC'). Noting this expands upon an existing and well-established use and development on the review site that was approved by permit in 2005.

4. Council is satisfied that adverse amenity impacts that may arise from the proposed permit amendments, can be appropriately managed through the approval and implementation of a Venue and Patron Management Plan and implementation of recommendations associated with an Acoustic Report required by new permit conditions. Council is satisfied these proposed conditions will effectively limit off-site amenity impacts to an acceptable level.

5. The photograph below depicts the frontage of the review site as it presents to Lygon Street (Fig 1). A locality map showing the rear residential properties in relation to the review site is also provided for reference purposes

6. Martin John Michael McQuilten (the 'respondent') supports the Council decision and does not contest the proposed conditions on the amended permit MPS/2005/209/A.

7. The respondent submits the proposed 'background music' in the rear courtyard will use mounted speakers on the 'games room' building and be oriented towards the main building. The respondent says the music will be oriented to limit any adverse noise impacts towards the residential area located to the rear of the site.

8. The applicant for review does not support Council's decision and does not agree with the respondent. The Statement of Grounds lodged by the applicant for review states:

Insufficient information contained in the application to grant a permit. Application did not contain accurate information, contained numerous errors and issues and insufficient information has been provided by the Responsible Authority to inform a permit being granted.

9. While the applicant for review says he does not have 'a fundamental objection' to the amendments sought, he agrees that 'amenity impacts and specifically noise impacts' are the 'key consideration.'

10. The applicant for review submits '... potential noise issues arising from the proposed amendments, amplified by the previous breaches of the existing permit, need to be properly assessed prior to, and to allow for, an informed decision to be made.' The applicant for review considers '... that it is inappropriate to defer all noise considerations until post-permit in the circumstances where noise impacts are both the primary and the only material consideration.'

*Rest of the document and Footnotes can be viewed at: (https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2024/1115.html)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.