1. The decision of the Responsible Authority in permit application no. 080293 is varied. A permit is granted and is to be issued. The permit will allow the use and development of the land for one music and arts festival annually. Permit No. 080293 must contain the conditions set out in the Notice of Decision issued by the Responsible Authority on 15 October 2008 varied as follows:
   • Insert a new Condition 1 as follows:
     1. No less than six months prior to the annual music and arts festival allowed by this Permit being held, the applicant must submit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
        1. Notification of the date on which it is proposed to conduct the next festival.
        2. Confirmation of the name of the operator of the event and, if requested by the Responsible Authority, details of the operator's personnel, background and experience.

Once the date of the festival is approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, the date and operator must not be altered unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the applicant must inform the public of the approved date in the manner directed by the Responsible Authority.

• Re-number Conditions 1 - 37 as Conditions 2 - 38.
• Delete Condition 38.
• In Condition 3 [the former Condition 2], add the following parts:

(g) Confirmation that the event will be held on one night only in February or March.

(h) Measures to be taken to ensure compliance with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2.

(i) The timing and details of the review of the Event Management Plan that must occur after each event in consultation with the Responsible Authority.

• In Condition 17 [the former Condition 16], add the following sentence at the start of the Condition:

Noise levels shall at all times comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Ms M Hancock, Ms P Taylor & Mr H Chadwick in person.

Mr P O'Farrell of counsel instructed by Rigby Cooke lawyers. Evidence was called from Mr C Huybregts, acoustic engineer; Senior Sergeant David Watson, Victoria Police; & Mr A Cameron, Director of Inversion Productions Pty Ltd.

The review site is the Phillip Island Grand Prix Circuit, accessed via Back Beach Road. In addition to the main track, the Grand Prix Circuit comprises facilities such as go-karts, café, merchandise outlet, museum and function facilities.

To use and develop the land for a music and arts festival on one weekend in February or March each year. The documentation accompanying the permit (revised on 13 March 2009) is the "Event Management Plan".

Live performances would occur between 11am and 11pm on the Saturday on a stage sited between the Circuit's visitor centre and racetrack. In addition, for ticketed camping patrons, recorded music/DJ would be played from 11pm on the Saturday to 2am the following morning on an indoor stage in the catering/conference area. The liquor license would apply to Saturday midnight for the entertainment area and until 3am the following morning for the campground entertainment area.

The camping area would be between the track and Visitor Centre Drive. Parking would be in the same areas used for events at the Circuit.

The event would be targeted to patrons between 16 and 35 years of age with 5,000 - 10,000 in the first year. A limit of 10,500 is sought for patrons (up to 10,000) and staff/performers (500).

Special Use 1 Zone with parking to occur within the abutting Rural Activity Zone. A Vegetation Protection Overlay applies (but no vegetation is proposed to be removed).

Clauses 37.01 (Schedule 1), 35.08 (and Schedule), 52.03, 52.06 and 52.27.

Clauses 11, 12, 15.01, 15.05, 15.08, 17.04, 18.02, 21, 22.05, 52.06, 52.27 and 65. I was also referred to the provisions of proposed Amendment C85.

The site and area are known from other proceedings.[1]

1. Ms Margaret Hancock, Mr Hilton Chadwick, Mrs Suzanne Chadwick and Ms Pauline Taylor all oppose a proposal for a music and arts festival to be conducted at the Phillip Island Grand Prix Circuit. The "Bass Vista Music Festival" would be held on one night per year, in February or March. It would be expected to attract 5,000-10,000 persons. It is separate from the Pyramid Rock Festival, also run by Inversion Productions Pty Ltd, that allows for up to 15,000 persons around New Years Eve on a nearby site for a three day festival.
2. The Bass Coast Shire Council determined to grant a permit for the proposal subject to conditions. At that time, the permit application was for one event. Leave was granted by Deputy President Gibson for the application to be amended. It is now proposed to be one event per annum (with no limit as to the number of years). The Council opposes an annual event but maintains its support for a one-off festival to enable the full impacts to be assessed before any further festival is held.
3. The Applicants agree with the Council's view about an annual permit. They also argue that the time has come to drawn the line at the number of large events held on Phillip Island until there has been a full review of the economic and social impacts of major events by the Council with relevant agencies and a strategy for the conduct of a manageable/sustainable number of events adopted by the Council. Their concerns are focused on the number of major events being conducted on Phillip Island in the context of one road providing access on/off the Island, no public hospital and other alleged inadequacies in infrastructure. They oppose the loss of a noise-free weekend and the imposition of another event that adds to excessive traffic to the detriment of residents, residents' guests, and others coming to the Island.
4. The Tribunal must decide whether the grant a permit for the proposal. The key issues raised by the grounds relied upon by the parties are:
   • whether the proposal is an acceptable use of the land;
   • whether the festival should be rejected because of concerns about infrastructure, service provision/availability and the absence of an overall strategy for events on Phillip Island;
   • whether the proposal would have unreasonable impacts upon existing residents including in terms of noise and traffic congestion.
5. Having considered all submissions and evidence with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme, and being familiar with the site and locality, I have decided to vary the Council's decision and allow one festival per year. My reasons follow.

