1. The decision of the responsible authority is varied.
2. The Tribunal directs that planning permit MPS/2000/1057/A must contain the conditions set out in the notice of decision to amend planning permit MPS/2000/1057/A issued by the responsible authority on 23 May 2016 with the following modifications:
   • (a) For condition 1, substitute:
     1. Before the buildings and works authorised by amendment of this permit (in the notice of decision to amend a planning permit issued on 23 May 2016 as modified by the final orders of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in proceeding no. P1435/2016) start, amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the amended permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans on which notice was given of the application to amend the permit (being the plans prepared by Bate Design Strategies job no. 14041 drawing nos. EX001 dated 2015, EX100 dated 2015, TP001 dated 2015, TP100 dated 2015, TP200 dated 2015, TP201 dated 2015, VGCLR02 dated 17 March 2015, LL100 dated 2015, EX200 dated 2015 and the landscape plan prepared by Millar & Merrigan Pty Ltd drawing no. L01 version 1 sheet 1 of 1 dated 5 June 2015) but modified to show:

(c) Replacement of the tree in the south-eastern property boundary adjoining the vehicle access with low lying shrubs.

(d) A screen between the reception area/foyer and the gaming room that provides a partial visual barrier between the two floor areas.

6 The number of gaming machines in the premises must not exceed 50.

(c) For condition 33, substitute:

1. Before a Building Permit is issued in relation to the development allowed by the amendment of this permit in the notice of decision to amend a planning permit issued on 23 May 2016, as modified by the final orders of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in proceeding no. P1435/2016), a Development Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Moreland City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan. The Development Infrastructure Levy amount for this development is $1,016.93 per 100 square metres of additional leasable floor space approved by this amended permit and in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan, will be indexed annually on 1 July.

(d) For condition 34, substitute:

1. This permit as amended in the notice of decision to amend a planning permit issued on 23 May 2016, as modified by the final orders of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in proceeding no. P1435/2016 (the 'amended permit'), will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The development allowed by the amended permit does not start within two years from the date of issue of the amended permit.

(b) The development allowed by the amended permit is not completed within four years from the date of issue of the amended permit.

(c) The use of the additional electronic gaming machines allowed by the amended permit does not start within one year from the date the development allowed by this permit is completed.

(d) A licence or amended licence under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 for the increase in the area that liquor may be consumed or supplied is not issued within one year from the date the development allowed by this permit is completed.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

1. Planning permit MPS/2000/1057/A is modified. For 'what the permit allows', substitute:

Construction of buildings and works for a Place of Assembly and Gaming venue in a Residential Growth Zone

Use and installation of 10 additional electronic gaming machines

Increase in the area that liquor may be consumed or supplied under a licence issued under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998

1. The responsible authority is directed to issue a modified planning permit in accordance with this order.

Ms Louise Hicks of Counsel, instructed by Williams Winter Lawyers

• Mr Nick Anderson, town planner, NBA Group Pty Ltd
• Ms Renae Nicholson, secretary, Glenroy RSL Sub Branch Inc

Ms Kim Piskuric, Harwood Andrews Lawyers (23, 24 & 25 January 2017) & Mr Greg Tobin, Harwood Andrews Lawyers (28 February 2017)

• Mr Rob Milner, town planner, 10 Consulting Group Pty Ltd

For Moreland Resident and Ratepayers Action Group Inc

Building and works to alter and extend the Glenroy RSL premises

Installation and use of additional 10 electronic gaming machines (for a total of 50 electronic gaming machines) in the existing gaming room at the Glenroy RSL premises

Application under section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review conditions 1(a) & 6 in the notice of decision to grant an amended permit dated 23 May 2016

Residential Growth Zone Schedule 1 (RGZ1) (Activity Centres)

Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 1 (DCPO1) (Moreland Development Contributions Plan Overlay)

The land adjoins a road in a Road Zone Category 1 (RDZ1) (Glenroy Road)

Clause 32.07-6 (buildings and works for a section 2 use in the RGZ)

Clause 52.27 (increase in the area in which liquor may be sold or consumed)

Clause 52.28-2 (use and installation of 10 additional electronic gaming machines)

Clauses 10, 11, 17, 21.01, 21.02, 21.03, 22.09, 22.10, 45.06, 45.09, 52.28 & 65

The land in the application is an irregular shaped lot fronting Glenroy Road, about 50 metres east of Blenheim Street. It has a frontage of about 42 metres and a depth of about 202 metres. The rear of the land abuts Murrell Street. A lane runs along the western boundary. The land is used for the Glenroy RSL clubrooms (a Place of assembly). The single-storey premises adjoin Glenroy Road and there is at grade car parking to the east side and at the rear of the premises. The RSL owns land to the west of the lane, fronting Blenheim Street, on which is located a commercial building occupied by a tyre merchant and contains at grade parking available to RSL members and guests/patrons. This additional land is not part of the application because the amended permit does not include this land

On 24 January 2017, the Tribunal inspected the RSL premises, accompanied by the parties, and then inspected surrounding land in the Glenroy activity centre, unaccompanied by the parties

