1. The nature of the power to award costs on the basis that the applicant has been motivated by a commercial advantage has been considered by the tribunal on a number of occasions. Although the phraseology used in these cases differs, I think the following principles emerge.
2. A legal proceeding might be regarded as vexatious if it is brought for an improper purpose or is an abuse of process. As the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is not intended to regulate competition, an application to review a decision to grant a permit might be regarded as vexatious if it was brought primarily to secure or maintain a competitive advantage. However the existence of clause 63 of Schedule 1 of the VCAT Act and section 150 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 renders it unnecessary to label such a proceeding as "vexatious"; as each provision provides a firm platform upon which the tribunal may make an order as to costs where a proceeding has been brought primarily to secure a commercial advantage of a competitive character.
3. The word "commercial" is difficult to define precisely, but has connotations of being related to business or money or to the exchange of goods or services. Yet many of the actors in planning disputes routinely seek to protect what might be thought to be a business interest or an interest in maintaining the value of land. Persons who have business interests also can have legitimate planning concerns about a development proposal that might impact their business. Persons seeking to maintain land values can equally be concerned about amenity impacts. This is because persons with a commercial interest may also have an interest as neighbours; or they may have a legitimate interest in consistent and orderly decision making under a planning scheme. In this respect it is to be noted that one of the objectives of planning is to provide for the fair use and development of land: and this may embrace the notion that persons who are engaged in commerce will have a level playing field when it comes to planning regulation.

1. In Lindsay, VCAT summarily dismissed an application under s 82 of the PE Act as it was found to be lacking in substance because it was brought to primarily secure and maintain a direct or indirect commercial advantage.
2. VCAT stated as follows in various paragraphs:
   1. Further issues raised in Mr Lindsay's objection to the council concerned the provision of toilets, a query about car parking, and council processes regarding the permit application.
   2. In his application for review, Mr Lindsay has not referred to commercial competition. His grounds relate to the provision of toilets and disabled amenities, a question about why there is no parking onsite in this case, and traffic management in the rear car park. At the hearing, Mr Lindsay stated he was not opposed to this business opening, rather he wanted to raise questions with the council. He agreed that there was plenty of car parking available in the council car park but he wanted to know why everyone else had to provide car parking and not this particular proposal. He was also most concerned about traffic management in the council car park and along the right-of-way at the rear of premises used to access the car park. He wanted council to install speed humps or the like to control the traffic and was concerned about the additional traffic the proposed use would generate.
   3. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 both contain provisions to ensure that the processes under each Act are not used for commercial advantage. For example, section 57(2A) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 provides that a responsible authority may reject an objection to a permit application which it considers has been made primarily to secure and maintain a direct or indirect commercial advantage for the objector. Section 150(4) of the Act provides that if any proceedings are brought before the tribunal under this Act and the tribunal is satisfied that the proceedings have been brought vexatiously or frivolously or primarily to secure or maintain a direct or indirect commercial advantage for the person who brought the proceedings, and any other person suffered loss or damage as a result of the proceedings, the tribunal may order the person who brought the proceedings to pay to that other person compensation for loss or damage and an amount for costs. Under the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, section 78 enables the tribunal, if the tribunal believes that a party to a proceeding is conducting the proceeding in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages another party by vexatiously conducting the proceeding, to order that the proceeding be dismissed or struck out and to make an order for costs. Section 109(3) also enables the tribunal to make an order for costs against a party vexatiously conducting the proceeding...
   4. ...
   5. I have no doubt that Mr Lindsay's original objection to the council was made primarily to secure and maintain a direct or indirect commercial advantage for the objector, namely to frustrate a competing business from establishing in close proximity to his own identical business. The objections originally made about the competition and effect that the proposed use would have on his and other similar businesses in Bayswater have not been repeated in the grounds set out in his application for review. However, I consider that the grounds relied upon are so lacking in substance that it is still possible to draw an inference that the primary motivation for bringing this proceeding is to secure or maintain commercial advantage. I consider the grounds are lacking in substance for the following reasons.
   6. ...
   7. In my view, it is not sufficient simply to raise issues of car parking and traffic management, which are often legitimate town planning grounds, when there is no substance to them. In the circumstances of this case, given the original objection to the council and the fact that Mr Lindsay operates an identical business to the proposed new use three doors away from the subject land, I consider it is reasonable to infer that this application for review has been made to either stop the use and gain a direct commercial advantage, or to frustrate, delay and cause added expense to the permit applicant, which in its own way is an indirect commercial advantage to the applicant.
3. I agree with the applicant that I must first consider if each of the grounds relied upon should be struck out or summarily dismissed, and then I should consider whether the application has been brought to primarily secure a direct or indirect commercial advantage.

