23, 24, 25 July and 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 December 2012.

Zaibatsu 1 Pty Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2012] VCAT 1930

1. Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the permit application PLN 11/0644 is amended by changing what the application includes to:
   • Sale and consumption of liquor for up to 500 patrons.
   • Buildings and works, including part demolition and painting.
   • Advertising signage.
   • A waiver of car parking requirements.
   • A waiver of loading bay requirements.
2. The decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3. A permit is granted in relation to land at 100 Swan Street, Richmond. The permit will allow:
   • Sale and consumption of liquor for up to 500 patrons.
   • Buildings and works, including part demolition and painting.
   • Advertising signage.
   • A waiver of car parking requirements.
   • A waiver of loading bay requirements.
4. The permit is subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A to these reasons.
5. The responsible authority is directed to endorse plans previously endorsed in Planning Permit PL09/0086 as plans endorsed under the permit granted.

1. Pursuant to section 127 Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the application is amended by changing what is sought to be changed to cancellation of the permit.
2. The application is allowed. Pursuant to section 87A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Planning Permit No. PL09/0086 issued by the responsible authority in respect of land at 100 Swan Street, Richmond is cancelled.
3. The responsible authority is directed to cancel the permit under section 91 and give notice under section 92 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Mr Chris Townshend SC, with Dominic Scally, solicitor of Best Hooper. They called the following witnesses:

• Mr Andrew Rodda, town planner of Contour Consultants Australia.
• Mr Stephen Hunt, traffic engineer of Cardno
• Mr Tony Zalewski, public security consultant, Global Public Safety.
• Mr Peter Fearnside, Acoustic Engineer of Marshall Day Acoustics.
• Mr Matthew Mullins, director of Zaibatsu Pty Ltd.

Mr John Larkins, barrister with Ms Marita Foley, barrister, both on instruction from Ms Mimi Marcus of Maddocks solicitors. They called the following expert witnesses:

• Inspector Bernard Edwards, Yarra Liquor Licencing Inspector, Victoria Police.
• Mr Tim Biles, town planner of Message Consultants Pty Ltd.
• Mr Peter O'Leary, town planner of Polplan Pty Ltd.

• Mr Michael Tanner.
• Ms Carol Pelham - Thorman.
• Mr Trevor Fuller.
• Ms Donna Dorow.
• Mr Sean Managh.
• Ms Karen Barfoot.
• Ms Henriette Rothschild.
• Ms Helen Austin (written affidavit tendered - not called).

In person on 23, 24 and 25 July 2012. At a directions hearing on 8 October 2012, Mr Liodakis advised he wished to withdraw as a party.

In person as lay witnesses forming part of Council's submission.

Mr Michael Phillipson, Mr Richard Simpson and Mr Alan Fisher

P132/2012 - Increase patrons at the hotel from a maximum of 360 to 500 (Council reference PLN 11/0644.

P2438/2012 - Amend the noise management plan that has been endorsed as part of existing permit PL09/0086 that allows buildings and works to alter the hotel. The buildings and works are completed. The on going noise management plan endorsed through Condition 3 of this permit requires patron numbers to be restricted to 360. Application P2438/2012 seeks to amend this noise management plan to allow 500 patrons, consistent with the new application, PLN 11/0644.

Applications under Section 77 and 87A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Cl 52.27 - increase patron numbers of a licensed premises for the sale and consumption of liquor.

Clauses 10, 11.04, 13, 17.01, 18.02, 21.03, 21.04, 22.05, 22.09, 52.06, 52.27, 63 and 65.

Existing hotel (licensed premises) with three levels of drinking, entertainment and bistro areas. This includes three outdoor areas to the rear of the hotel (one at each level).

The hotel has operated since the 1920s. In 2009 a fire affected the building, after which extensive internal alterations and expansion were undertaken.

The hotel sits to the south of Swan Street, directly south of the intersection of Lennox Street. It abuts other commercial premises to the east and west, with railway lines to the direct south.

An accompanied inspection was undertaken of the hotel and surrounds during the day on 25 July 2012. Unaccompanied and unannounced inspections were undertaken by the Tribunal on Friday 23 November (from 11.45pm to approximately 1.20am the next day), Friday 30 November (from 12.30am to approximately 1.20am) and Saturday 15 December 2012 (from approximately 11 to approximately 11.30pm)

Swancom PL v Yarra CC Red Dot [2009] VCAT 923 Swancom Mark I); Liodakis v Yarra CC & Anor [2012] VCAT 1394 (Swancom Mark II); Richmond Club Hotel v Yarra CC [2010] VCAT 450; Bambou Restaurant v Stonnington CC (includes Summary) (Red Dot) [2010] VCAT 1758; Solotel Pty Limited v Woollahra Council [2011] NSWLEC 1210