1. The Glenroy RSL Sub Branch Inc (the Glenroy RSL) has conducted its activities from premises on the subject land in Glenroy Road since 1957. For more than 20 years, the Glenroy RSL's premises have included a room in which members and guests have played electronic gaming machines (EGMs). Since around 2001, the room has contained 40 EGMs.
2. Revenue from the EGMs helps the Glenroy RSL provide welfare and support services to returned service people and their families. We agree with the views expressed on a number of occasions by the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (the Commission), that RSLs provide a unique and strong community service.[2]
3. The Glenroy RSL's single-level premises currently comprise a lounge (with TAB and pool table), a 140-patron function room, a 100-seat bistro, a 40 EGM-gaming room and a children's play area (the premises). There is car parking to the east side and rear of the premises. The premises are tired. The Glenroy RSL believes its premises struggle to meet the needs of its members and the local community and will not meet future needs.
4. The Glenroy RSL wants to substantial upgrade to its premises with a major internal refurbishment. It involves a marginal increase in the building footprint. The footprint of the gaming room is unaltered but the number of EGMs is proposed to be increased by 10 to 50. The lounge is changed to a sports bar. The function room is to have a new bar, toilet facilities, stage and an alfresco area.
5. The Glenroy RSL has submitted, in this proceeding, that the anticipated increased revenue from the 10 additional EGMs is essential to fund the upgrade to its premises.
6. In 2001, the Council granted a permit under the Moreland Planning Scheme (the scheme) that, in effect, authorised the installation and use of the 40 existing EGMs (the 2001 permit). The Glenroy RSL applied to the Council to amend the 2001 permit to allow the 10 additional EGMs, the buildings and works to refurbish the premises, and to extend the area in which liquor may be supplied and consumed. Public notice was given of the application. The Council received objections.
7. The Council issued a notice of decision dated 23 May 2016 to amend the 2001 permit. The notice of decision allowed the buildings and works and the extension to the liquor licence but did not allow the 10 additional EGMs. Conditions 1(a) and 6 in the amended 2001 permit maintained the 40 EGM cap. The Glenroy RSL has applied to the Tribunal to review these two conditions. No objector applied to the Tribunal to review the Council's decision.[3]

1. The Glenroy RSL applied to the Commission under the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 (the GR Act) to amend its venue operator's licence to authorise 10 additional EGMs ie increase the number of permitted EGMs from 40 to 50.
2. The Council objected to the Commission against the granting of the application. The Council filed a statement of evidence on social and economic impacts by Ms Bonnie Rosen, who opposed approval. Ms Rosen relied, in part, on the Council's then adopted policy on gaming machines. As we state later in these reasons, that policy has now been included in the scheme.
3. The Council subsequently withdrew its objection when it reached agreement with the Glenroy RSL on draft conditions of approval. The Commission granted approval on 22 October 2015 and included the two agreed conditions. The two conditions are:

The Glenroy RSL agrees to contribute $20,000 per annum (for the life of the entitlements) towards initiatives for community support and education within Moreland, as agreed in consultation with Moreland City Council.[4]

If the works proposed in application to amend planning permit MPS/2000/1057/A are not substantially completed within two years of the date on which the corresponding planning permit is granted, this approval will lapse and the number of electronic gaming machines that may be operated by the Glenroy RSL will revert to 40.[5]

