Application under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Clause 32.01-6: Buildings and works associated with a Section 2 use in the R1Z.

Clause 52.27: Increase the area within which liquor is served and extension of hours.

Clause 52.28: Use land for electronic gaming machines.

Clauses 10.02, 11, 15, 17, 18, 21.04, 21.06, 22.01, 22.07, 52.06, 52.27, 52.28 and 65.

The land is located on southeast corner of Chapel Street and Crews Street St Kilda. The land is occupied by the Dick Whittington tavern and associated car parking. The tavern is within a two storey building providing bar, dining and gaming areas at ground level with offices at first floor level. The tavern is set within a residential area with surrounding properties generally occupied by period and contemporary dwellings. A social housing development being undertaken by the Port Phillip Housing Association is under construction directly opposite the tavern on the west side of Chapel Street.

1. Trio Taverns Pty Ltd Ltd lodged an application with the Port Phillip City Council seeking permission for various changes to the Dick Whittington tavern located on the corner of Chapel Street and Crews Street St Kilda. The changes involve alterations to the internal layout of the hotel to facilitate increasing the number of Electronic Gaming Machines [EGMs] from 29 to 40 in the gaming room; the provision of a function room at first floor level and increase in the size of the area where liquor can be served. An extension to the hours is also sought. The Council did not grant the permit within the prescribed time. This application by Trio Taverns against the Council's failure and requests an order directing the issue of the permit.
2. Subsequent to the application being lodged with the Tribunal, the Council decided that it would have refused the grant of a permit on six grounds. In summary, the grounds of refusal assert that the proposal is contrary to existing and proposed policies in the planning scheme, inconsistent with the purpose of the zone and would be contrary to the purposes of clauses 52.27 (liquor) and 52.28 (gaming).
3. Mr Burke, a resident in Queen Street, also opposes the grant of the permit. He submits that the proposal to increase the number of EGMs, provide function rooms and extend trading hours will lead to an increased number of patrons attending the premises with resultant impact on noise, general disruption to amenity, more pressure on kerbside parking within the area and increased traffic.
4. In December 2011, the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation (VCGR)[1] determined to approve a request for an additional 11 EGMs on the subject land[2]. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission found the City of Port Phillip and the area immediately surrounding the venue do not appear to be disadvantaged and that any detriment would be more than offset by the benefits associated with the proposal[3].
5. Trio Taverns contends that it is reasonable to grant a permit in the circumstances. While contending that there is no need for a net benefit to be demonstrated, Trio Taverns submits that the proposal will result in positive benefits to the community, a view supported by the VCGR. It submits that the Commission's view should be given weight. It also contends that while the tavern is located adjacent to land which is being redeveloped for social housing and proximate to public housing and community facilities, the use of 11 additional EGMs will not lead to increased problem gambling. This is because the local community is already exposed to gaming facilities, both within the Dick Whittington Tavern as well as other larger venues such as the Balaclava Hotel. Trio Taverns relies on the evidence that it is a well run venue which implements responsible gaming practices and provides a full range of facilities for its patrons. It submits that the additional trading hours sought will not result in unreasonable impacts on amenity.
6. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, I have decided to grant the permit. My reasons follow.

1. The key issues to be decided are:
   • Is the proposal supported by the policies within the Planning Scheme?
   • Will the proposal have unreasonable impacts on the amenity of nearby residential properties?

1. Several permissions are required under the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. The land is zoned Residential 1, the provisions for which are found at Clause 32.01. Under Clause 32.01-6, a permit is required for buildings and works associated with a use found within Section 2 of the land use table. "Tavern" is a use within Section 2.
2. A permit is also required under Clause 52.27 to sell or consume liquor on the subject land if, amongst other things, the hours of trading allowed under a licence are to be extended and/or the area that liquor is allowed to be consumed or supplied under a licence is to be increased. The purposes of this clause 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.

1. In deciding whether to grant a permit under this clause, consideration must be given to planning policy, the impact of the sale or consumption of liquor permitted by the liquor licence on the amenity of the surrounding area and the impact of the hours of operation on the amenity of the surrounding area.
2. A permit is required to use gaming machines [EGM]. The purposes in clause 52.28 are:

To ensure that gaming machines are situated in appropriate locations and premises.

To ensure the social and economic impacts of the location of gaming machines are considered.