1. Underlying some of the submissions made about the proposed festival at the Phillip Island Grand Prix Circuit is the principle of using the motor racing Circuit for a music and arts festival.
2. Other than the parking area in the Rural Activity Zone which uses land used for car parking when events at held at the Circuit, the festival would be contained within the Special Use Zone.
3. The purpose of Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone is:

To provide for the use or development of a motor racing track and associated activities.

1. The provisions of the Zone enable a permit application to be made for a music and arts festival. The land's function as a motor racing track is self-evident and all of the relevant policies and provisions in the Scheme relating to the site give weight to the importance of the Phillip Island Grand Prix Circuit as a nationally and internationally recognised sporting attraction as well as the prospect of "associated activities" that support and/or complement the facility's tourist function. The policies within the Scheme also seek to promote the Shire's role as a major tourist destination and as a place for hosting a diverse range of sporting and cultural events.
2. In my view, the proposed site would advance those strategic objectives and is a good one from the perspective of the extent of permanent infrastructure that is in place to support such a use. Examples include buildings used for toilets, medical purposes and catering. In addition, the areas for parking and camping are already used for Grand Prix purposes. Moreover, the site has ongoing use and experience for major events including with respect to traffic movement, waste management and emergency services operations. The proposal would avoid introducing this type of use into one of the more sensitive undeveloped locations around the Island. In addition, although the site may not be a designated tourism area in Clause 22.05, it is a location where the infrastructure can be easily adapted for the use proposed. I do not consider that is inconsistent with Clause 22.05.
3. I therefore consider the proposal is acceptable, in principle, in terms of the purpose for which the land is zoned.
4. The submissions presented in this case also demonstrate differences in views as to whom benefits from the proposal might flow, and which sectors of the Island community might not benefit or might be disadvantaged by this type of event. Ultimately, I am satisfied that although the festival would not appeal to all age groups and would bring some disruption, it would be a positive response to the outcomes set out in the Scheme (and in proposed Amendment C85) by diversifying and enhancing the recreational and cultural opportunities available for parts of the community.

Should the festival be rejected because of concerns about infrastructure, service provision/availability and the absence of an overall strategy for events on Phillip Island?

1. Through Clause 21.05, the Scheme recognises that there are issues relating to ready access to medical and other services and facilities, and volunteers. At the same time, the policy seeks to promote the Shire as having the proven ability, capacity and facilities to host a diverse range of sporting and cultural events and providing the necessary infrastructure needed to host major sporting and cultural events.
2. The Applicants' submissions highlight the difficult balancing exercise relating to these matters.
3. None of the agencies or authorities who were invited to comment on the permit application objected (Country Fire Authority, Ambulance Victoria, DSE, VicRoads, Environment Protection Authority, Phillip Island Nature Park and Westernport Water). The Victoria Police initially objected but I understand its concerns were satisfied including through conditions included on the Notice of Decision. While privately members of these organisations may have personal views as Mr Chadwick suggested, I must proceed on the basis of the official position taken by each organisation.
4. I appreciate there are concerns about the impact of events on services and infrastructure and the ability to respond to a major incident given the constraints associated with one road on/off the Island. However, the proposal utilises a site that is serviced by infrastructure and is regularly used to stage events of the same and a much larger scale. The authorities are practiced with respect to the use of the site as well as in relation to the operational arrangements for the nearby Pyramid Rock Festival.
5. In this context, I do not consider a single event of the scale and duration proposed each year is an unreasonable impost. I give weight to the fact that none of the agencies have opposed the permit application.
6. I do not think this is the time to "draw a line in the sand" and deny approval for this permit application as the Applicants desire. Having said that, I agree with the Applicants that the broader social and economic effects of staging major events on the community and an assessment of how many events should be staged on the Island each year are matters that would, on the face of it, benefit from a strategic assessment. Ms Paterson noted that a tourism strategy is proposed over the next five to six years as part of the current Planning Scheme review. I also am aware that the current Scheme has several strategies with respect to tourism and events including to "Develop a Special Events Policy for the Shire".[2] It seems that the need for a strategic approach to events and tourism is recognised and I would encourage the Council to advance further work as soon as it is able.
7. I note the Applicants' concern about the costs to the Council for events and Mr Cameron's evidence that a user-pays principle applies to most services relied upon by the proponent. Broader issues about Council resources for events management and emergency management are again ones for the Council to address in its corporate and strategic planning processes.

Would the proposal unreasonably affect adjacent properties?