1. The Council did not apply to the Tribunal to review the Commission's decision under the GR Act. Accordingly, we are only reviewing the Council's decision under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the PE Act).
2. The Moreland Resident and Ratepayers Action Group Inc supports the Commission's decision and its representative, Ms Jennifer Jacomb, submits the Council is estopped by its decision to withdraw its objection to the Commission (ie to not oppose the 10 additional EGMs) from issuing the notice of decision under the scheme (ie to oppose the 10 additional EGMs). We do not accept that submission. The application regimes under the GR Act and PE Act are separate and distinct, although linked.
3. We agree with Ms Hicks' submissions that our task is not a de facto review of the Commission's decision. The Commission's decision does not in any way mean that we must allow the Glenroy RSL's review application. In essence, we must decide if the Glenroy RSL's application to amend the 2001 permit is an acceptable planning outcome, having regard to the provisions of the scheme, without the inclusion of the two disputed conditions in the notice of decision.
4. Although the application regimes under the GR Act and PE Act are separate and distinct, they overlap. This overlap is illustrated by the Commission's task to consider whether the net economic and social impact of approval would not be detrimental to the wellbeing of the community of the municipal district in which the premises are located. The Commission's primary focus is accordingly on the municipal district.[6]
5. As we state later in these reasons, the Council's task (and the Tribunal's task, on review) is more confined and has a narrower focus.[7] This is because the purpose of the provision in the scheme under which a permit is required to install additional EGMs includes to consider the social and economic impacts 'of the location of gaming machines'.
6. We infer from the Council's withdrawal of its objection to the application under the GR Act that the Council is satisfied that the net economic and social impact of 10 additional EGMs in the premises would not be detrimental to the wellbeing of the Moreland City community.
7. The Commission's findings are not a complete answer to our task because, despite the overlapping nature of some considerations, we are making a decision under a different legislative regime. Nonetheless, we place considerable weight, but not overriding weight, on the Commission's findings.[8]
8. We do so for the following main reasons. First, the application was not contested by the Council.[9] Second, there is no special reason to revisit the Commission's findings. Third, the Commission had before it more expert evidence on social and economic impacts than was before us. Fourth, the Commission considered the narrower context of impacts, being impacts on the area within a 2.5 km radius of the premises and did do with the benefit of expert evidence.
9. In relation to the second of these reasons, the Council submitted there is a special reason, being the status of its policy. The policy is now part of the scheme. We do not find this a special reason that warrants giving the Commission's findings less weight. There is no difference in substance between the Council's policy before the Commission and the policy now before us that is included in the scheme.
10. So, we now turn to the Commission's findings. We summarise the relevant findings as follows:
    • (a) Moreland has a population growth above the Victorian average.[10]
    • (b) Part of Moreland, that does not include the premises, is subject to a regional cap of 640 EGMs and the remaining part of Moreland, that does include the premises is subject to a municipal cap of 445 EGMs. The additional 10 EGMs would result in the EGMs in the municipal cap area rising to 139 which would remain under the 445 EGM cap.[11]
    • (c) The current EGM density in Moreland of 5.2 EGMs per 1,000 adults is lower than the Melbourne metropolitan average of 5.4 and Victorian average of 5.7, and would remain lower than both of those averages if the additional EGMs were installed.[12]
    • (d) EGM expenditure per adult in Moreland is $468 or 18.8% lower than the Melbourne metropolitan average and 15.5% lower than the Victorian average, and the additional EGMs would result in expenditure per adult rising by 0.9%.[13]
    • (e) In the area within a 2.5 km radius of the premises, 65% of the SA1s (the smallest unit for release of Census data) are in the two most disadvantaged quintiles of the SEIFA index of relative socio-economic disadvantage score in Moreland.[14]
    • (f) Unemployment decreased in Moreland in the previous twelve months but remained 0.8% above the Melbourne metropolitan unemployment rate of 6.6%.
    • (g) The low level of anticipated new expenditure (about $54,000) from the new EGMs, the Moreland demographic profile and the age profile of the premises' patrons are indicative of the potential increase in problem gambling being low.[15]
    • (h) The area around the premises is undergoing urban renewal and demographic and socio-economic change.[16]
    • (i) On balance, the additional EGMs will have a minor but positive economic impact on the Moreland community.[17]
    • (j) The Glenroy RSL's status as a club and its members' older demographic profile may decrease the risk of problem gambling and the additional EGMs do not affect these factors.[18]
    • (k) Moreland is not particularly vulnerable to problem gambling and the potential for increased problem gambling in Moreland resulting from the additional EGMs is low.[19]
11. The Inner North West Primary Care Partnership (the INWPCP) represents more than 30 health and human service agencies with the municipal districts of Melbourne, Yarra, Moonee Valley and Moreland.[20] Its submission referred to the health impacts of gambling, higher problem gambling rates in lower socio-economic status areas, the correlation between problem gambling and family violence, homelessness, mental health and drug use.
12. We are unable to rely on these submissions to refuse Glenroy RSL's application because the submission in broad terms oppose use of EGMs contrary to the effect of GR Act and because to refuse on the INWPCP's grounds would amount to a de facto review of the Commission's decision.[21]

1. As stated in the Information section at the start of these reasons, a permit is required under clause 52.28-2 of the scheme to install or use the additional 10 EGMs.[22]
2. The main relevant considerations under the scheme are the matters in section 60 of the PE Act, relevant State and local planning policy, the purposes of clause 52.28 and the decision guidelines under clause 52.28.[23] Also relevant are various policies adopted by the Council, including the Glenroy Structure Plan 2008.
3. The Council's grounds on which it relies in opposing any review of conditions 1(a) and 6 in the amendments to the 2001 permit relate to inconsistency with or poor response to local policy in the scheme. At the hearing, submissions and evidence about local policy occupied the most time at the hearing.
4. These considerations may be distilled to two main questions. First, are the additional EGMs in an acceptable location? Second, do the additional EGMs have an acceptable social and economic impact?

1. One of the purposes of clause 52.28 is 'to ensure that gaming machines are situated in appropriate locations and premises'. The only locations specified in the purposes that are not appropriate are certain shopping areas, although the decision guidelines provide more guidance.
2. At one level, the additional EGMs would be in an appropriate location because:
   • (a) they are located in premises that already contain 40 EGMs and the location of those EGMs has been determined to be appropriate under both the GR Act and the PE Act, and
   • (b) there is no evidence that the operation of the existing EGMs in that location has breached any statutory requirements.
3. However, we accept that local policy in the scheme has been included after the 40 EGMs were installed and that policy needs to be considered in relation to the additional 10 EGMs. We will consider this policy shortly.