To prohibit gaming machines in specified shopping complexes and strip shopping centres.

1. Clauses 52.28-3 and 52.28-4 specify locations where gaming machines are prohibited. The subject land is not located within any of the prohibited areas under these clauses.
2. In deciding whether to grant a permit, consideration must be given to planning policy, the compatibility of the proposal with adjoining and nearby land uses, the capability of the site to accommodate the proposal and whether the gaming premises provides a full range of hotel facilities or services to patrons or a full range of club facilities or services to members and patrons.
3. Under Section 3.3.7 (1) (c) of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003, the Commission is required to consider 'the net economic and social impact of approval would not be detrimental to the well-being of the community of the municipal district in which the premises are located'. In contrast, the Council and in turn the Tribunal's considerations are under clause 52.28 of the planning scheme is, as stated in Bells Hotel Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC[4]

.......a more confined focus than the test under the Gambling Regulations Act 2003... it is for the responsible authority (and Tribunal on review) to decide what constitutes a relevant impact in a particular case and what constitutes the appropriate locality within which to consider the impact'.

Is the proposal supported by the policies within the Planning Scheme?

1. The Council acknowledges that the Commission has granted permission for the 11 additional machines. However, it submits that the Commission's decision to approve the additional machines should not pre-empt the exercise of discretion to approve a planning permit for the additional machines. It contends that the matters to be considered under the planning scheme are not the same as those before the Commission. In support of this proposition, the Council relies on the Tribunal's decision in Beretta's Langwarrin v Frankston CC[5] when it said:

We are mindful that it is not the Tribunal's role to revisit the social/demographic implications of the proposal as have already been considered by the Gambling Commission. ....In setting out the purposes of Clause 52.28, there is a clear intention that the planning decision maker focus on the locational attributes of this type of gaming proposal.

1. While this may be so, it seems to me that there is overlap between what the Commission was required to consider under the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 and the matters under Clause 52.28. It is inescapable that Clause 52.28 requires the social and economic impacts of the location of gaming machines to be considered.
2. It could be argued that the difference lies in the specific nature of the effect to be considered. Under the Gambling Regulation Act 2003, the Commission is required to consider the impact on the well being of the community of the municipal district while the emphasis in Clause 52.28 is focussed on the specific location.
3. While this may be the case, what is clear is that in this case is that the Commission did not simply limit its examination of the impacts of the proposal to those on the well being of the community of the municipality. Rather, it is evident from the Commission's decision that it also considered the impacts on the immediate context. This followed submissions from the Council which highlighted its concerns about:
   • Residents of the several public housing estates surrounding the venue;
   • The number of people who access the range of community services which are provided in the Carlisle Street precinct; and
   • The low income earners who access Carlisle Street shopping precinct which is one of the cheapest shopping precincts in the municipality[6].
4. The Council also submitted that:
   • The Commission should consider the physical circumstances in which the venue finds itself, that is, the community housing estate at 87 Chapel Street which is being provided b the Port Phillip Housing association[7].
5. It is clear that the Council's submission sought the Commission's consideration of the social and economic impacts on of the specific context and not to simply on the well being of the community within the municipality.
6. With respect to these matters, I note the Commission's conclusions at paragraph 16 (a) and (b) of its decision when it said:
   • (a) As a whole, the City of Port Phillip and the area immediately surrounding the venue do not appear to be disadvantaged.
   • (b) In respect of the venue's proximity to public and social housing and community services, the Commission acknowledges the Council's concern. The Commission accepts that it is appropriate to take a precautionary approach is cases like this. Even on a precautionary approach, however, refusal is not warranted in this case. The evidence before the Commission suggests that residents of public and social housing are not significant utilisers of the egms at the venue. No evidence was put before the Commission that this was likely to change with the addition of new machines[8].
7. While the provisions of Section 3.3.7 (1) (c) of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 require consideration of the impact on the well-being of the community within the municipal district, the Tribunal's[9] decision in Branbeau v Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation[10] supports the view that it was appropriate for the Commission's assessment of the impact on the community to drill down to the local context. On this point, the Tribunal said:

Although the test requires consideration of the impact of approval on the well-being of the community of the municipal district in which the premises are located, logic and common sense require this to be considered in the context of the spatial impact of the gaming machines to be installed in the venue concerned. Thus, in the present case, the primary impact of approving the venue, with 20 machines, will be upon persons living or working in Drouin. Lesser impacts are likely in relation to persons living or working away from Drouin; with little or no impact likely further away, even though such areas might be within the municipal district concerned. It is quite unlikely that approval of the proposed venue in Drouin will have any impact upon persons living or working in Trafalgar or in Noojee[11].