1. The respondent relied upon the affidavit of Harrison Leslie Waller affirmed 3 December 2024. Harrison Leslie Waller adopted his affidavit as his evidence before me at the practice day hearing.
2. The evidence of Mr Waller was not cross-examined by the parties and is thus, uncontested evidence before me.
3. In brief that evidence is that:
   • the respondent is the sole director of Burning Ambition Pty Ltd ('Burning Ambition') who was the proprietor of the business known as 'Minapre Hotel Lascelles' ('hotel');
   • until 11 April 2022 Burning Ambition was the licensee of the relevant liquor licence for the hotel;
   • the respondent is also a director of Smoke & Ashes Pty Ltd which was the registered proprietor of the hotel land until 17 May 2022;
   • in April 2022 and May 2022, the applicant and Marlene Joy Graham become the owners of the hotel land and its business;
   • on 11 April 2022 the applicant also become the licensee for the liquor licence for the hotel;
   • on 14 July 2023 the applicant issued the respondent with a 'barring order' that excluded her from the hotel; and
   • the respondent sought revocation of the 'barring order' at the Victorian Liquor Commission and on 8 September 2023 the barring order was revoked.
4. In addition, I note the following matters:
   • the application for planning permit was lodged with council on 16 July 2024 and included plans depicting the area for the sale and consumption of liquor ('red line plan') as depicted below;

• the land is developed with two buildings facing the street as set out in the two images below;

• the application for planning permit was accompanied by a report prepared by Swift Approvals Building Surveyors & Consultants[6] that concluded as follows:

• The operating hours sought in the application for planning permit were:

• On 16 September 2024, council issued the NOD with the following relevant conditions:

1. On 27 November 2023, council issued planning permit TP25-23 ('food and drink permit') for the use and development of the land for a food and drink premises, reduction in car parking and bicycle facilities. Relevantly, the hours of operation under the food and drink permit are:

CLARIFICATION REQUIRED: WHO BRINGS THIS APPLICATION?

1. There have been various requests by the applicant and or other persons for the application for review to be on behalf of various people or on behalf of the community.
2. At the practice day hearing, I asked the applicant to clarify whether the application for review was brought by him as an individual, or as a joint application or whether he spoke for the community.
3. I was advised that the application for review is brought by the applicant as an individual although he says he has concerns for his community.
4. Thus, the request by Sandra Mott, Tenae Mott and Yasmin Kulesza to be joined as joint applicants is refused. The individuals did not attend the practice day hearing and if they wish to bring their own application for review, they will need to follow the appropriate process established under the PE Act and Planning and Environment Regulations 2015 (Vic), noting that any such application would be out of time and would need to seek an extension of time.

1. In considering the respondent's application for summarily dismissal, I will first assess each of the applicant's grounds and then consider if the application is brought primarily to secure or maintain a commercial advantage.
2. The applicant submits the respondent has not established a prima facie case for summary dismissal, that is, the application for review is not 'hopeless'. Further, it is contended that cl 52.27 of the scheme is wide ranging and allows the applicant to rely on the grounds as have been filed.
3. However, the applicant does say that, if necessary, leave could be granted to allow the applicant to amend the grounds relied upon in the application for review.

1. The first ground relied upon by the applicant is:
   1. In the report it notes that native vegetation, which is present, would not be affected by the patrons of the Mallee Hen. This is far from the truth. As already witnessed by many with the holding of events already at the Mallee Hen, those intoxicated walk and drive over all the native vegetarian at the back of the facility.
2. At the practice day hearing, the applicant sought to particularise this ground to add that the number of patrons in addition to the car parking at the rear of the land would impact native vegetation. Further, it was said that the facilities associated with the proposal are not able to support the foot and vehicle traffic, including car parking coming and going from the land. The applicant says this is relevant for the assessment of cumulative impact and specifically infrastructure capacity of local transport and car parking set out in Planning Practice Note 61 - Licensed premises: Assessing cumulative impact ('PN61').
3. The respondent highlights that the assessment of the proposal is confined to cl 52.27 of the scheme - Licensed premises. The purposes of cl 52.27 are:
   • To ensure that licensed premises are situated in appropriate locations.
   • To ensure that the impact of the licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding area is considered.
4. Further, for completeness, the decision guidelines at cl 52.27 are:

Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

• The Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
• The impact of the sale or consumption of liquor permitted by the liquor licence on the amenity of the surrounding area.
• The impact of the hours of operation on the amenity of the surrounding area.
• The impact of the number of patrons on the amenity of the surrounding area.
• The cumulative impact of any existing licensed premises and the proposed licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding area.

1. The applicant was not able to explain to me the relationship between the first ground with respect to native vegetation and either the purposes or decision guidelines of cl 52.27. The applicant submitted that the impact to native vegetation was raised in PN61 when it referred to negative cumulative impacts such as infrastructure capacity problems. I note the entire negative cumulative impact is:

Negative cumulative impacts can include increased occurrences of:

• ...
• infrastructure capacity problems including limited availability of transport and car parking for patrons and local residents

1. I disagree with the applicant's submission that there will be an impact on vegetation. A close analysis of the application for permit does not show any parking on the land. Further, the respondent clarified that there is no parking proposed on the land and that it is likely that patrons will park offsite.
2. Council's delegate report considered the objection relating to native vegetation and concluded that there is no proposal for any removal of native vegetation and further, that there will not be any impact on such vegetation.
3. A long bow to draw may include that native vegetation is part of the 'amenity' of the area. However, I say long bow to draw because there is no material before me to allow such a conclusion.
4. I also add that the applicant has not identified the location of, or nature of the native vegetation that he says will be impacted.
5. Having regard to the above, I find that this ground is devoid of any planning merit and is thus, lacking in substance and is misconceived.

1. The second ground the applicant relies upon is:
   1. The promotionally of the V-Line railway which is located no more than 50m of the proposed licensed cafe. This is a safety hazard in relation to the no fenced area which puts all patrons at high risk of being struck by trains which are not run on a specific timetable, due to the nature of the line. This is also a hazard in which many vehicles are asked to park at the rear. With the increase of tourists mixed with alcohol, will lead to a signific risk of injury or death occurring.
2. The applicant clarified this ground to include safety with respect to the train line and relied on PN61 in particular, negative cumulative impact on the infrastructure capacity, limited availability of transport and car parking or patrons and local residents.
3. The reliance on assessment of cumulative impact and specifically infrastructure capacity of local transport and car parking from PN61 is misguided. PN61 sets out the cumulative impact both positive and negative impacts and states:

Cumulative impact

Cumulative impact refers to both positive and negative impacts that can result from clustering a particular land use or type of land use. Potential cumulative impact from a cluster of licensed premises will vary between locations, depending on the mix and number of venues and whether the area is a destination for activities associated with the supply of alcohol. Cumulative impact is a product of the number and type of venues present, the way they are managed and the capacity of the local area to accommodate those venues.

Negative cumulative impacts can include increased occurrences of:

• nuisance including noise and anti-social behaviour from intoxicated persons
• infrastructure capacity problems including limited availability of transport and car parking for patrons and local residents
• violence and perceived threats to safety
• crime including vandalism, trespass and property damage.

• the creation of a local 'identity' or status as an entertainment or tourism destination
• enhanced vitality of an area
• economic benefits
• increase in consumer choice
• increased ability to manage impacts, for example by concentrating venues around transport to aid dispersal of patrons.

The clustering of licensed premises may lead to a negative impact even though any given venue in the cluster may be well run and have minimal impact. An area might reach a 'saturation point' where an additional licensed premises or a particular type of licensed premises is likely to impact negatively on the surrounding area. Alternatively, there may be a positive cumulative impact where an additional premises will enhance the character or vibrancy of an area.