1. Clause 52.28 includes provisions to prohibit EGMs in specified shopping complexes and in strip shopping centres.
2. The subject land is not in a specified shopping complex under the schedule to clause 52.28-3. The subject land is also not in a strip shopping centre. A 'strip shopping centre' is defined in clause 52.28-4 to be an area that must meet all of the following requirements:
   • It is zoned for commercial use;
   • It consists of at least two separate buildings on at least two separate and adjoining lots;
   • It is an area in which a significant proportion of the buildings are shops;
   • It is an area in which a significant proportion of the lots abut a road accessible to the public generally;

But it does not include the Capital City Zone in the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

1. The subject land is in a residential zone (the Residential Growth Zone) and is not zoned for commercial use. This disposes of the question. Accordingly, the additional EGMs do not fall foul of the shopping area restrictions.

Are the premises too close to a strip shopping centre?

1. Mr Milner accepts that the subject land is not in a strip shopping centre. However, in his opinion the subject land is, nevertheless, not an appropriate location for the additional EGMs because he considers it is close to, indeed opposite, a strip shopping centre being, an area directly opposite the subject land to the south bounded by Glenroy Road, Wheatsheaf Road and Argyle Street. Consequently, in his opinion, the subject land is an inappropriate location because it is convenient to and a temptation to users (including shoppers) of that area who are problem gamblers.
2. The subject land is in the Glenroy activity centre. The centre comprises two main shopping areas. One is along Pascoe Vale Road. The other is along Wheatsheaf Road between the railway line and Argyle Street. These two shopping 'strips' are 'zoned for commercial use' being in the Commercial 1 Zone and contain the traditional line of shop buildings attached to each other, and mainly used for retail and ancillary services.
3. The area that Mr Milner considers is a strip shopping centre opposite the subject land on the south side of Glenroy Road includes the strip along Wheatsheaf Road to which we refer.
4. However, that part of Mr Milner's area on the south side of Glenroy Road near the subject land does not exhibit the characteristics of a strip shopping centre. The buildings opposite the subject land are purpose-built office buildings and used mainly for offices (and occupied by VincentCare and Scope, both welfare organisations). By design, they do not provide shop windows typical of retail premises. We do not accept Mr Milner's opinion that the VincentCare premises were built as shop premises. The only commercial use is a pizza take-away on the ground floor of 177 Glenroy Road. These buildings are separated from the Wheatsheaf Road shops by a laneway and have no visual nexus with the Wheatsheaf Road shops.
5. We accept that a permit would not be required under the scheme for these offices to change to a shop use, having regard to the provisions of the Commercial 1 Zone in which the offices are located. However, these buildings are not designed for retail and it is unlikely that they will become shops and hence the land opposite the subject land being regarded as a potential (if not actual) strip shopping centre.
6. Accordingly, we find part of Mr Milner's area on the south side of Glenroy Road near the subject land is not part of the Wheatsheaf Road shopping area and is not a strip shopping centre. As a result, we do not agree with this opinion that the subject land is in an inappropriate location for that reason.

1. It is local policy to discourage EGMs in '[s]uburbs of socio-economic disadvantage as defined by the SEIFA index of Relative Socio-economic disadvantage (IRSD)'.[24]
2. Mr Milner's opinion is that the additional EGMs should be discouraged for the subject land because Glenroy is second to only Fawkner as the most disadvantaged suburb or neighbourhood in Moreland as defined by the SEIFA index. Glenroy has a rating of 930.5 and that sits below the national threshold of 1002 and Moreland's threshold of 998.
3. We have already referred to the Commission findings about the relative disadvantage of small areas within 2.5 km of the subject land compared to other parts of the municipal district further to the south.
4. Mr Anderson cautions against placing significant weight on these SEIFA ratings because they relate to data from 2011 and because he contends the socio-economic profile of Glenroy has changed and will continue to change and become less relatively disadvantaged. He relies on emerging urban renewal and further anticipated renewal having regard to the planned forthcoming removal of the level crossing on Glenroy Road and the economic boost that will give to the activity centre, in particular. Mr Milner agreed that there has been gentrification around the activity centre since 2011 and the removal of the level crossing will boost gentrification. The Commission accepted there was evidence of urban renewal.
5. We have inspected the activity centre and its surrounds. Recent urban renewal is tentative and, at this stage, not significant. It is largely confined to medium density housing in townhouse format on a sprinkling of lots at the periphery of the activity centre. We do not consider this housing being designed for persons with a significantly different demographic profile from existing residents. Our inspection of the activity centre also revealed a high proportion of community and retail uses associated with welfare, community assistance, and shops relating to an area that is far from well-to-do, such as opportunity shops, low value retail shops, and a sizeable pawn shop in the main shopping strip in Pascoe Vale Road.
6. We understand that two of the important factors in determining SEIFA ratings are personal income and household income. We agree with the Tribunal's observation in Pakenham Racing Club that lower than average personal and household income has a doubtful relationship to problem gambling and hence cast doubt in relying on SEIFA ratings for disadvantage.[25] Mr Milner conceded that the relationship or link between disadvantage and problem gambling is not settled.
7. Having regard to the policy emphasis on SEIFA ratings and to our inspections, we find the subject land is located in an area of relative socio-economic disadvantage to other areas in the municipal district. Accordingly, it does not particularly respond well to this aspect of local policy.
8. As well, it is local policy to '[e]ncourage gaming machines to be transferred from areas of low socio-economic disadvantage to areas of high advantage'.[26] The Glenroy RSL submits that it expects to be successful in sourcing the additional EGMs from Longreach RSL in Chelsea in the City of Kingston.
9. Mr Milner's opinion is that the additional EGMs do not respond well to this policy aspect because Chelsea has a SEIFA score of 1000.4 compared to Glenroy's 930.5 and the EGMs would therefore be moving to a more relatively disadvantaged area. We do not agree with Mr Milner because the policy cannot apply to transfers from outside Moreland because the scheme has no affect in such areas.