1. Zaibatsu 1 Pty Ltd is the licensee of the Richmond Club Hotel at 100 Swan Street Richmond. It operates under an existing liquor licence that allows for a maximum of 360 patrons at any one time and a planning permit issued in 2010 for buildings and works that saw extensive renovations of the hotel that included new upper level lounge, dining and outdoor terrace areas. This 2010 permit includes a noise management plan that restricts the number of patrons to 360 patrons.
2. The hotel now seeks to increase its patronage to 500 people. The City of Yarra has refused the application on the basis that it will result in an unreasonable increase in the cumulative impact on the amenity of the surrounding area. It is a decision that is supported by a number of nearby residents who already experience amenity problems associated with the operation of the Swan Street entertainment area.[2] This includes other nearby entertainment venues[3]. This is most notably the problems associated with intoxicated people in the area. This includes people urinating in their front yards, damaging property, leaving rubbish, shouting late a night and generally acting in a disruptive or anti social manner. Some residents are also concerned about the increase in car parking associated with more people in the area, however, car parking is not a concern raised by Council.
3. The key issue I need to determine in this case is whether the additional 140 patrons sought will result in an unreasonable additional cumulative impact whilst also having regard to the competing policy directives that affect the site. This includes the general amenity impacts associated with intoxicated people in the area as well as noise and additional car parking associated with increased numbers at the hotel.
4. The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted, and in doing so, whether the existing permit should be amended. If a permit is granted, I also need to determine what conditions should be applied to this permit. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Yarra Planning Scheme, I have determined that whilst it is difficult to measure if any real increase in impact will occur, any such additional impact is likely to be very small and reasonable in context of the overall number of people in the area and the number of additional patrons proposed. I find this risk of any unreasonable additional impact is very small and can be sufficiently mitigated through restricted hours of use.
5. I have therefore decided to set aside the decision of Council in relation to P132/2012 and direct that a permit issue subject to a condition that the additional 140 patrons is only for operation of the hotel before midnight.
6. Council acknowledged that if a new permit was to issue it was its preference that this be an omnibus permit to encompass the previous 2010 permit for buildings and works issued by the Tribunal. I find this necessary so as to additional amenity conditions sought under the new permit are enacted. I therefore have amended the application under P2438/2012 to cancel the existing PL09/0086 permit. My reasons follow.

1. The Richmond Club Hotel (RCH) is one of the earlier hotels constructed along Swan Street and forms part of the western end of the Swan Street Major Activity Centre. It sits approximately 200 metres from the Richmond Railway Station and is directly south of the intersection of Lennox Street and Swan Street.
2. Around the Railway Station are three other large licensed premises[4] as well as a number of smaller bars and venues[5]. Beyond this immediate cluster of venues are three other traditional 'pubs', two on Punt Road and one in Lennox Street[6]. Many of these venues at the western end of Swan Street are patronised by people going to and from the Yarra River sports and entertainment precinct that lies west of Punt Road.
3. The precinct, west of Punt Road has seen considerable investment by the State Government into new and improved sport and entertainment venues over the past 20 years. This includes the tennis centre with Rod Laver and Hisense Arena, improvements to the MCG and construction of AAMI Stadium. These venues provide weekly sporting and entertainment events.
4. Swan Street has become a destination for many people to meet before and after events in the nearby Yarra River precinct. The street itself has also long been popular as a destination for entertainment, with the Corner Hotel forming an important venue for live music in Melbourne.
5. These elements, combined with an increased interest in inner city living has drawn many more people into the Swan Street Precinct in recent years. This is expected to continue with planning policy directing further growth of population and commercial development. This is seen in a practical sense in recently approved redevelopment of Dimmey's Department Store and work by the State Government to intensify development at the Richmond Railway Station. Indeed as Mr Rodda noted in his evidence to the Tribunal, the Richmond Railway Station Precinct is now listed as a location where it is policy to "Support major development for high scale and high density mixed residential and commercial" development[7].

1. The hotel has existed since the 1920s. In 2009 it sustained fire damage and was subsequently renovated in 2010. It has a liquor licence to serve 360 patrons, based on the pre-renovation floor area. The 2010 planning permit to enable the renovations also applies this patron number as part of a noise management plan. Since renovation, the hotel offers bistro meals and entertainment with a DJ. Its particular niche market is aimed at a 23 - 40 year old patronage with floor areas divided into smaller drinking and eating spaces, creating an ambiance of more intimate, social spaces for small groups, within the larger floor space of the hotel.
2. The hotel has a general licence to operate to 1.00am most days, with closing on Sundays and designated public holidays at 11.00pm. The liquor licence also allows consumption of liquor on outdoor tables and chairs in Swan Street until 11pm on any day.

1. The RCH proposes to increase its patron numbers from 360 people to 500 (an increase of 140 patrons) within the existing operating hours and the existing building as recently renovated.