1. It is clear that the Commission's enquiry in this case was not confined to the impact on the wider community of the municipality. The local impacts were also considered and the proposal found acceptable. This is relevant to my consideration of the social and economic impacts of this location. On this point, I further note the views of the Tribunal in Branbeau when it said:

Although the tribunal must proceed without any presumption as to the correctness of the decision under review, it will usually be appropriate for the tribunal to give weight to the Commission's decision in the matter. There are two reasons for this. First, the Commission has particular expertise in the area of gaming. Second, there is a public interest in consistency of decision making in the exercise of powers under the Act and this may be advanced if weight is given to Commission decisions.

1. The above analysis is necessary to properly consider the propositions put by the Council with respect to the appropriateness of the location. As it did before the Commission, the Council maintains its position that the location of the proposed EGMs is inappropriate given the Dick Whittington's proximity to existing and proposed public housing[12], near the Carlisle Street Precinct and community services[13] and Carlisle Shopping precinct[14].
2. The Council submits that under Clause 10.02 of the SPPF, policy directs that there is a need to integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development. It submits that the need to demonstrate a net community benefit is reinforced by local policy, particularly the proposed new Clause 22.07[15] which requires a proposal to demonstrate the overall net community benefit to be derived. The Council accepts the position adopted in Sayers Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Wyndham CC[16] that Clause 10.02 sets out a policy position rather than setting a test that a proposal must demonstrate 'net community benefit'. However, the Council maintains that the notion of whether the proposal achieves a net community benefit should be a relevant consideration given the thrust of state and local policies.

In this regard I note the Tribunal's recent analysis of the policy position in Port Phillip, which takes into account changes proposed under Amendment C88. In Bay and Bridge Hotel v Port Phillip CC[17] the Tribunal said:

1. While we are required to have regard to whether the proposal delivers a net community benefit, it does not follow that the delivery of a net benefit is fundamental to the grant of a permit, particularly in cases where it is demonstrated that the outcome will not deliver a detriment or is "neutral" in terms of its impact on the community.

1. Planning policy also highlights the potential social and economic detriment associated with gaming. At Clause 21.04-8, the MSS notes:

There is a need to continue to support the disadvantaged, disabled and low income to remain in the city through appropriately designed and located housing.

Pressure for licensed premises and gaming venues is also growing. Both have an important entertainment role in the municipality, however, they need to be appropriately sited and managed to ensure their social impacts on the community are minimised.

1. Amendment C88 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme proposes the introduction of an updated policy in respect of gaming machines in the municipality at clause 22.07. The amendment also proposes the listing of the Port Phillip Responsible Gaming Policy (2011) as a reference document. The amendment was exhibited in October 2011 and considered by a Panel on 27 April 2012. The Panel's report has been released. The amendment has been largely adopted in line with the Panel's recommendations, however, one significant departure from the panel's recommendations is that the Council has modified the policy so that the buffer distance of 500m (rather than 400m) to social housing is required. The amended policy is a seriously entertained proposal albeit that, to some extent, the version adopted by the Council was neither exhibited nor does it accord with the Panel's recommendations. Nonetheless, we consider that it should be afforded some weight given that the adopted version is largely consistent with the Panel's recommendations.

1. The policy basis under the proposed policy states:

While gambling is a legal activity, the policy acknowledges that there are links between vulnerable communities, problem gambling and proximity to gaming venues. The Port Phillip Responsible Gambling Policy seeks to discourage the location of gaming machines in proximity to vulnerable communities.

1. The objectives of clause 22.07 as proposed under amendment C88 have been enlarged to include:

• To reduce the impact of gaming machines on vulnerable communities.
• To minimise opportunities for convenience gaming and the incidence of problem gambling.