1. It is local policy to discourage EGMs '[i]n or immediately adjacent to suburbs with a concentration of gaming machines above the Victorian average'.[27]
2. Neither the Council nor Mr Milner press any conflict with this policy. Having regard to the Commission's findings (summarised earlier in these reasons) and to Mr Anderson's evidence, Moreland does not have such a concentration and the additional EGMs, if installed, would not result in such concentration.
3. Glenroy is not in the capped region to the south (partly in Moreland) where regulators have responded to a perceived concentration. The subject land is not close to this capped area. The subject land is in an area outside that capped area with a municipal cap that is significantly above existing EGMs level and would remain so if the additional EGMs were installed. Again, this was also one of the Commission's findings.
4. The additional EGMs respond positively to this aspect of local policy.

1. It is local policy to discourage EGMs in '[t]he core areas of activity centres where people congregate for daily convenience and social activities' and to ensure EGMs are located '[o]n the periphery of Activity Centres, outside the main shopping, transport, community and civic functions of the centre.[28]
2. The scheme does not define what is the core or periphery of the activity centre. In Mr Milner's opinion, the Glenroy RSL is located in the core or directly adjacent to the core of the Glenroy activity centre, given its central location of the subject land in the activity centre, and is not on the periphery of the activity centre. The Council submits it is near the core.
3. Mr Milner relies on the land use surrounding the site being commercial activities and where higher residential densities are encouraged, and that likely future improved connectivity with the centre as indicated in the Glenroy Structure Plan, including when the level crossing in Glenroy Road is removed.
4. Having inspected the activity centre, we consider the core 'where people congregate for daily convenience and social activities' is generally the land in the two strips to which we have referred plus the supermarket adjoining one of those strips and the transport area of the railway station and bus interchange. The subject land is outside these areas by a distance of several hundred metres. There are no places of 'daily convenience or social activities' next to the Glenroy RSL where people congregate.[29]
5. The subject land is nevertheless in the activity centre and at the interface between residential areas and commercial areas. We would therefore find it is at the periphery. Accordingly, we prefer Mr Anderson's opinion that the additional EGMs will not be located in such 'core areas' and will be located on the activity centre's periphery and therefore respond positively to this aspect of local policy.

1. We accept that the use of EGMs is an entertainment activity.
2. It is policy to '[e]ncourage a mix of ... entertainment uses to be located within activity centres'.[30]
3. It is local policy to discourage gaming machines in '[s]uburbs where there are no alternative non-gambling entertainment opportunities, such as hotels, clubs, cinemas, restaurants and bars operating at similar hours'.[31]
4. In Mr Milner's opinion there is no such entertainment in Glenroy operating at similar hours. We find there are restaurants and sporting club providing such opportunities in Glenroy but are unlikely to be operating at similar hours to the Glenroy RSL and, in particular, its gaming room.
5. We therefore find the additional EGMs do not respond positively to this aspect of local policy. However, we would not significantly mark down the additional EGMs on this aspect having regard to opportunities a little further afield and to Glenroy RSL operating not outside the hours preferred under the scheme.

1. It is local policy to discourage gaming machines in '[o]n sites within 800 m of sensitive uses such as community health services, welfare agencies or public, community or social housing'.[32]
2. This subject land directly abuts and is opposite to such sensitive uses, being a medical centre to the east and a community health and welfare agencies (VincentCare Victoria and Scope) on the opposite side of Glenroy Road.[33]
3. We do not accept Ms Nicholson's opinion that VincentCare Victoria and Scope are, in effect, non-sensitive because she states its staff use the Glenroy RSL function room and bistro and none of clients of those services have expressed concern to her about the existing EGMs. We do not find those opinions probative.
4. We therefore find the additional EGMs do not respond positively to this aspect of local policy.
5. However, we would not significantly mark down the additional EGMs on this aspect because:
   • (a) The Tribunal has previously held an 800 metre radius catchment to be unreasonable.[34]
   • (b) Mr Milner conceded the distance is excessive.
   • (c) The evidence of increased risk of problem gambling resulting from the diversion of users of these sensitive uses to the Glenroy RSL is insubstantial.
   • (d) The occupiers of these sensitive uses were notified of the application to install the additional EGMs and only one opposed the application and did so on grounds not relating to this policy aspect.
   • (e) The Council did not contradict Glenroy RSL's submission that VincentCare, Scope and the medical centre all moved to their premises after the introduction of EGMs at the Glenroy RSL.