1. Council called evidence from eight lay witnesses[8] who reiterated consistent amenity problems with living in the area, similar to those outlined in a previous Tribunal review to increase patronage at the Corner Hotel from 750 to 1300[9] in 2009[10]. Two of the witnesses are also separate parties to the review. Two other objector parties to the review did not attend.
2. Residents generally acknowledged that living in an inner city area such as Richmond meant having to deal with some adverse amenity impacts, such as noise and traffic. Many, including Ms Dorow and Ms Rothchild noted they generally liked the culture of the precinct, but found an increasing disturbance derived from drunken behaviour of people in local streets. The lay evidence indicated this was generally worst on Friday and Saturday evenings when events were held in the nearby Yarra River sport and entertainment precinct. Generally residents suggested that amenity had not improved since the refusal by the Tribunal of the additional 650 patrons at the Corner Hotel in 2009 (Swancom Mark I) and had possibly got worse. There was some acknowledgement that rubbish collection by Council had made some improvement on the litter left in the streets on weekends.
3. The most problematic issues identified by residents were associated with intoxicated people in the area. This included people urinating in their front yards, damaging property, leaving rubbish, shouting late a night and generally acting in a disruptive or anti social manner. This is most notably when people then leave or change venues in the area, which is mostly late at night.
4. Amenity impacts identified remained consistent with those in the Swancom Mark I and include:
   • Patron noise from patrons leaving venues. This particularly related to:
     • Patrons leaving the London Hotel at midnight and wandering to Swan Street looking for taxis or other venues to frequent.
     • Patrons leaving venues or events in the area and wandering through residential streets to return to cars, look for taxis or simply start walking home.
   • Urination, defecation and vomiting in public streets.
   • Litter and waste, including bottles, broken glass and syringes being left or thrown in public streets.
   • Occasional trespass into front gardens, including urination and property damage, and leaving or throwing litter, bottles and broken glass in private property.
   • Property damage to fence palings and street trees.
   • Graffiti (although residents in verbal testimony acknowledged this was not necessarily from patrons leaving licensed venues).
   • Violence or perceived threats to safety. This was both direct threats (such as being confronted with unruly people in the street) and a sleep disturbance factor. As explained by Ms Rothschild in her written affidavit and in further verbal presentation, she found noise from people shouting unsettling. This was because it was difficult to discern if the noise of intoxicated people late at night was in jest or fun (to which she could and should go back to sleep), or shouting from someone seeking help (to which she felt compelled to wake fully and investigate).
   • Non-residents using limited resident-only car spaces.
5. This evidence was generally not challenged by the permit applicant other than to acknowledge that these are consequence of living in such a location. The permit applicant also noted that since 2009 patronage to the general area has likely increased with increasing use of the Yarra River Entertainment Precinct and indeed the re-opening of the RCH[11].
6. As with Swancom Mark I, the witness evidence and objections were directed to the adverse amenity impacts from licensed premises in the Swan Street precinct generally. Apart from potential noise associated with a front balcony of the RCH, there was no suggestion that noise inside the hotel causes disturbance or that noise from people in the street could be directly attributed to patrons leaving the RCH. This was consistent with evidence of experts at the hearing and my own inspections of the precinct. On my inspections, the only time where I could discern noise from the balcony of the RCH, in contrast to other noise in the street, was late on a Thursday evening. On this night other nearby venues had closed. Due to the temperature on that night[12], a few patrons appeared to have chosen to sit on the balcony until close to closing time and their voices could be heard from where I stood in Lennox Street, near the edge of the Business zone area. On the other nights I visited, particularly the Saturday evening, my observation was that other venues (licensed and non licensed) generated as much, if not greater noise in the street, associated with music and general patron noise.
7. My inspections of the site and surrounds correlated with general statements made by residents in relation to pedestrian movements and noise of people calling for taxis, saying good night in the street and some patrons in the street clearly intoxicated and acting with little regard to the amenity of nearby residents. There was also consistent identification of empty alcohol containers in the street indicating that the local law banning drinking in public places potentially continues to be broken. On my inspection I likewise identified at least two groups of people (not in the immediate vicinity of the RCH) drinking from cans and bottles in public locations[13].
8. My inspections, however also correlated with acknowledgements made by residents and the evidence of all three planning witnesses that the RCH appears to be generally well managed. The evidence of Inspector Edwards was also that this hotel did not keep him awake at night[14].

1. The proposed increase of 140 patrons requires a planning permit under the Yarra Planning Scheme in accordance with Clause 52.27. This provision establishes that a planning permit is required to increase the number of patrons allowed under a liquor licence. The purpose of the provision is twofold. That is to:
   1. Ensure that licensed premises are situated in appropriate locations.
   2. Ensure that the impact of the licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding area is considered.
2. The premises already exists and evidence from all three planning experts was that it is in an appropriate location having regard to its zoning in a Business 1 area and immediate location that abuts a railway line and other commercial uses.
3. Council's grounds of refusal did not contest the location of the premises, but the additional adverse amenity impacts on the surrounding residential area by virtue of cumulative impact in context of local policy 22.09 (Licensed Premises) and Clause 52.27.
4. Based on the evidence presented and my own review of the location and site, I agree that the licensed premises is situated in an appropriate location. The critical question in this case is therefore whether the additional 140 patrons proposed will unreasonably impact the amenity of the surrounding area, with particular regard to the cumulative impact of the proposed additional numbers on top of the existing licensed venues in the precinct.
5. Clause 52.27 includes decision guidelines that require a responsible authority to consider:
   1. The impact of the sale or consumption of liquor on the amenity of the surrounding area, and
   2. The cumulative impact of existing and any proposed licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding area.

Should the impact assessment be based on the findings in Swancom Mark I

1. Council's submission was that little had changed since Swancom Mark I. Mr Larkins submitted that this decision of the Tribunal set the benchmark against which any future applications under clause 52.27 in this immediate precinct can be assessed.
2. Consequently Council submitted that before departing from the conclusions reached in Swancom Mark I, I should determine if there has been a material change in the circumstances that informed the Tribunal's conclusions in 2009.
3. I find a number of circumstances are different:

1. Firstly the RCH has reopened, adding 360 patrons that were not present[15] when Swancom Mark I was before the Tribunal. 2. Practice Note 61, produced by the Department of Planning and Community Development, has been published providing what I find to be a more current benchmark to address cumulative impact, albeit based on the principles set down in Swancom Mark I.

1. The Yarra Sports and Entertainment Precinct has continued to grow in capacity with AAMI Stadium, with capacity for approximately 35,000 now open.

