Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2011-12-22

For the reasons above and in the context of the current social and economic setting of the municipality, I am satisfied that the net economic and social impact of granting the proposed amendment to Club Italia's venue operator's licence will not be detrimental to the community of the municipality.
The application will be allowed subject to conditions as addressed above.
I confirm that no planning permission is required under clause 52.28 of the Brimbank Planning Scheme for the proposal.

[1] Club Italia Sporting Club Inc. is the trading entity that operates the gaming machines. Italo Australian Co-operative Social Club Limited owns the land and the buildings. The boards of both clubs are the same and a person who wishes to become a member must be a member of both.

[3] Declared on 21 October 2009 in respect of postcodes 3012, 3020, 3021, 3022, 3023 and 3038.

[4] Allowing for the reduced number of EGMs at the Glengala Hotel from 60 to 50. The only other notable changes compared with existing entitlements ere an increase of 7 at the Sunshine City Club and an increase of 6 at the Watergardens Hotel and minus 10 from Westend Market Hotel.

[5] Although that venue operates under a separate venue operator's licence.

[6] Including the Transfer Rules gazetted on 24 March 2010.

[7] Having regard to comments made in Macedon Ranges SC v Romsey Hotel Pty Ltd & Anor [2008] VSCA 45 and Branbeau v VCGR [2005] VCAT 2606.

[8] In addition to the material filed by the VCGR under section 49 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

[9] Colloquially referred to as the 'use it or lose it' deadline.

[11] i.e. with the intent to minimise the harm associated with problem gambling whilst facilitating lawful opportunities for recreation associated with gaming.

[12] With three ALH venues within the Brimbank capped area in the top 12 highest performing venues in terms of revenue per machine.

[13] Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage. I have also considered the more detailed statistics furnished in the Quick evidence.

[14] Expenditure per adult at 30 June 2011 was $1004 in Brimbank compared with $651 in Melbourne.

[15] 6.79 in Brimbank compared with 6.08 in Melbourne.

[16] Within this, ALH venues draw 37%, other hotels total 45% and clubs total 18%.

[17] At the same time I acknowledge that he is a director of the company that would stand to benefit from annual management fees if the additional EGMs were approved, as disclosed in his evidence. Irrespective, I have taken account of his expertise and experience with modelling of this kind.

[19] In a practical sense there would also be a further increase of 5 machines at the St Albans Hotel in line with the current approval.

[20] In line with Mr Whitehouse's evidence, the ultimate figure will depend on exactly which venues they are removed from and in what amount.

[21] An increase of approximately 0.19-0.3% per annum.

[22] and 5 are added to the St Albans Hotel.

[23] Through a process I will summarise below.

[24] Although there is a potential change to the amount actually retained by the hotel versus the government in terms of the deregulation of the Tattersalls/Tabcorp model and changed tax arrangements.

[25] Indeed, the relationship between an increased number of machines and problem/vulnerability to problem gambling is complex and is not directly proportionate according to recent research.

[27] Supplemented by a small survey of actual gaming patrons, 85% of which came from the catchment area identified.

[28] As defined by Mr Quick and not seriously challenged by any party.

[29] With minimal change from the St Albans Hotel additional machines in this calculation.

[31] The community benefit statement 2011 showed a community benefit of $1.2 million. On the evidence of Mr Quick, this is at the upper end of the scale and the second highest out of six clubs in Brimbank.

[32] Documented in the evidence given by the Club and Quick, including discounts for senior citizens, sporting groups and the like totalling some $70,000 per annum including support for its formalised alliance with Sports Education Development Australia by providing areas on site for educational/training opportunities.

[33] With a total floor area available to the public of 265 square metres, totalling some 12% of trading floorspace according to Ms Jordan's uncontested evidence.

[34] The works as a package are summarised in Mr Vargiu's statement of evidence and are depicted on a current planning permit for buildings and works, No. P270/2006 issued on 28 July 2006.

[35] Added in this application as a condition of approval, which was not the case at the time of the Commission's decision.

[36] Although on Mr Vargiu's evidence the soccer lighting upgrade and kitchen upgrade could probably be budgeted for. As per Mr Vargiu's enquiries, the challenge for the synthetic soccer pitch being awarded a substantial government grant is that is it on privately owned land.

[37] Mr Vasta calculated that the machines would provide the Club with upwards of $660,000 annually in additional revenue. The Club currently repays a $2.6 million loan through money raised from a car parking lease of part of its land.

[38] A copy of the most recent annual financial report was tendered at the hearing among other relevant documents. It indicated in summary that one part of the Club has substantial assets through its ownership of its land and facilities. It had approximately $320,000 of savings.

[39] Having heard the evidence of Mr Vargiu, I suspect that the first course of action to facilitate the payment would be the continued deferral of some maintenance items although I ultimately do not need to make a finding about this.

[40] Having regard to a broad range of matters including social and economic impacts.

[41] A key consideration is the new limit on ALH to not exceed 35% of entitlements. This would require them to reduce by approximately 1,000 machines statewide.

[42] Referred to throughout this proceeding as "backfilling".

[43] Although it is required to be undertaken at a public session meeting. Records of such meetings were tendered by the applicant at the hearing, as were relevant application forms and fact sheets and booklets.

[44] Copies of other recent records of these VCGR amendments of geographic conditions were tendered at the hearing.

[46] I sighted the current planning permit authorising the buildings and works.

[47] Including payments of the additional gaming entitlements and substantial maintenance works that have been held over to date.

[50] I note that Mr Rantino conceded that the 2006-2009 Gambling Policy & Action Plan or the Brimbank Electronic Gambling Policy 2010-2013 adopted by the Council would not have provided genuine support for the refusal of the application.

[51] Comprising Amendment C93 which has been the subject of a Panel Report. These documents were tendered at the hearing.

[52] Some 350 metres to the nearest residence.

[53] From 10am to 1am the following day.

Club Italia Sporting Club Inc v Brimbank CC [2011] VCAT 2378 (22 December 2011)

Club Italia Sporting Club Inc v Brimbank CC [2011] VCAT 2378

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (49 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)

Club Italia Sporting Club Inc v Brimbank CC [2011] VCAT 2378 (22 December 2011)