1. It is local policy to ensure EGMs are located in '[o]n sites that can reasonably be considered as a destination in their own right, separated from shopping centres, railway stations and community facilities where people congregate on a daily basis'.[35]
2. The meaning of 'destination' is not defined in the scheme. The Tribunal has previously held that destination gambling is 'the deliberate choice of an individual to visit a specific gaming premise'.[36]
3. Mr Milner does not consider the Glenroy RSL to be a destination in its own right because he considers it must be in a more remote location, such a golf club, rather than on the periphery of an activity centre. Mr Anderson takes a contrary view based on the Commission's findings.
4. The concepts of destination and convenience venues are elastic in the sense that most venues would be on a spectrum or continuum exhibiting some or more of either features. Mr Anderson accepted this proposition. We find the Glenroy RSL exhibits more destination than convenience attributes given its location well outside the activity centre core, the physical element of the building being set back from Glenroy Road and surrounded by car parking or accessways and the side location of the entry door. We also give weight to the Glenroy RSL being an existing gaming venue. Accordingly, we find the additional EGMs respond positively to this aspect of local policy.
5. Related to this issue is the decision guideline under local policy to consider '[w]hether the location of the gaming machines or gaming premises will facilitate or discourage convenience gaming'.[37] It follows from the above that we consider the additional EGMs will not facilitate convenience gaming in the sense of confronting people moving about a centre doing their convenience shopping.[38]

1. It is local policy to ensure EGMs are located in venues which '[h]ave a maximum 18 hours operation and have a shutdown period for a minimum of 6 hours, staring no later than 2 am', '[a]re designed to ensure patrons are not required to enter the gaming lounge in order to access any other activity or area of the venue', '[h]ave a range of other non-gambling entertainment activities' and '[a]lready have gaming machines, rather than creating a new gaming venue'.[39]
2. Neither Mr Milner nor the Council dispute with any force that the Glenroy RSL responds to all these aspects of local policy. Again, it is significant that the Glenroy RSL is an existing gaming venue with a successful operating record. Nonetheless, Mr Milner's opinion was that we should not give significant weight to Glenroy RSL already having EGMs because it would be unlikely now to obtain approval to install those EGMs if it was not already a gaming venue. We do not give weight to this opinion because it is speculative, particularly as we find that a new gaming venue would not be prohibited under shopping area provisions of clause 52.28.
3. On our inspection, we found the gaming room was visually highly exposed to the foyer. In the application, that degree of exposure is retained. We will add a requirement for a partial visual screen between the foyer and the gaming room which we consider necessary in respect of the additional EGMs.
4. Related to this issue is the decision guideline in clause 52.28 to consider 'the capacity of the site to accommodate the proposal'. There were no submissions and no evidence that the size and shape of the subject land or the premises or the gaming room within the premises that indicated that the subject land could not physically accommodate the additional EGMs.
5. Also related to this issue is the decision guideline in clause 52.28 to consider '[w]hether the gaming premises provide a full range of hotel facilities or services to patrons or a full range of club facilities or services to members and patrons'. The Glenroy RSL does provide such a range of club facilities and services appropriate to an RSL club.

1. Finally, it is local policy to '[e]nsure that the operations of gaming venues do not detrimentally affect the amenity of the surrounding area through the hours of operation, the management of patrons and the generation of noise and disturbance.[40]
2. The Council does dispute with any force that the Glenroy RSL responds to all these aspects of local policy. Again, it is significant that the Glenroy RSL is an existing gaming venue with a successful operating record.
3. Related to this issue is the decision guideline in clause 52.28 to consider 'the compatibility of the proposal with adjoining and nearby land uses'. We find the additional EGMs to not be incompatible with the adjoining and nearby land uses of commercial facilities to the north and west, office and related uses (including community and welfare organisations) to the south, and a medical centre to the east.
4. Also related to this issue is the local policy decision guideline to consider '[t]he impact of the proposal on the amenity of the area'.[41] It follows we consider the impact to not be unreasonable.

1. The Council has adopted the Glenroy Structure Plan 2008 (the structure plan). It is a reference document under the scheme. It sets a framework for the regeneration of the activity centre. It identifies factors leading to what it describes as a 'down-at-heel' feel and local levels of investment in the centre.[42] It identifies the opportunities for centre improvement from the removal of the level crossing, from expansion of community services, from an increase in residential population.
2. The structure plan has not been implemented with particular priority by the Council. The recent commitment by the Government to start the level crossing removal is an important initiative for the improvement of the centre. We are not persuaded that the structure plan will result in a significantly different centre in the medium term such that we could foreshadow the characterisation of the Glenroy RSL changing from a destination to a convenience gaming venue.