1. Broader policy direction of the Yarra Planning Scheme to intensify development in and around activity centres continues to be implemented through significant new developments such as the recently approved redevelopment of Dimmey's Department Store. 2. The Richmond Railway Station Precinct has been identified in the Planning Scheme as a precinct within what is defined as part of "Central Melbourne" where opportunities for high scale and high density residential and commercial development is supported. (via Amendment VC92 approved 29 June 2012). 3. The Tribunal has varied, yet generally upheld, a decision of Council to grant a planning permit to increase the number of patrons at the Corner Hotel (Swancom Mark II)[16], from 750 to 950, provided the additional patrons leave by 11.30pm. 4. The scope of potential cumulative impact derived from the proposal before me is somewhat different to that proposed in Swancom Mark I. The proposal in Swancom Mark I was to introduce an additional 650 patrons into a venue until 3am. The proposal before me is add 140 patrons until 1am.

Relevance of Swancom Mark II and the current proposal

1. Council submitted that whilst Swancom Mark I set the benchmark, the same could not be said for Swancom Mark II. This was because Council submitted there were significant differences between the 2012 decision of the Tribunal for the increase of patrons at the Corner Hotel from 750 to 950 patrons and the review before me. In summary it submitted these were:

1. The RCH proposal failed to provide a comprehensive Cumulative Impact Assessment as part of its application. 2. The Corner Hotel enjoyed greater policy support than the proposal for the RCH as the Corner Hotel provides live music entertainment and is therefore a regional attractor of the area.

1. As a live music venue patrons of the Corner Hotel generally purchase tickets to enter with their primary motivation in attending the venue to watch live music performed, rather than having a primary purpose to drink alcohol.

1. The Corner Hotel includes a significant food and drink offer with seated areas. 2. The Swancom Mark II proposal responded to issues identified by the Tribunal in Swancom Mark I by staggering closing time to 11.30pm for the additional 200 patrons proposed. 3. The Swancom Mark II proposal included benefits of more stringent permit conditions and controls to improve existing levels of amenity in the area. This included a restriction on numbers in a first floor beer garden to 400 patrons and noise attenuation works to this open area. 4. The Swancom Mark II permit provided for a number of management techniques directed to managing patrons within and outside the premises.
2. I am not persuaded that there is such a significant difference between adding 200 patrons to the Corner Hotel (approved through Swancom Mark II) and adding 140 patrons to the RCH that I must assess. This is because:

1. A cumulative impact assessment was undertaken by Urbis as part of the permit application. Whilst it may not have 'ticked all the boxes' as directed by the Practice Note, I consider this a minor administrative failing in the assessment process, not a significant differentiation in what impacts may occur in the area. In any event further cumulative impact assessment material has been presented to me as part of the hearing process as I address further below at paragraph 36 onward. 2. Whilst the Corner Hotel is an important live music venue, the Tribunal in Swancom Mark II acknowledged that "the extra 200 patrons are not intended for the band room, but for the beer garden. The operator's focus is to serve alcohol to these extra 200 patrons, not provide music entertainment. Thus, the proposal will not create a positive cumulative impact for this area[17]". Whilst the focus of the Corner Hotel will remain as a live band venue (with 600 out of 950 patrons being able to access the band room) the additional patrons sought are not in the band room where the primary focus is on music. I do acknowledge that with the majority of numbers in the Corner Hotel focused toward the band room, its primary focus as a venue will remain that of a live music venue, which does provide some differentiation to the proposal before me.

1. The RCH does provide a significant food service up to 10pm with snacks available after this time. Seated areas are provided throughout the RCH, with this being a significant feature of the hotel marketing.

1. No late night closing is proposed (as compared to 3am as proposed in Swancom Mark I). Further Mr Townshend submitted the permit applicant would accept a staggered reduction in patrons from midnight onward given this was the normal course of action to manage closing time. In this regard he submitted the permit applicant was not opposed to a direct condition on permit that the additional patronage was only permitted to midnight, although their preference was for a 1am closing for all patrons to allow some flexibility in the management of numbers. 2. No noise attenuation is proposed to outdoor areas, however, none is needed. The RCH was extensively renovated in 2010 and this included a noise management plan that limits the number of patrons on outdoor terraces and provides for general noise attenuation measures. The evidence of Mr Fearnside was that the additional numbers proposed would not impact the ability to meet this existing plan. Nor was noise emanating from the hotel a ground by which Council refused this application.
2. Based on this, the only real differences I find between the Corner Hotel addition of numbers and that before me are:

1. The continued dominant ratio of overall patron numbers at the Corner Hotel toward use of the band room, although the increase in numbers is unrelated to use of this room, so I consider this a very minor difference between the two proposals. 2. The Corner Hotel approval will allow an additional 200 patrons, rather than 140 in the RCH proposal before me.

1. The proposed closing time for the additional patrons is different, but the permit applicant accepts that an earlier closing for the additional patrons could be considered.

1. Whether a permit proposed for an additional 140 patrons at the RCH should include similar conditions to that of the Corner Hotel for patron management.
2. Further I note that the Tribunal in Swancom Mark II commented that:

[30] The officer's report states that with unreasonable off-site amenity impacts already being experienced in the surrounding residential area because of the existing cluster, it would be difficult to identify an impact associated with a 200-patron increase alone[18].

1. My reading of the Tribunal decision in Swancom Mark II is that it concurred with the Council finding that the additional 200 patrons in context of the cluster of night time entertainment venues in the area would have a minimal adverse impact, and one that was reasonable in context of the existing cluster. This was emphasised on Friday and Saturday nights, where it found the cluster had evolved into a regional entertainment precinct and therefore the impact of an additional 200 patrons on these nights was acceptable.

