Mr Matthew Beazley, Solicitor of Norton Rose Australia.

By letter emailed on 20 July 2011, Dr Robinson advised that she would not be attending the hearing.

For Richard Stubbs, Cindy & Simon Reed, Wendy Cremmins

Mr Richard Stubbs OAM, Ms Cindy Reed and Ms Wendy Cremmins.

1. This is an application by Casey City Council to cancel a permit for animal husbandry (keeping of 10 dogs) issued by Council on 29 October 2008. As a result of an application for review against conditions by Dr Robinson, the permit was varied at the direction of the Tribunal on 6 August 2009. The permit has been subsequently amended on 4 September 2009 and 5 February 2010 to implement correction orders of the Tribunal.
2. By emailed letter received by the Tribunal on the 20 July 2011, Dr Robinson advised that she would not be attending the hearing on the basis that I have no faith whatsoever in the justice of the determinations of VCAT. She further added that I have decided to sell my property rather than be subjected to continuing illegal harassment by neighbours and the unjustifiable conditions of my permit.
3. Her letter also outlined her concerns about the behaviour and treatment by Casey City Council, the decision and procedure adopted by VCAT at the previous hearing in 2009 and the behaviour of neighbours.
4. In the absence of Dr Robinson, but being mindful of the issues raised in her letter to the Tribunal, I asked Council and the other parties attending the hearing to make submissions as to why the permit should be cancelled.
5. I do not repeat all that material but it is retained on the Tribunal file. Mr Geoffrey McDonald, Senior Planning Investigation Officer of the City of Casey gave evidence and answered questions. Mr Richard Stubbs, Ms Cindy Reed and Ms Wendy Cremmins made written and oral submissions.
6. At the end of the hearing I gave an oral decision to cancel the permit. This is a summary of the oral reasons given for that decision.
7. Section 87A (1) (b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 allows the Tribunal to cancel or amend any permit if there is any substantial failure to comply with the conditions of the permit. I am satisfied that there have been consistent and ongoing failures to comply with the permit conditions. These include:
   1. Failure to provide amended plans as required by Conditions 1, 2 & 3;
   2. Failure to undertake a noise assessment as required by Condition 2;
   3. Failure to provide a landscape plan as required by Condition 3;
   4. Keeping of more than ten dogs and breeds other than English Cocker Spaniels contrary to Conditions 5 and 23;
   5. Dogs allowed to roam the property and exercise outside yards contrary to Conditions 9, 13 and 14; and
   6. Failure to construct fencing and other works as required by Conditions 1 and 1A.
8. Despite every opportunity given by Council for Dr Robinson to have time to comply with the permit conditions, I am satisfied that there has been little attempt by Dr Robinson to comply with the permit conditions referred to above. Her most recent correspondence received by the Tribunal on 20 July 2011 is a clear indication that she does not accept the requirements imposed by the permit first issued in 2008 and subsequently amended by the Tribunal.
9. Although Dr Robinson may object to the original VCAT decision and what she states are oppressive, unnecessary and financially punitive conditions placed on the permit, the fact remains they are conditions that must be complied with even if she disagrees with them. If desired she could seek to amend the permit but I am advised that no such application has been made.
10. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, including the matters set out in Dr Robinson's emailed letter and her comments about the permit conditions, I will cancel permit No P294/08A.

1. After giving my oral decision to cancel the permit, Mr Beazley made an oral submission seeking a costs order against Dr Robinson in favour of the Responsible Authority.
2. In making his application Mr Beazley acknowledged that Section 109(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 requires parties to bear their own costs, but he also noted that the Tribunal may make an order for costs in certain circumstances.
3. In this instance he submits that the conduct of Dr Robinson has lead to unnecessary expense to Council and its ratepayers for the following reasons:

1. She has not attended today's hearing to respond to any of the issues concerning non compliance with permit conditions; 2. She has consistently failed to comply with the permit conditions despite Council providing many opportunities for her to do so before taking action to cancel the permit; and

1. Because of her disregard of the permit conditions it has forced Council to bring this proceeding to cancel the permit, with the cost to Council of legal representation.
2. Mr Beazley did not specify a dollar amount to be awarded. He also acknowledged that seeking costs is not about punishing Dr Robinson, rather it is a question of recouping some of Council's expenses in having to make the application to cancel the permit.
3. I indicated that I would not make a decision on the costs application until I had given Dr Robinson an opportunity to respond in writing. My order directs that she responds in writing within 21 days of the date of this order. If no response is forthcoming by that date a decision will be made on the basis of the material already before the Tribunal.