1. Mr Milner's overall opinion is that condition 1(a) and 6 should be retained in the amended 2001 permit because, despite the upgrade and refurbishment of the premises providing better facilities to the activity centre and local community, the location of the premises for the additional EGMs is strategically inappropriate and would be a poor planning outcome. We have given careful consideration to this opinion.
2. In relation to locational considerations, the additional EGMs respond positively to most of the relevant considerations. We accept that the additional EGMs do not respond particularly well to those aspects of local policy discouraging EGMs in SEIFA areas of relative disadvantage and discouraging EGMs within 800 metres of specified sensitive uses.
3. An unsatisfactory response to those aspects of local policy does not mean that the application should be refused. It must be remembered that a policy is not a requirement and must be applied flexibly having regard to the policy context as a whole and to the circumstances of a particular case. We are satisfied that the location of the additional EGMs is acceptable mainly because the location consists of an existing gaming venue that has operated successfully, there is no increase in the size of the gaming room or the permitted number of gaming room patrons, and the premises are an RSL club. As well, the additional EGMs respond positively to other, indeed a majority of, locational policies or decision guidelines.

1. The relevant social and economic considerations are those specified in the PE Act and in the purposes and decision guidelines of clause 52.28. There is no local policy directly relating to social and economic impacts. Local policy, as considered earlier in these reasons, relates solely to locational considerations. Nonetheless, we acknowledge that one of the decision guidelines under local policy relates to such impacts.
2. Before we address those considerations, we refer to the Commission's consideration of such impacts.

Commission's consideration of social and economic impacts

1. Earlier in these reasons, we referred to some the Commission's findings in relation to these impacts. We also referred to clause 52.28 requiring a narrower 'locational' focus to these impacts than the focus required to be given by the Commission. This is a factor that requires us to give weight to our earlier locational considerations.
2. We also referred to the weight that should be given to the Commission's findings having regard to the Council's ultimate decision to not contest the Commission's decision nor seek review of it, the absence of any special reason to review any of the Commission's findings, and the Commission's consideration of impacts proximate to the subject land.
3. In relation to economic impacts, the Commission found the additional EGMs would have:
   • (a) the benefits of increased expenditure (not attributable to problem gambling), improved gaming and non-gaming facilities at the premises, and increase in competition in gaming in Moreland, and
   • (b) the disbenefits that a portion of new expenditure would be attributable to problem gambling and some trade would be diverted from other segments of the economy.
4. In relation to the economic benefit of additional community contributions, the Commission observed:

The Commission considers that the community contribution of $20,000 per annum (for the life of the entitlements) which the Applicant has volunteered to make in consultation with the Council if the Application is approved is an economic benefit to the community which, although not large, is of moderate weight in an application of this nature. In relation to these contributions, the Commission also notes that it recognises it can be beneficial where an Applicant and representatives of the local community can work through issues related to an application of this type in a constructive manner, as appears to have been done in this instance. Not only does it potentially resolve issues of concerns, it also provides the Commission with insight into the views of the local community, and their representatives. The Commission notes, however, that it is not bound to accept a condition of the type that has been proposed by the Applicant, even if it has been agreed to by the Council.[43]

1. In relation to social impacts, the Commission found the additional EGMs would have:
   • (a) the benefits of the increased community contributions to local community organisations, the associated renovation and improved facilities at the Glenroy RSL, and improved facilities (including types of games) for gaming patrons, and
   • (b) the disbenefits of an increased risk of problem gambling.
2. The Commission found, on balance, that there would be minor, but positive economic and social impacts of the additional EGMs. As previously stated, we give weight to this finding, although it is not a complete answer to our task.

1. Section 60 of the PE Act requires us to consider any significant social effects and economic effects which we consider the 10 additional EGMs may have.
2. Having regard to the Commission's findings and the submissions and evidence in this proceeding, the additional EGMs will have some social effects and economic effects, but do not find either of those effects to be significant.
3. The INWPCP drew our attention to various social and economic disbenefits and we have previously concluded that those potential disbenefits relate more to EGMs generally and not to the additional EGMs in this proceeding. The INWPCP's submissions also lacked balance in that it did not acknowledge any benefits (including those found by the Commission), that it proceeded on the basis that the whole of the community (including the community around the subject land) was vulnerable to problem gambling, and that it did not acknowledge that local community and welfare organisations did not object to the additional EGMs.

1. The purposes of clause 52.28 include '[t]o ensure the social and economic impacts of the location of gaming machines are considered'. We have considered those impacts.

1. We have stated there is no express provision of local policy relating to consideration of social and economic impacts. Nonetheless, we acknowledge that one of the objectives of local policy is '[t]o ensure that the location, design and operation of a gaming machine premises minimises the social and economic impacts caused by gaming machines and delivers a net community benefit'.[44] As well, one of decision guidelines under local policy is to consider '[w]hether the net economic and social impact of approval is likely to increase the social disadvantage of an area of the City of Moreland'.
2. As this objective and decision guideline does not specify the location of the net community benefit, it is open to us to give weight to the Commission's consideration of both the benefits in both a broader and narrower location.