1. Putting aside the comments and findings of the Tribunal in Swancom Mark I and II for the moment, I still need to address the proposal before me against the relevant provisions of the planning scheme. In doing so I find I also need to have regard to local policy 22.09 and Practice Note 61 both of which require consideration of the increase in patron numbers on the surrounding amenity, with particular consideration to the cumulative impact of such a proposal on amenity.
2. Practice Note 61 that directs that there is a need to consider if a proposal is likely to increase or create a negative cumulative impact. It then requires consideration of whether this is reasonable. The Practice Note states an adverse impact may still be reasonable if it is minor and balanced against other planning considerations for the area such as:

1. a local policy that identifies the area as a preferred location for night time entertainment uses, or 2. other positive aspects of the proposal such as exceptional mitigation measures; or

1. if the proposal also creases positive cumulative impact that outweighs the negative impact.
2. The Practice note finally states that even if adverse impacts are unreasonable the proposal may still be considered acceptable if additional mitigation measures are included as part of the application.
3. Policy at Clause 22.09 directs that the number of patrons should not exceed the safe and amenable operating capacity of the premises, and should not affect the amenity of the surrounding area. The policy also directs that licensed premises should be managed in accordance with a noise and amenity plan with details of such a plan identified in the policy.
4. I reiterate that the evidence and submission put to me was that there was no issue with the operation of the RCH inside the building. Planning evidence from Mr O'Leary, Mr Biles and Mr Rodda was also that the hotel appears to be well managed and has sufficient room to accommodate additional patrons in a safe and comfortable manner. This includes seating areas and the provision of food throughout all levels of the hotel.
5. The key questions about amenity impact relate to noise and patron behaviour outside of the hotel. This includes management of patrons on the balcony and footpath of the hotel, as well as addressing the impacts of patrons beyond what are the licensed bounds of the hotel, generally referred to as the 'red line[19]'.

1. Council questioned the management of queuing outside of the hotel on busy nights and previous complaints to Council about blocking of the footpath. No formal complaints about this issue have been received by Council over the past 12 months and are issues that can be addressed through local laws. My inspection of the street on what appeared to be a busy night[20] was that the queue was no different to other venues in the street, except that it was potentially smaller and appeared somewhat more organised than some others.
2. If the tables and chairs on the footpath are seen to be blocking the footpath this is a matter best addressed through street trading provisions of Council, as Council is the landowner of the street to which it provides a street trading permit to the hotel.
3. I find any issue associated with people blocking the footpath is no different to that of a busy café with outdoor tables and chairs. The liquor licence requires that outdoor drinking cease at 11pm. The seating in the street is limited and will not alter with the additional patrons.
4. Overall, evidence was that the management within the red line was generally good. Council endeavoured to indicate that the incident log book of the crowd controllers indicated that there were many incidents that caused some disruption in the hotel. I accept however, the evidence of Mr Zalewski that in comparison to similar hotels the number of reported incidents was quite low. The number likewise recorded by police appears quite low and Inspector Edwards acknowledged this was not the worst pub he knew. Indeed he acknowledged that it was not specifically this hotel that he had concern with but the overall collection of venues in the Swan Street Precinct that caused him concern. The reported incidents have not resulted in any written reprimands by the police. Nor was any evidence presented that this venue was problematic in the eyes of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation.
5. In any event, the management of the hotel, through planning processes will always be limited. As Mr Townshend correctly noted, a planning permit issues to the land with the Liquor Licence then issued to the management of the hotel. It is therefore through the Liquor Licence that management issues are better addressed, and if considered necessary a licence can be refused or revoked due to concerns about poor management. The planning permit can only address land use amenity issues associated with the generic use of a 'hotel' on this site, which is in a Business 1 zone on a Category 1 road zone. In this context I am satisfied that the operation of a hotel, with increased numbers has little to no impact on the capacity of the hotel to accommodate the additional patrons in a safe and amenable manner within the red line licensed area.

1. It was Council's submission that patron behaviour outside the 'red line' licensed area can be difficult to control and predict. It therefore submitted that adding a further 140 patrons up to 1am in the precinct which is already causing negative impacts on the amenity of the area will only exacerbate these impacts.
2. Mr Rodda's evidence was that likely additional impact would be imperceptible. In comparing the rigour of assessment undertaken by Mr O'Leary, Mr Biles and Mr Rodda, I agree however, with Council's comments that I must place greater weight on the more detailed cumulative impact analysis undertaken by Mr O'Leary and particularly Mr Biles who provided detailed analysis of the existing density of premises, consistent with the risk factors identified in Council's Licensed Premises policy at clause 22.09.
3. The evidence of Mr Biles and Mr O'Leary was that some adverse impact is likely to occur as a result of the increase in patrons and that this was, by definition, unreasonable due to the current impacts on the area. Mr Biles however conceded that if the additional patrons were restricted to only being on the premises before midnight, he considered the proposal acceptable.
4. In making its submissions Council also referred to a recent case in New South Wales[21] where the issue of anti social behaviour associated with entertainment precincts was discussed. In this case, the Court commented that the incidents of anti social behaviour that inevitably arise from clusters of licensed venues do so as a result of a number of factors including:

1. The limited range of powers available to security staff at licensed venues. 2. The comparatively limited geographic range that it is reasonable to expect security staff from licensed venues to patrol, beyond their venue.