1. To achieve these objectives, the policy (as adopted by the Council) requires gaming venues to be located more than 500 metres from social housing developments and support/referral services servicing vulnerable communities. Further, it requires gaming venues to be located on sites where there is minimal likelihood of people passing the venue as part of their usual business or every day activities. Quite clearly, there is an emphasis in the proposed local policy to locate new and or expanded gaming venues in locations which are some distance from areas which house 'vulnerable communities' or which provide support services[18].

1. At the municipal level, the City of Port Phillip is ranked 73 out of 80 all Local Government Areas under the SEIFA Index, where the 80th is the least disadvantaged. The commission's decision notes that the "SEIFA figures for the City of Port Phillip do not suggest any obvious cause for concern". However, at the Council's insistence, the Commission examined the potential for localised impacts. It is clear that the Commission did so, as evidenced by the analysis in its decision. In particular, the Commission found that eligibility criteria for housing in a number of the social housing developments identified on Council's map would tend to exclude the persons most likely to be problem gamblers'. Further, the Commission found that a person shopping or using community services in the Carlisle Street precinct is more likely to take advantage of the larger, cheaper, more proximate Balaclava Hotel than walking to the Dick Whittington Tavern[19].
2. There is some irony in the concern raised about the potential impact on the residents of Port Phillip Housing Association project opposite the tavern. The tavern has operated with EGMs for many years. I understand that at one stage the premises accommodated 45 EGMs. Nonetheless, despite the existence of EGMs in the tavern, the Port Phillip Housing Association sought and obtained a permit for a social housing on land directly opposite the site. The Council supported the application. Given the level of concern expressed about this proposal, it is inconceivable that the potential social and economic impacts of locating a project of that type directly opposite a gaming venue were not considered by both the association and the Council. I understand that large sites for such projects are difficult to assemble in inner areas like St Kilda. I can only conclude that the potential effects of having a gaming venue near such a project are not so severe to warrant abandoning a worthwhile housing project.
3. In this case, the proposed increase of 11EGMs is acceptable. The increase is to occur within an existing gaming facility. The proposal does not create a new facility. I also agree with the view expressed by Mr Barrett that the increase in EGMs is relatively small and, importantly, will not change the nature of the venue. In relative terms, with 40 EGMs, it is a small to medium sized venue. As a gaming venue, it is nowhere near the scale of the Balaclava Hotel. The EGM's are located within a tavern that provides for a full range of facilities for patrons including bar, bistro and function room areas. Given the layout, patrons entering the tavern from Chapel Street are not immediately confronted by EGMs. Rather the EGMs are located within a discreet area toward the rear of the ground floor level.
4. For reasons that I will expand on later, I am unable to conclude that the additional EGMs will bring about change that will have adverse impacts on the amenity of the locality and in particular, surrounding residential uses.
5. The analysis and conclusions reached by the Commission provide a compelling basis on which to enable me to find that location of the venue with 40 EGMs is acceptable having regard to social and economic impacts. I accept the Commission's conclusion that if there is a social and economic detriment, it is likely to be small and that the positive aspects of the proposal will deliver a net community benefit as sought by policy. The provision of function rooms free of charge to community groups[20], the applicant's commitment to make community contributions of $20000 per annum, additional employment at the tavern, access to improved hotel gaming facilities for responsible gamblers and the operation of the venue under an updated code will all work toward delivering a positive outcome as envisaged by planning policy. While the Commission did not require a formal undertaking for the contributions to be made, Trio Taverns is prepared to give the Tribunal an undertaking that it will implement the contributions with such undertaking given under Section 130 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. The undertaking is recorded in my order.

Will the proposal have unreasonable impacts on the amenity of nearby residential properties?