1. The respondent contends this ground is 'simply not relevant to the matters under consideration' by VCAT.[7]
2. I will turn to the relevance of PN61 later in these reasons but for the purposes of this ground I will assume that it applies to the consideration of the application for review before VCAT.
3. The train line is shown in the aerial image below, with the land depicted with a star and the silos with an arrow:[8]

1. The land is separated from the train line by Lascelles Silo Road and land forming part of the silo complex.
2. The applicant has not identified the specific attributes of the proposal that create a negative cumulative impact. The fact the land is located near an unfenced train line is not itself sufficient to raise that as negative cumulative impact. The train line is adjacent to the land containing the silo complex and its car park.[9] The mere existence of an unfenced train line does not lead to some inherent incompatibly between it and the proposal to sell and consume liquor under cl 52.27 or PN61.
3. At the practice day hearing the applicant said the seating to standing ratio created a risk or hazard to the unfenced train line. I asked the applicant to clarify the specific issues or concerns with the application for permit. However, the applicant could not refer me to the plans or the specifics of the application that were of concern. It appeared to me to be a general concern that could not be particularised at all.
4. The second ground lacks substance because it lacks sufficient details to be able to conclude the ground has any planning merit whatsoever and it is also misconceived.

1. The third ground the applicant relies upon is:
   1. In the proposed report, those from outside the community highlight the need to have an alternative facility to drink. While this may be argued, to do so Infront of a designated VLINE bus stop which is used by school children daily just isn't right. Children in the community are sheltered from those who are drinking currently by the pub and it's facilities. What the report proposes only puts them into risk not only from the verbal and physical abuse which is relate to alcohol but also the significant risk of drunk drivers leaving the parking immediately out the front of the cafe. All of which highlight the need to stop the license from being granted.
2. Below is a street view image that shows the bus stops located to the south of the land. The bus stops are marked by the yellow stars, the land by a blue arrow and the hotel land by a blue triangle:[10]

1. The applicant said that PN61 sets out the relevant approach to be taken to interpretation of cl 52.27 including the overall suitability of the proposal for the local area.
2. The applicant contended that his third ground is underpinned by concerns relating to nuisance from anti-social behaviour, violence and perceived threats to safety and increase in crime including vandalism.
3. Again, the applicant has not articulated the particular elements of the proposal that support such an assertion. The mere existence of licensed premises is not sufficient, it must be negative cumulative impacts from a cluster of licensed venues. The applicant says that Lascelles is a very small town with a permanent population of approximately 100 people. The additional licensed premises, making it two in total will have a greater impact on the town because of its size.
4. Further, the applicant asserts the application raises consideration of a 'cluster' as set out in PN61. For completeness, I now set out the relevant parts of PN61 with respect to clustering;

What is a cluster?

To determine whether a cluster of licensed premises exists, the following should be considered:

• the number and type of licensed premises in an area
• their distance from the subject land
• whether they can be easily accessed from the subject land.
• As a general guide, a cluster would occur where there are:
• three or more licensed premises (including the proposed premises) within a radius of 100 metres from the subject land; or
• 15 or more licensed premises (including the proposed premises) within a radius of 500 metres from the subject land.

1. PN61 then provides a diagram to assist to determine whether a cluster exists. I do not accept the applicant's contention that the application for permit leads to a cluster of licensed premises as defined in PN61. I accept that PN61 refers to a cluster occurring in certain circumstances and that being only a 'general guide'. However, as a guide it appears to me that the number of licensed premises is a critical element in determining whether a cluster exists as a starting point. In this case, there are two licensed premises including the proposed premises and accordingly, it does not fit within the general guide.
2. I do consider it relevant that the land is within a town with a relatively low population, but the applicant has not indicated how that itself is inconsistent with the purposes of cl 52.27 or its decision guidelines.
3. The applicant has relied heavily upon PN61 to support its case. I accept that PN61 is relevant, but I note in passing that page 1 states:

This practice note can assist a council and a permit applicant to identify and address whether the proposal for a new or modified licensed premises is likely to contribute to a cumulative impact within an area. A permit applicant should check if the relevant council has an alternative or an additional set of guidelines or requirements to consider.

This practice note may be used for any planning application that would benefit from its use; however, it should be used for all applications for a new or expanded licensed premises that:

1. will be licensed and open after 11pm; and
2. is in an area where there is a cluster of licensed premises.
3. The application for planning permit does not seek to be opened after 11pm and is not in an area where there is a cluster of licensed premises. Thus, PN61 is simply a document that assists the decision maker but it is not a mandatory consideration for this particular application for permit.
4. The applicant's third ground raises concern with the protection of children from verbal and physical abuse and drunk drivers that leave the land. Further, in submissions to me the applicant added negative cumulative impacts from violence, crime and vandalism. Again, this ground relies on general assumptions without any particularity about the proposal and its specific operation. It is important to note that the NOD contains conditions that connect the permission under cl 52.27 to the food and drink permit including conditions 3 and 5.
5. Having regard to the above, I find ground three to be misconceived and lacking in substance.