1. Due to limitations on resources of police, the types of anti social offences occurring are, out of necessity, accorded a low priority by police, when compared to other demands placed on already burdened police officers.
2. Victoria Police did not object to the increase in patron numbers in the application before me, or in Swancom Mark II. The evidence of Inspector Edwards was however, that he was opposed to additional numbers due to the lack of capacity of Victoria Police to address problems from anti social behaviour associated with the Swan Street entertainment precinct. His evidence was that it is particularly bad when patrons leave in large numbers, intoxicated, and have limited means of dispersing, (either to other venues, or more ideally to transport home).
3. Inspector Edwards acknowledged that the Swan Street Precinct is a location where State policy is directing increased activity. Indeed current police resourcing acknowledges Swan Street as one of two current high risk areas in the Yarra policing district due the existing cluster of night time venues and the proximity of the Yarra River sports and entertainment area. Long term he expects that the number of people in the area will grow. However, in the short term his evidence was that there needs to be some 'breathing space' provided to police resourcing by limiting additional patrons in the area by 'drawing a line in the sand' in relation to the number of patrons in licensed premises in the area. His verbal evidence was that the particular concerns were late at night. In this regard he acknowledged his particular concern was an additional 140 patrons at 1am closing. He was less concerned, (but still somewhat concerned), about an additional 140 patrons at or before midnight. His lesser concern with patrons leaving at midnight related to the additional transport options available at this time, and the overall less drinking time available to these patrons.
4. It is apparent from the lay and expert evidence that there are existing problems with policing or managing patron behaviour beyond the red line of licensed premises. Further it is very difficult to discern if the behaviour of individuals in the area is a direct result of people leaving a specific venue, or simply people who are in the area. This includes the attraction such a precinct brings to people who may not spend much, if any time in licensed venues, but are attracted to the notion of being 'in the honeypot' that Mr Biles suggests an entertainment precinct such as Swan Street is. In this regard it is very difficult to measure the negative impact of an additional 140 patrons in a single venue on the broader amenity of the surrounding area.
5. Mr Townshend submitted that in the absence of being able to define any tangible negative impact, the impact must be determined to be imperceptible and therefore reasonable in the broader context of the precinct.
6. Again Council referred to the NSW decision in which the Court took a precautionary approach where it stated that:

[100] Any increase in any of the unacceptable antisocial behaviours inflected on the residents in the vicinity, except to the extent that such increase might be trifling or imperceptible, is in itself unacceptable. If there is an obvious and foreseeable probability that the present unacceptable impact is likely to be exacerbated (beyond the imperceptible), the proper precautionary approach to take is to not permit the circumstances giving rise to that increased risk (let alone any inevitability of such increase - as is here the case).

1. In the NSW case there was almost a doubling of numbers proposed from 400 to just under 800 patrons and in that case the Court determined that it could not conclude that the potential for increased adverse amenity was imperceptible. I find the NSW case still relevant to the extent that it emphasises that it is difficult to define tangible differences in amenity impacts and when a line needs to be drawn to no more patrons, or if a precinct has reached saturation. This difficultly was borne out in the evidence where each planning expert (and indeed Inspector Edwards) sought to define whether an unreasonable impact would occur, by drawing analogies such as boiling frogs[22], drawing lines in the sand and reaching tipping points rather than defining a specific outcome that may result from the additional patrons.
2. Based on a precautionary principle approach I accept that it must be assumed that some increase in impact will occur with an increase in patron numbers, simply because it is impossible to prove otherwise. The question remains, however, whether this impact is reasonable and what is the risk that the impact will be anything but minor. To this extent I find the caution required is relative to the risk involved. In Swancom Mark I, there were several factors to suggest the risk of unreasonable impact was high. These included the large increase in patron numbers to a 3am closing. In that case, these higher risks of impacts led to a conclusion that the proposal was unreasonable. In the case before me, the proposal is for an additional 140 patrons until 1am which I find presents a much lower risk of causing anything but a minor impact. This is based on the proportional increase in the number of patrons and the hours proposed.
3. Added to this is whether such impacts can be balanced against policy that this area is one where more intensive activity is expected.
4. This is consistent with Practice Note 61 that directs an adverse impact may still be reasonable if it is minor and balanced against other planning considerations as I have outlined earlier at paragraph 37.
5. In addressing these issues I find that:

1. I agree with submissions of the permit applicant, and as acknowledged in questioning of Mr Biles and Mr O'Leary that it is unclear if increasing capacity of the hotel to accommodate an 140 patrons in the hotel leads to an additional 140 people in the precinct. Given the existing number of people in the precinct, due to the nearby sport and entertainment venues and other venues in the Swan Street Precinct, it is quite possible that some and potentially many of the additional 140 patrons inside the hotel will be drawn from people already in the area. 2. If it is assumed, however, for the purposes of painting a 'worst case scenario' that there will be an additional 140 people in the area, it must be measured against a likewise worst case scenario that all other venues are full to their 3,729 capacity[23]. On event nights, there is also likely to be a much larger potential number of people in the area[24]. In this overall context, I find the risk that the impact from an additional 140 patrons being anything but imperceptible, must be considered very low.

1. On the positive side of the ledger, the additional capacity in the hotel during daytime and early evening hours can service an increasing permanent and event population of the area, that is supported by local and state policy.

1. There are mitigation measures that this proposal can accommodate to reduce the risk of any unreasonable impact. Notably, I find a planning permit can achieve this through the reduction or staggering of numbers to restrict the maximum patronage of 500 to midnight. This ensures patrons start to leave the venue when there are a broader range of transport options available to disperse patrons more easily, generally staggers the time of leaving and reduces the number of patrons drinking in the venue later at night.