1. The Council is also concerned about the proposed extended trading hours given the residential context. The Council accepts that, on one view, the proposed extended hours are modest. However, it is concerned that hotel management will not be able to control the behaviour of patrons leaving the venue late at night, particularly when it large numbers when functions conclude. The Council submits that the existing trading hours should be maintained. Mr Burke supports this view.
2. There is no doubt that late night venues have the potential to have adverse impacts on the amenity of the area. Management of the venue is critical in this regard. It is of relevance that despite extensive notice of the permit application[21], the Council received nine objections. Of these, Mr Burke attended the hearing to express his concerns about the proposal.
3. While the substance of objections must be considered, in my experience, licensed venues which cause problems tend to attract extensive objections. This is not the case here. Further, given the evidence of Ms Didham and Ms Cottrell, it is clear that the tavern is well run. From time to time, patrons associated with licensed venues can cause problems to amenity. However, there was no persuasive evidence to enable me to form the view that the tavern has and/or will cause unacceptable problems if it is allowed to operate with additional hours sought by Trio Taverns. Essentially, one hour extension is sought on four nights with 1.00am being the latest closing time. This is not inappropriate given the nature of the venue and context.
4. The suggestion is that the detriment will occur because a function room is to be provided within the first floor level. However, the evidence presented at the hearing is that functions are already conducted within the tavern, with the bistro area used for this purpose from time to time. I would expect that problems associated with functions would already have arisen as this is an activity that is already conducted on the land. The proposal simply involves providing a separate and specific space for this part of the tavern's operation.
5. The existing liquor licence allows up to 320 persons to be on the land. The application does not seek to increase this number. The additional floor space associated with the proposed works is 7 square metres to facilitate the provision of new toilets. This is also the increase in the size of the licensed area. Under clause 52.06, a permit is required where there is an increase in the number of patrons. Despite Mr Burke's submission that more car parking is required, given that the number of patrons will not increase, no additional parking is required under Clause 52.06. When (and if) an application to increase patron numbers is made, the need for additional car parking will be considered at that time.
6. In relation to noise, premises of this nature are required to comply with State Environment Protection Policies N1 and N2. The Council's draft conditions require these standards to be complied with.
7. I conclude that the proposed buildings and works, extension to the trading hours and licensed are will not result in unreasonable impacts on amenity.

1. I find that the proposal is acceptable. The increase in the number of EGMs is modest and unlikely to have adverse social and economic impacts on vulnerable persons. Overall, the proposal is likely to deliver a net benefit, albeit a relatively small one. The location of the proposed EGMs, the increase in floor area and trading hours will not result in unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the surrounding area.
2. I will direct the grant of the permit

Construct an addition (toilet facilities) to the first floor of the building, amend the existing liquor licence including an increase to the designated licensed area and an increase to the licensed trading hours and use of an additional 11 electronic gaming machines, generally in accordance with the endorsed plans

1. Before the commencement of the use and/or development 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 permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application.
2. Layout not altered

The development and layout of the uses, including the layout of the gaming area, as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

No more than 40 gaming machines are permitted to be installed or used in the gaming area.

A maximum of 320 patrons are permitted on the subject land at any one time.

The sale and consumption of alcohol is permitted only between the following hours:

1. Ground level bar, gaming lounge & bistro
   • - Monday to Saturday 7:00am - 1:00am the following day (except for the morning of Good Friday)
   • - Sunday 10:00am - midnight
   • - Good Friday and Anzac Day (being a Sunday) 12:00pm - 11:00pm
   • - Anzac Day (not being a Sunday) 12:00pm - 1:00am the following day
2. First floor function room
   • - Monday to Wednesday 7:00am - 11:00pm
   • - Thursday to Saturday 7:00am - 1:00am the following day (except for the morning of Good Friday)
   • - Sunday 10:00am - 12 midnight (except for Anzac Day)
   • - Good Friday and Anzac Day (being a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Sunday) 12:00pm - 11:00pm
   • - Anzac Day (being a Thursday, Friday or Saturday) 12:00pm - 12:00am.

Before the use and installation of gaming machines commences, a Patron Access & Management Plan, generally in accordance with the plan dated June 2012, is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Plan must provide details of:

1. Measures designed to ensure the orderly arrival and departure of patrons;
2. Signage to be used to encourage responsible off-site patron behaviour;

1. The training of staff in the management of patron behaviour;

The Plan, including the matters specified herein, may be amended to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Plan is to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Before the use of the additional 11 electronic gaming machines commences, a Gaming Management Plan must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Gaming Management Plan must include measures to implement the "Dick Whittington Hotel Responsible Gaming Policies and Procedures Manual" prepared by Leigh Barrett and Associates dated July 2012. When the Gaming Management Plan may be amended form time to time with the consent of the Responsible Authority. The Gaming Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Noise levels must not exceed the permissible noise levels stipulated in State and Environment Protection Policy N-1 (Control of Noise from Industrial Commercial and Trade Premises within the Melbourne Metropolitan Area) and State Environment Protection Policy N-2 (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises).