1. The applicant's fourth ground is:
   1. the facilities that are in use and are proposed for the future do not meet the requirements of such a facility. If the cafe is a cafe more is needed. If the cafe is indeed a restaurant, they need many more and if this whole application is to establish a second pub (considering the hours in which they wish to operate this seems to be the case), then the facilities are in need of a major upgrade in which all environmental impacts should be studied further.
2. This ground is not clear, and the applicant explained that the ground is intended to include the lack of impact mitigation measures. PN61provides a list of matters for assessment of cumulative impact and includes impact mitigation. This is explained to be:
   1. Impact mitigation

A proposal may include impact mitigation measures to reduce a potential negative cumulative impact. These measures can include:

• providing patron transport or parking
• layout and design of buildings and any new public space in accordance with good urban design and safe design principles
• involving licensed premises in a liquor accord or forum
• providing public toilets and rubbish facilities in the area
• reducing operating hours of the venue
• limiting outdoor seating and reducing patron numbers after 11pm
• improving venue management measures.

A venue incorporating good urban design and safe design principles is more likely to successfully manage potential amenity impacts from venue patrons on an area, improve perceptions of safety and provide a positive cumulative impact.

Existing context

• Are there sufficient public amenities available for patron use, including toilets and rubbish disposal?
• Are there any relevant public safety or enforcement initiatives in the area?
• Has the area been developed according to principles of good urban design and safe design?

• Will the proposal provide mitigation measures to address any negative cumulative impacts?
• Can any identified negative cumulative impact be satisfactorily reduced by changes to the proposal?

1. The applicant relied on the management of seating and patron management. However, the applicant accepted that if a venue or patron management plan was provided to council, I could consider that. Although, the applicant's submission was that it should be dealt with at a full hearing. I disagree with the applicant because the NOD contains conditions specifically dealing with patron management including, limiting the number of persons on the land, requiring a designated manager to be on the land at all times the venue is open. Further, condition 9 of the NOD requires a noise and amenity plan/patron management plan (('NAP') that provides:
   1. staffing and other measures which are designed to ensure the orderly arrival and departure of patrons
   2. signage to be used to encourage responsible off-site patron behaviour
   3. the training of staff in the management of patron behaviour
   4. staff communication arrangements
   5. measures to control noise emissions from the premises, which may include changes to the redline plan, and/or construction of a noise attenuating fence
   6. complaint handling process to effectively manage any complaints received. This must include a Complaints Register to be kept at the premises which records details of the complaint received, any action taken and the response provided to the complainant.
2. The applicant did not specify how the conditions on the NOD that deal with impact mitigation were not satisfactory or failed to mitigate any potential impacts from the use of the land for the sale and consumption of liquor.
3. The fourth ground lacks substance and is misconceived.

1. The fifth ground relied upon by the applicant raises concern with the number of people supporting the grant of the liquor licence, which I infer to mean, the planning permit in this proceeding.
2. The applicant says this ground is about the applicant as a local resident who is concerned more broadly about the proposal. The applicant confirmed that he is not representing the community.
3. I accept that position but note the ground does nothing more than clarify the application for the purposes of this proceeding. Accordingly, it is not a proper ground to support the application but rather a clarification in respect of the identity of the applicant.
4. Thus, the 'fifth ground' is not as a matter of fact a ground that supports the application for review.

1. The final ground relied upon by the applicant is concerned with the suitability of the respondent and states:
   1. The person applying for the liquor license who previously owned the pub, has since been barred from the pub, re Barring Order 283203 issued on 14/7/2023 by police Mark Keenan for annoying and quarrelsome behavior [sic]. The community will vouch for her ongoing argumentative and obnoxious behavior [sic].
2. The applicant says the sixth ground is relevant to the consideration of impact mitigation in PN61 and specifically the management of patrons at the venue. It was contended that the character of the individual is relevant to the management of patrons at the premises.
3. I disagree that the character of the respondent is a relevant planning matter. The NOD does not require the respondent to manage or supervise the premises. The NOD simply requires a designated manager to be in charge during the time the premises is open for business.
4. Having said that, the character of a person who applies for a liquor licence under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 (Vic) may be a relevant consideration. That is not a matter for VCAT in its planning jurisdiction.
5. For completeness, I note the 'barring order' was revoked and I have not been provided with reasons or the like for its revocation.[11] Thus, on the material before me, even if it was a relevant planning matter which I have concluded it is not, I cannot conclude the character of the respondent prevents the issue of a planning permit because it lacks the appropriate information.
6. The final ground relied upon by the applicant is misconceived.

