Condition no. 8: Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, within 90 days of the date of this amended permit, an acoustic report must be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer and must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Noise testing for this acoustic report must be undertaken when the function centre is operating at maximum capacity allowed by this permit, when live or recorded music is played within the building and cover both day and night time periods. When approved, the acoustic report will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The acoustic report must assess the noise impact resulting from the proposed use and/or development, and must make recommendations to limit the noise impacts in accordance with Part 5.3, Division 4 of the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 or any other requirement to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The recommendations and requirements of the endorsed acoustic report must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Condition no. 9: The recommendations and requirements of the endorsed acoustic report must be implemented within 30 days of the approval of the acoustic report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Condition no. 10: The recommendations and requirements of the endorsed acoustic report must be carried out and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Whilst I agree that the above conditions are unwarranted and unnecessary in order to achieve an acceptable planning outcome, I disagree that there is no nexus between the proposed buildings and works and the land use. Indeed, the buildings and works already include measures to address noise impacts (such as the air locks and the design of the roofed arbor). I also note that a noise limiter has been installed with a noise level setting as per Mr Hancock's recommendation. Further, the nexus between the buildings and works and the function centre use and the relevance of a consideration of noise impacts is arguably acknowledged by the applicant through the advancement of acoustic expert evidence, and the inclusion of a Venue Management Plan by way of submission.
2. However, I do agree that any new condition relating to the management of noise impacts needs to have a clear and direct connection to the proposed buildings and works. In this case, any new condition needs to have a clear nexus with the proposed roofed arbor and vintage tram. This is because it is these structures that facilitate the congregation of patrons in specific outdoor areas, and this is the key change proposed by the buildings and works that has a potential off-site amenity impact (in this case a noise impact).
3. Nevertheless, I do agree with the applicant's argument that Condition nos. 6, 8, 9 and 10 should be deleted as there is an insufficient nexus between these conditions and the proposed buildings and works. I will therefore focus on Mr Hancock's evidence as it relates to the outdoor areas which are impacted by the proposed roofed arbor and vintage tram.
4. Mr Hancock's evidence included undertaking noise measurements, noise modelling and an assessment of the venue against relevant noise policy. I accept the patron noise reference levels that Mr Hancock has adopted for the day and evening periods (being 40 dB LAeq, 15 min and 35 dB LAeq, 15 min respectively). Mr Hancock's modelling showed that up to 60 patrons could be accommodated in the outdoor area prior to the adopted noise reference levels being reached. I consider that it is appropriate for this outcome to be managed by a condition of the permit.
5. Mr Hancock's evidence also recommended the use of a venue management plan to control patron behaviour within and around the arbor after dark (that is, after sunset) and after 9pm. The venue management plan could also specify a maximum patron number of 60 as per Mr Hancock's evidence.
6. On the basis of Mr Hancock's written and verbal evidence, I think it is appropriate for a venue management plan to be prepared so that the patron numbers and patron behaviour in and around the roofed arbor and vintage tram area can be acceptably managed to meet the noise impact outcomes deemed appropriate by Mr Hancock.
7. I therefore have adopted the venue management plan condition put forward by the applicant. I am satisfied that this condition implements the recommendations of Mr Hancock as per his expert written and verbal evidence. The new condition is as follows:

Within 2 months of the date of any amended permit, a Venue Management Plan (VMP) must be submitted to the Council for its endorsement. The VMP must be generally in accordance with that prepared by Global Public Safety dated 29 July 2025 but modified to include:

1. With the exception of bridal party photographs, patrons smoking, and arrival and departures from the land, staff must ensure that:

e) From sunset, patrons to be within the building or in the outdoor area to the east of the building which is bound by the tram, chain/post fencing and vintage truck. > > f) From 9pm, no more than 60 patrons in the outdoor area and of these, no more than 10 in the area beyond the roof of the arbor. > > g) With the exception of Sundays and Public Holidays, from 11pm no patrons in the outdoor area, including the arbor. > > h) On Sundays and Public Holidays, from 10pm no patrons in the outdoor area, including the arbor.

The VMP must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the use permitted by the permit must operate in accordance with the VMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. It is also noteworthy that the permit already contains conditions which control noise emissions from the subject site, either directly or indirectly. These conditions include the following restrictions on the function centre use:
   • Limit the hours of operation to 11pm Sunday to Thursday, and midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.
   • Limit the number of patrons by specifying a maximum of 120 seats to be available to the public at any one time.
   • Limiting functions to times when the Chapel use is not occurring.
   • Requiring compliance with the Noise Protocol under the Environment Protection Regulations 2021.
   • Use of signage to manage noise in the car park late at night.
   • Prohibiting any amplified music or live amplified bands, and only allowing live or recorded music to be played inside the building.
   • Requiring all external windows of the function centre building to remain closed during events, and specifying that all doors of the building remain closed during events except for access and egress purposes.
   • Prohibiting audible alarms or public address systems.
   • Prohibiting bottles or hard waste disposal in outside areas from 10pm to 8am.
   • Requiring rubbish removal from the site between 8am and 6pm.
2. I consider that these existing conditions in conjunction with the preparation and implementation of a VMP, ensures that the proposed buildings and works do not result in any unreasonable noise impacts. This means that I am satisfied that the off-site amenity impacts of the proposed buildings and works are acceptable and that the proposal satisfies Clause 63.05 of the planning scheme.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. A modified amended permit is granted subject to conditions.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing, referenced Tribunal decisions, 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 is cited or referred to in these reasons.