I direct that the Tribunal must provide an opportunity for the joint applicants, J Iser, E Sepsakos and W H Welsh, to make a separation submission about car parking if they so wish pursuant to section 98(1)(c) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative TribunalAct 1998 subject to any direction by the Tribunal member hearing the case.
Except with leave of the Tribunal, the following grounds only may be relied upon by the applicants at the hearing:
The number of patrons should be capped in accordance with the Tribunal's previous decision in Iser v Manningham CC[1].
No permit should be granted for the function room because there is already a 500 person function room at the municipal chambers.
Car parking is inadequate.
There should be no charge for car parking.
No permit should be granted to demolish the building affected by the Heritage Overlay.
The hearing will proceed on 2 February 2010 for one day.
[5]
On 23 December 2009, I made an order following a practice day hearing on 11 December 2009 directing:
Change to the name of the joint applicants to Bryan Saunders, J Iser, E Sepsakos, W H Welsh;
Each of the joint applicants to confirm in writing that they consent to being a joint applicant by no later than 8 January 2010;
Requiring the applicants to file and serve further and better particulars of the grounds upon which they rely and confining those issues to planning issues relevant to the permit application by no later than 8 January 2010; and
Listing the matter for hearing for one day on 2 February 2010.
The joint applicants other than Bryan Saunders have complied with the Tribunal's order and submitted grounds that relate to a lack of car parking. It does not appear that they have served a copy on the council and the permit applicant as required under the Tribunal's practice note PNPE1. The Tribunal will send these parties a copy.
In their letter dated 3 January 2010, these applicants raised concerns about the content of the application for review submitted by Mr Saunders, which named them as joint applicants. It appears that they consented to be joined as applicants in order to save the cost of a separate filing fee if they had lodged a separate application for review. They are concerned that the content of the application and Mr Saunders' grounds could jeopardise their own submissions about parking.
Information about joint applications for review is contained on the Tribunal's website. It is too late for these joint applicants (E Sebsakos, W H Welsh and J Iser) to lodge their own application for review. However, I will direct that the member of the Tribunal hearing the case give them an opportunity to be heard independently to Mr Saunders and to consider their submissions pursuant to the Tribunal's power under section 98(1)(c) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act1998 to inform itself on any matter as it sees fit. I do not consider they should be disadvantaged by any shortcomings in Mr Saunders' expression of grounds.
The other joint applicant, Mr Bryan Saunders, responded to the Tribunal's order by filing an amended application for review. It purports to set out as "history" a series of comments and rulings attributed to me at the directions hearing on 11 December 2009. What is stated is not accurate. In addition, the revised statement of grounds still contains personal attacks on the permit applicant. As I indicated at the practice day hearing, the application will be considered on its planning merits and attacks on the permit applicant or council will not be considered or tolerated.
The council has written to the Tribunal submitting that my order dated 23 December 2009 has been wilfully ignored by Mr Saunders and the further statement of grounds is no more coherent than that found in the original application. It ignores the specific direction to make no reference to council procedure or personal reference to the permit applicant, and there is no statement regarding any particular material detriment suffered by Mr Saunders or any other party. The council requests the Tribunal to exercise its powers under section 75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act1998 to strike out the application for review, to cancel the scheduled hearing and direct a permit to issue.
I have decided to refuse the council's requests to strike out the application. I consider that if irrelevant matters are disregarded, the following grounds emerge as relevant planning matters, which can be considered at the hearing. I will direct that the following matters are the only matters to be relied upon by the applicants for review at the hearing and that no other matters may be raised or relied upon except with the leave of the Tribunal member:
The number of patrons should be capped in accordance with the Tribunal's previous decision in Iser v Manningham CC[2006] VCAT 2345.
No permit should be granted for the function room because there is already a 500 person function room at the municipal chambers.
Car parking is inadequate.
There should be no charge for car parking.
No permit should be granted to demolish the building effected by the Heritage Overlay.
This matter is listed for hearing for one day only and all parties must confine their submissions to ensure that the hearing is completed within this time. As I indicated at the practice day hearing, Mr Saunders' suggestion that he will require 30 hours and 30 minutes to present his submission is unreasonable and would amount to an abuse of process. The Tribunal member may limit the time available for parties to make their submissions. If parties are unable to complete their submissions within a reasonable time as directed by the Tribunal, they may make any further submissions in writing and should be prepared for this.