1. The general evidence referred to by both Council and the permit applicant[25] indicates that a cautious approach is needed when addressing an increase in patron numbers later at night.
2. However, the proposal before me is not for hours beyond 1am, and indeed I find can be further restricted to 12pm to mitigate the risks of adverse impacts further. I find any impact from the addition of 140 people in the precinct for these hours reasonable as the risk of the impacts relative to existing impacts being anything but imperceptible is low. This risk of any impact must also be balanced against the policy to promote this area as a more intensive activity centre as part of inner metropolitan Melbourne. As Member Liston commented in Bambou Restaurant v Stonnington CC[26], restricting numbers is ultimately a blunt tool and that ultimately the solution to managing alcohol related harm is likely to lie outside land use planning and development control.
3. In context of the policy affecting the site, its zoning and location I find 140 additional patrons a modest increase in numbers to the overall precinct and one where any additional impact on the amenity of the area should be very minor.
4. From evidence and submission it is clear that there is an existing strain on police resources to maintain public safety and amenity and that this is more pronounced later into the night when evidence suggests[27] more problematic anti social behaviour occurs. At the same time there are also reduced public transport options later at night[28]. I find there is added need to be cautious about the extent of additional patrons in the area late at night so as to reduce any risk of unreasonable increase in cumulative amenity impacts.
5. A midnight curfew on the additional patrons will mean a staggered closing time which can better manage the exit of patrons, and will be at a time when there are better transport options available. Based on such a curfew for the additional patrons I am satisfied that any additional cumulative impact will be reasonable and therefore a permit can be granted.

1. Much discussion was held in the hearing about the potential for an organised taxi rank in the area. From my late night inspections and the evidence presented by both experts and lay witnesses it is very evident that this is something that would be a significant positive outcome to this area and one that may ameliorate some of the current amenity problems with 1am and later closing times. However, the resolution of this issue is something that requires a collective response given the State and Local policy to promote Swan Street as an entertainment area and the increasing pressure on this area as a result of the nearby State sport and entertainment precinct. This again is consistent with comments of Member Liston in Bambou Restaurant v Stonnington, that such issues require collective responsibility and are matters that extend beyond the scope of statutory land use planning. The implementation of a taxi rank is a matter that is inappropriate to impose on a planning permit for a relatively small increase in numbers at a single venue. Even if it were considered reasonable there is no capacity for such a planning permit condition to be complied with due to the approvals needed to establish such a taxi rank. I can simply agree with the evidence provided that this is a matter that State and Local Government, (as well as the venues that would benefit from such a rank) should investigate and pursue.

1. Mr Zelewski's evidence was there may be some value in venues of the area collectively adding to the patrol of public areas in the immediate surrounds of the respective venues in Swan Street to potentially better manage the behaviour of patrons in the precinct. Mr Mullins acknowledged that greater use of private security and crowd controllers of venues to patrol the immediate public area was something venue operators were collectively investigating.
2. In discussion of draft conditions, Council submitted a Venue Management Plan should be submitted and approved, with this plan providing for a security patrol undertaken by licensed security personal of the hotel in nearby streets, outside the licensed 'red line' of the hotel.
3. I find that such a condition is unreasonable and I am unclear what benefit it would derive. This is because:
   1. I find it unreasonable that a relatively small intensification of use of a single premises in the street should be burdened with the cost and responsibility of undertaking patrols of part of the entertainment precinct where patrons are derived from numerous venues in and outside these streets identified by Council.
   2. It is unclear as to what a private security controller is expected to do if they encounter illegal or anti social behaviour and what authority such a controller has to undertake any action.
4. As with the discussion of a taxi rank, I agree that greater management of public amenity, through enforcement of the public drinking local law and general vigilance against anti social behaviour is needed. However, I find this is a collective responsibility between State and Local authorities, along with the venues that benefit from improved control of patrons outside of licensed venues, allowing greater confidence in maintaining the entertainment precinct safe, amenable and therefore viable.
5. I therefore will not impose conditions proposed by Council regarding security patrols.

1. The submissions of objectors to the proposal included concerns about the increase of patrons on the noise from the hotel, particularly the first floor balcony to the street and rear balconies where current restrictions on numbers are in place.
2. The proposal does not seek to alter the numbers of patrons on any particular outdoor terrace, only the overall number of patrons in the hotel. The impact of noise from rear terraces should therefore not vary as there is no proposal to alter the numbers restricted by the existing noise management plan.
3. Mr O'Leary's evidence was that he had observed noise directly emanating from a patron on the front balcony calling out to pedestrians in the street. As I have noted earlier, and as was the evidence of Mr Fearnside, the ability to discern patron noise on the balcony of the hotel to other patron noise in the street is difficult to discern on busy nights and is not noise that should be unexpected in an existing entertainment area in a Business 1 zone. The physical area of the balcony to the street does not change and its current hours of use do not change. I accept, however, that there may be some greater pressure on the use of this balcony to accommodate more patrons with additional patronage inside this mid level of the hotel. I therefore will add a restriction on the number of patrons using this balcony to 10 patrons so as to minimise crowding and potential additional noise emanating from this balcony. This restriction is based on the expected number of patrons identified in 'heat' maps prepared as part of Mr Mullin's evidence as to their expected normal operating conditions.
4. I accept that the additional patrons leaving may add to noise, but again this will be in context of the overall street and this increase must, therefore be considered minor. Any impact through noise, however, reiterates my finding that the additional patron numbers should be limited to midnight so as to stagger the times at which people leave and reduces the overall lateness at which people leave.