The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the development through the:

1. Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land
2. Appearance of any building, works or materials

1. Emission of artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil;

All lighting of external areas must be suitably baffled so as not to cause nuisance or annoyance to nearby properties and/or roads.

No goods are permitted to be stored or left exposed outside the building so as to be visible from any public area, except with the prior written permission of the Responsible Authority.

This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

1. The use is not commenced within two (2) years of the date of this permit.
2. The development is not started within two (2) years of the date of this permit.

1. The development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit.

1. The venue operator no longer holds valid entitlements for the electronic gaming machines under the Gambling Regulation Act 2003.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

Pursuant to section 130 Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the Trio Taverns Pty Ltd gives the following undertaking to the Tribunal.

1. Trio Taverns Pty Ltd (the Applicant) is prepared to commit to establishing the Dick Whittington Tavern Community Grants Program (the Program)
2. The Applicant is prepared to enter into a written and binding agreement with the City of Port Phillip, if the City of Port Phillip so requires, to commit to the following:

1. Making cash contributions set out below for a period of ten (10) years from the commencement of the operation of the 11 additional gaming machines (EGMs) at the Dick Whittington Tavern, 32 Chapel Street St Kilda (Hotel); 2. The annual cash contributions will be the sum of $20,000.00 (increased each year by the increase in the Consumer Price Index all groups Melbourne) (the Contribution);

1. The Contribution will be allocated/applied each year to not-for- profit community groups and sporting organisations in the City of Port Phillip.
2. The following arrangements would apply in relation to the distribution of the Contribution in accordance with paragraph 2 above, namely the distribution of the Contribution would be determined by a Committee, comprising the following persons:
   1. Two (2) representatives of the Applicant; and
   2. A person nominated by the City of Port Phillip (if the Council is prepared to nominate a person to be part of the Committee);

The Committee would advertise annually for submissions from not-for-profit community and sporting organisations within the City of Port Phillip, regarding the contributions to be made by the Applicant. The Committee would assess request for cash contributions in accordance with guidelines to be established by the Committee.

1. The Applicant will be required to provide evidence to the Council at the expiration of each twelve (12) month period, from the commencement of the operation of the additional 11 EGMs at the Hotel, confirming payment of the Contribution as set out above.
2. In the event that any of the additional 11 EGMs ceases operation at the Hotel then the Contribution each year shall be reduced on a pro rata basis.
3. In the event that the Applicant sells or transfers the business at the Hotel to a third party (during the period of 10 years from the commencement of the operation of the 11 EGMs at the Hotel) then the Applicant shall be required as part of the sale or transfer to require the purchaser or transferee to assume responsibility for the obligations in this undertaking (during the period of 10 years from the commencement of the operation of the 11 additional EGMs at the Hotel)

[1] From February 2012, the VCGR role of administering and regulating the gaming industry was incorporated into the VCGLR - Victorian Commission for Gaming and Liquor Regulation.

[2] In the Matter of the Trio Taverns, VCGR (15 December 2011)

[3] See VCGR decision dated 15 December 2011 paragraphs 16 and 17 (summary of decision)

[4] [2010] VCAT 569

[5] [2009] VCAT 74

[6] Port Phillip City Council's submission to the VCGR hearing on the Dick Whittington Tavern 24 and 25 November 2011 - paragraph 23

[7] Port Phillip City Council's submission to the VCGR hearing on the Dick Whittington Tavern 24 and 25 November 2011 - paragraph 24

[9] The tribunal was constituted by His Honour Justice Morris, President of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

[10] [2005] VCAT 2606

[12] Inkerman Heights complex, 114 Inkerman Street and the proposed Port Phillip Housing Association project opposite the subject land at 87 Chapel Street.

[13] These services include the Port Phillip Community Group, St Kilda Uniting Care Drop-In Centre and St Kilda legal Service

[14] The Council submits the retail precinct is one of the most affordable shopping districts in the municipality.

[15] This new policy is to be introduced via Amendment C88 to the Planning Scheme

[16] [2010] VCAT 1364

[17] [2012 VCAT 1343

[19] See VCGR decision dated 15 December 2011 paragraph 34

[20] This is an initiative proposed by the owners of the hotel

[21] I understand that notice to the owners and occupiers of properties within a radius of several hundred metres from the hotel was required to be given