1. There is no submissions or evidence before us that suggests the Commission's findings of a minor positive overall economic and social impact of the additional EGMs ought to be doubted.
2. The Council is taken to have accepted, by its withdrawal of the Council's objection to approval of the additional EGMs by the Commission based on agreed conditions (that were ultimately included by the Commission) that the net economic and social impacts would not be detrimental to the well-being of the Moreland community. As the Commission considered the impacts at the municipal wide and immediate area level, the merit of the Council's refusal to amend the permit to allow the additional EGMs is diminished.

1. The scheme requires us to balance conflicting policies in favour of net community benefit.[45] Local policy seeks to ensure that 'the location ... of [EGM] premises delivers a net community benefit'. We adopt the findings in other Tribunal proceedings that net community benefit is a consideration and not a test.[46] There is no widespread community opposition to the application of the type on display in the Romsey Hotel proposal.[47]
2. Having regard to our findings that the location of the additional EGMs is satisfactory and that we have considered the social and economic impacts of the additional EGMs, we find the location of the additional EGMs is more likely than not to deliver a net community benefit and would be an acceptable planning outcome.

1. For the above reasons, the decision of the responsible authority will be varied. The amendment to the 2001 permit will be modified to authorise the additional EGMs.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[2] See eg Commission decisions on applications under the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 by the Frankston RSL Sub Branch 9 December 2008 [54], the Shepparton RSL Sub Branch 20 April 2001 [25], and Ballarat RSL Sub Branch 2 April 2009 [65].

[3] The Council did not issue the amended permit. The Council could have issued it, or Glenroy RSL could have asked that it be issued, because once there was no objector application for review within the specified period, there is no barrier to the administrative step of issuing the amended permit.

[4] Condition 1(a) of the amended licence.

[5] Condition 2(a) of the amended licence.

[6] In practice, the Commission also considers the wellbeing of the more confined area surrounding the proposed or existing licence.

[7] Bells Hotel Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2010] VCAT 529 [24]; Pakenham Racing Club Inc v Cardinia SC [2017] VCAT 72

[8] Mount Alexander SC v Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation [2013] VCAT 101 [111].

[9] Bacceney Pty Ltd v Ballarat CC [2012] VCAT 544 [20].

[10] Commission's decision 22 October 2015 [29(a)].

[11] Commission's decision 22 October 2015 [29(b)].

[12] Commission's decision 22 October 2015 [29(c)].

[13] Commission's decision 22 October 2015 [29(d)].

[14] Commission's decision 22 October 2015 [29(e)].

[15] Commission's decision 22 October 2015 [81], [82], [86].

[16] Commission's decision 22 October 2015 [64], [66].

[17] Commission's decision 22 October 2015 [91].

[18] Commission's decision 22 October 2015 [93].

[19] Commission's decision 22 October 2015 [95].

[20] Among those agencies is VincentCare Victoria, which has premises close to the Glenroy RSL and to which we refer later in these reasons.

[21] The INWPCP also made submissions about local policy under the scheme and our views on those submissions are reflected in our findings on local policy.

[22] A permit is required under other clauses in the scheme in relation to the buildings and works and to the increase in the area in which liquor may be supplied or consumed, but those clauses are not relevant to this proceeding.

[23] Moreland Planning Scheme cl 65.01.

[24] Moreland Planning Scheme cl 22.10-3.

[25] Pakenham Racing Club Inc v Cardinia SC [2017] VCAT 72 [77].

[26] Moreland Planning Scheme cl 22.10-3.

[27] Moreland Planning Scheme cl 22.10-3.

[28] Moreland Planning Scheme cl 22.10-3.

[29] We do not consider people living to the east of the Glenroy RSL and who walk past the Glenroy RSL en route to and from the railway station are 'congregating' near the Glenroy RSL. They are congregating at the station, which is well distant from the subject land.

[30] Moreland Planning Scheme cl 21.03.

[31] Moreland Planning Scheme cl 22.10-3.

[32] Moreland Planning Scheme cl 22.10-3.

[33] According to the Council, VincentCare 'delivers accommodation and support services to homeless and disadvantaged individuals. In addition to housing support, they offer health and wellbeing services including legal advice and gamblers help. Scope provides disability support services'.

[34] Bright Newbay Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2010] VCAT 1347 [28].

[35] Moreland Planning Scheme cl 22.10-3.

[36] Kingfish Victoria Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2012] VCAT 1692 [31].

[37] Moreland Planning Scheme cl 22.10-5.

[38] Pink Hills Hotel Pty Ltd v Yarra Ranges SC [2013] VCAT 954 [47].

[39] Moreland Planning Scheme cl 22.10-3.

[40] Moreland Planning Scheme cl 22.10-3.

[41] Moreland Planning Scheme cl 22.10-5.

[42] Glenroy Structure Plan 2008 p 16.

[43] Commission's decision 22 October 2015 [89].

[44] Moreland Planning Scheme cl 22.10-2.

[45] Moreland Planning Scheme cl 10.04.

[46] See eg CK & Sons Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2010] VCAT 505 [16].

[47] Of the 52 objections lodged with the Council, only 3 were not proforma. None of those objectors chose to participate in this proceeding. The INWPCP did not object to the Council. We gave leave to the INWPCP to participate in the hearing as an interested person.