1. I have found that:
   • five of the six grounds relied upon by the applicant are either misconceived or lacking in substance; and
   • the fifth ground is not a ground at all but rather a clarification of the identity of the applicant.
2. Based on my findings in respect of the grounds relied upon by the applicant, the application for review is summarily dismissed under s 75 of the VCAT Act as it is misconceived and lacking in substance.

Is the application brought primarily to secure or maintain a commercial advantage?

1. VCAT was not provided with the applicant's original objection but rather the summary of objections contained in the delegate's report. Council's written submissions identified the applicant's original objection which states:

1. In my view, neither the original objection nor the grounds in support of the application for review directly or indirectly raise concerns with the impact of this proposal on the hotel owned and operated by the applicant.
2. I note the facts in this case are different to the facts in Lindsay where VCAT inferred from the original objection that s 150(4) of the PE Act applied. Further, I note that in Ogelsby, VCAT highlighted that persons who have business or commercial interests may also have legitimate planning concerns.
3. I add that whilst I have determined to summarily dismiss the application for review because it is either misconceived or lacking in substance, I do not consider the facts in this proceeding as they are before me lead to a conclusion that the application was brought primarily to secure or maintain a commercial advantage. Rather, the respondent is seeking that I draw an inference simply because the applicant is the owner and operator of the hotel. I am not satisfied that I should draw that inference on the material before me.
4. Notably, several objections to the application for planning permit raised similar concerns and I am not aware if any of these objectors had any commercial interests.
5. It follows that the request for costs under cl 63, sch 1 of the VCAT Act is not required to be considered.

1. The applicant submitted that if I was inclined to summarily dismiss the application for review because of the grounds, then he should be given an opportunity to amend his grounds.
2. I disagree with the applicant in the circumstances of this case because I have determined that five of the grounds relied upon are misconceived or lacking in substance. Noting that the fifth ground is not a ground at all but rather clarification about the applicant for review.
3. In this case, in my view there is nothing left for the applicant to amend. The situation may have been different if, one or more of the grounds were not misconceived or lacking in substance or both. In that case, there may have been an application for review that could have been amended by further and better particulars or amended grounds.
4. However, in essence there is no application remaining because all the grounds in support of it are misconceived or lacking in substance, there is nothing left to amend. Nor am I satisfied that I should exercise discretion in such circumstances to amend the application because there is no application for amendment before me. This is notwithstanding the respondent filed the application for summary dismissal in advance and provided submissions well in advance of the practice day hearing. The applicant was aware of the detailed application for summary dismissal and the grounds in support of it and chose not to pursue an amendment of the application even as an alternative position.
5. I also record the applicant sought to particularise each of the grounds at the practice day hearing, which the respondent said was unfair. Whilst I agree with the respondent, I gave the applicant the opportunity to fully address me on each of the grounds to ensure that I understood the substance of those grounds. And five of the six grounds[12] as fully articulated are either misconceived, lacking in substance or both.

1. The respondent requests the costs of preparing for, and attending the practice day hearing should be reserved. I have made that order and further orders requiring information and responses from the respondents as necessary.

1. For the reasons given above, the application for review is summarily dismissed.

[1] (Red Dot) [2020] VCAT 190.

[2] See submissions of the applicant dated 11 December 2024 at [8].

[3] [2006] VCAT 2475.

[4] Under cl 63 of sch 1 of the VCAT Act.

[5] [2007] VCAT 1262.

[7] See respondent's submission at [46].

[8] Source: Near Maps retrieved 20 December 2024.

[10] Google street view retrieved 20 December 2024.

[11] I was provided with Notice of Revocation but this did not contain any reasons.

[12] As set out earlier, one of the grounds was not in fact a ground at all.