[2012] VCAT 600
General information, not legal advice.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2012-05-25
Original judgment source is linked above.
Buildings and works for a bottle shop, use of the land to sell liquor under a packaged liquor licence, the display of advertising signs, the alteration of access to land in a Road Zone Category 1, and a reduction in car parking requirements
[1] Amendment VC79 to all schemes (in operation 8 April 2011).
[2] The licence application plans were the same, in all practical respects, to the permit application plans. The 'red line' licensed area encompassed the boundaries of the bottle shop building.
[3] Statement of policy under the LCR Act issued by the Minister for Consumer Affairs on 5 October 2010.
[6] This is consistent with the principle that a discretion under a scheme must only be exercised in accordance with the purpose for which the discretion is conferred.
[7] This is relevant because a median prevents right hand turns from the land to Point Nepean Road.
[8] The land is subject to ESO25 as is all land fronting Point Nepean Road. The Department of Sustainability and Environment, as referral authority in ESO25, did not object to the permit application.
[9] Victoria, Department of Planning and Community Development, Licensed premises: Assessing cumulative impact, Practice Note 61 (March 2011).
[10] If this was not the key underlying concern, then movement by other means (eg private car, taxi or public transport) would have resulted in an assessment area way beyond 500 m, leading to a highly problematic and speculative assessment of impacts at such distances.
[11] See the evidence considered in Nardi v Director of Liquor Licensing [2005] VCAT 323; Hansen v Director of Liquor Licensing [2006] VCAT 2544; Joshamie Nominees Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing [2009] VCAT 2188; Papas v Director of Liquor Licensing [2008] VCAT 1944.
Coles Group Property Developments Ltd
Mornington Peninsula SC