1. The potential for noise emissions to affect the closest dwellings was not an issue addressed in any detail at the hearing by the Applicants but was raised as a concern during the processing of the permit application by the Council. The Applicants referred more particularly to the impacts of the loss of a noise-free weekend that would affect the amenity of residents and others who experience noise and added inconvenience associated with congested roads. Ms Hancock referred to problems residents and community groups have in arranging functions of their own; they prefer to target noise-free weekends when access is easier and there is less noise.
2. The Circuit operates on a requirement (in part) for a specific number of noise-free weekend days. The proposed festival is intended for such a weekend day/evening rather than replacing a motor sports event/activity. With 5,000 to 10,000 patrons, the event is of a smaller scale than others that occur on the Island and is likely to cause less disruption. However, it is self-evident that there would be a further weekend with increased noise and traffic on an otherwise noise-free weekend. That might include night-time traffic as cars depart the Island after the last performance at 11pm but based on the evidence of Senior Sergeant Watson I am satisfied that can be managed in an orderly fashion. The experience of the first year of operation can inform a revised traffic management plan that would be required should the event be held in subsequent years.
3. Given the scale of the event and ability to comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2 as discussed next, I do not consider the proposal should fail because it would take away a noise-free weekend. Nor do I consider it should replace a motor sports weekend. The proposal is for one event, for one day/evening, each year. In this context, and given the use of the Phillip Island Grand Prix Circuit for the festival, I find the proposal to be acceptable subject to the extensive conditions proposed by the Council and some additional conditions that I will require.
4. With respect to noise emissions to the closest dwellings, I am persuaded by Mr Huybregts' evidence that the use could comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2 having regard to recommendations contained in that evidence. The Council raised some very detailed and technical issues with respect to the evidence but, even if there is some margin for variation from Mr Huybregts' predictions, I am satisfied that compliance could be achieved.
5. As Mr Huybregts said, the monitoring regime and protocols in place for the management of noise levels during the event by the acoustic engineer on-site can ensure that noise levels continuously meet SEPPN-2.

1. I have decided that an annual permit is an acceptable outcome in the circumstances of this case. I do not consider that outcome would represent a transformation of the proposal as contended by the Council and there are sufficient safeguards in the permit conditions to enable the Responsible Authority or any of the agencies to address issues that might arise in any year to prevent a recurrence in the following year.
2. More specifically, I have decide an annual permit is appropriate taking into account the following factors:
   • the land upon which the event would be held which is used for many small and large events including patron camping;
   • the conduct of the event by Inversion Productions Pty Ltd which has a track record and experience of operating festivals in the immediate locality and has developed working relationships with the relevant authorities and agencies;
   • the ability for any specific issues or problems to be addressed through the permit conditions that require the submission of various management plans (eg. event management, traffic and environmental management) each year;
   • the inclusion of a permit condition requiring an annual review of the event in consultation with the Responsible Authority;
   • the ability for the Responsible Authority to seek to amend or cancel the Permit should it believe there are grounds to do so.
3. The conditions contained in the Notice of Decision require a limited number of changes to address the issue of an annual permit rather than a single event. One includes notification of, and agreement by the Responsible Authority, to the date of the next event. The Respondent has agreed to that notification being no less than six months prior to the festival. The Council has indicated that is acceptable to it.
4. I discussed with the parties at the hearing the possibility of a personal permit given the emphasis in submissions on the track record of Inversion Productions Pty Ltd with respect to the operation of the Pyramid Rock Festival that seems to be accepted by the parties as now working successfully. I do not think the circumstances warrant such a condition. However, I will provide for the details of the operator to be confirmed when the date for the event is fixed each year so that if the operator was to change, the Council can seek any details it requires.
5. Furthermore, taking up the point made by the Applicants with respect to planning by the local community for their own events and functions, once the date is approved by the Council I will require the applicant to inform the public of the approved date in the manner directed by the Responsible Authority. By way of example, that could include media releases, information being placed on appropriate web-sites, and letters to nominated organisations and groups.
6. I have not been persuaded to require festival attendees to camp on-site (whether for all attendees or for those who do not otherwise have accommodation on the Island) as was proposed in some submissions. The event is planned for one day/night and while camping on-site would be a good option for some it should not be mandated in my view mindful of the ability to manage traffic egress late into the night as referenced in Senior Sergeant Watson's evidence. That does not mean patrons or others might not attempt to park/sleep in public places away from the site as described by the Applicants but, on the information available to me, the Council is aware of this. It is a matter that needs to be addressed through other avenues assisted by the long lead time for event planning and management provided by the permit conditions.

1. A decision in this matter requires balancing competing interests of protecting the amenity of the Island enjoyed by residents and their visitors and promoting tourism activities involving the use of a site that is well set up for that purpose.
2. For the above reasons, I find the proposal represents an acceptable outcome in terms of the policies and decision guidelines of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme. I will vary the decision made by the Responsible Authority to accord with my findings with respect to the amended permit application.

[1] Linfox Property Group Inc v Bass Coast SC [2008] VCAT 642.