1. Two objector parties, who did not attend the review, raised written concern that the increase in patrons would further reduce the availability of on street parking in the area. Lay evidence of nearby residents was that visitors to the area often parked illegally in resident spaces or over stayed in short term spaces.
2. Council was not opposed to the proposal on the basis of car parking, submitting that a waiver of the car parking under the provisions of Clause 52.06 is appropriate. This was further supported by the evidence of Mr Hunt, on behalf of the permit applicant, that parking generation from the additional patrons would be very small due to the nature of the use and the proximity of alternative transport options in the area.
3. Based on this acceptance of the waiver by Council and the evidence of Mr Hunt, I find a waiver in the parking requirements acceptable.

1. In context of the policy affecting the site, its zoning and location I find 140 additional patrons a modest increase in numbers to the overall precinct and one where any additional impact on the amenity of the area is likely be very minor.
2. A midnight curfew on the additional patrons will mean a staggered closing time that can better manage the exit of patrons, and will be at a time when there are better transport options available. Based on such a curfew for the additional patrons I am satisfied that any additional cumulative impact will be reasonable and therefore a permit can be granted.

1. Council submitted that the application to amend the existing permit was contrary to the intentions of Section 87A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 as the change is substantive and inconsistent with the findings of the Tribunal in 2010 for the buildings and works to alter the hotel[29].
2. In the 2010 RCH case, Member Cimino stated:

[23] Accordingly I do not dismiss the concerns raised by Mr Phillipson and Ms Thorman lightly. However, I do not accept that the granting of this permit for buildings and works will make things worse given that there is no increase in patron numbers or trading hours, and appropriate measures will be put in place to attenuate noise. I would perhaps have a different view if this were not the case. Indeed, I am of the view that the opportunity to implement noise management measures as set out in the conditions will achieve an improvement.

[24] I understand that Mr Phillipson and Ms Pelham-Thorman are concerned that the proposal may lead to more patrons being on the premises resulting in increased amenity impacts. However for the patron numbers to be increased, further planning permission is required pursuant to the provisions of clause 52.27 of the planning scheme[30].

1. The RCH has now sought a new permit to increase patron numbers, consistent with previous Tribunal findings about when a new permit should be sought, rather than seeking only to amend a previous permit.
2. The application under Section 87A arose from the first day of hearing by the Tribunal where it was acknowledged that the existing permit should be amended if a new permit is issued. Further, in discussion of draft conditions, Council acknowledged that if a new permit was to issue it was its preference that there be an omnibus permit to encompass the previous 2010 permit as well as increasing the patron numbers.
3. I find the application under Section 87A is no more than administrative in nature to ensure consistency between a previously approved permit and the new permit that is the principal matter before me. However, in order to issue an omnibus permit, as was Council's preference in discussion of conditions, I find it necessary to amend the application sought under Section 87A to be an application to cancel the existing permit. This is primarily because if the existing permit is not amended, it will be contrary to the new permit. If it is amended to simply update the number of patrons in the Noise Management Plan, then it removes any motive for the permit applicant to enact the new permit, with its associated additional amenity conditions. I therefore have amended the application under P2438/2012 to cancel the existing PL09/0086 permit.
4. This leads to a need to also amend the permit application PLN11/0644 under review application P132/2012 to include both buildings and works, previously approved in permit PL09/0086, and the sale and consumption of liquor sought in PLN11/0644 as well as advertising approved in PL09/0086 and waivers of car parking and loading bay.
5. I have included these amendments to the relevant applications in the order.

1. Having determined that one, omnibus permit should issue I have transferred relevant conditions currently contained in permit PL09/0086 to form part of the new permit. These relate to development and advertising approved as part of this existing permit that is to be cancelled. I have also directed that the existing endorsed plans in PL/0086 form part of the new permit.
2. I have included a requirement for a Noise and Amenity Management Plan[31], based on the existing noise management plan with additional provisions. I have not imposed this to the detail as set out in Clause 22.09 (as proposed by Council). I do not see any relevance in such a plan simply documenting existing venues in the area as proposed by Council in its draft condition, or requiring an assessment of noise issues that have already been addressed in the assessment of the permit application and the existing approved noise management plan. I find the Noise and Amenity Action Plan need only address management issues, based on what Council referred to at the hearing as a Venue Management Plan, but without requirements for security patrols for purposes already discussed elsewhere in these reasons.
3. I have not imposed a condition proposed by Council to require a log book to be maintained and made available to Council of all complaints and incidents associated with the hotel. I remain unclear as to what value this provides to Council other than to know a history of incidents that were not reported directly to Council or the police. If an incident occurs that warrants the attention of the Council or Victoria Police this can and should be undertaken by the relevant people directly, not simply logged as a compliance measure by the hotel.
4. I have also not imposed some additional conditions opposed by the permit applicant in relation to management. I am aware these conditions were imposed as part of the permit issued in Swancom Mark II. However, in that case, the council had issued a Notice of Decision to grant a permit, including the conditions, and these were not contested by the review applicant through Section 80 of the Act to the Tribunal.
5. In the case before me, conditions about management were contested by the permit applicant. I agree these conditions simply duplicate provisions that would be required of the licensee of the hotel under an approved liquor licence (e.g. that there must be a person over the age of 18 on site at all times supervising patrons). I find them unnecessary in terms of what the planning permit provides for. They are also issues that are somewhat covered in noise and amenity management plan and general provisions of the zone that require any use to maintain reasonable amenity to the area.

• Sale and consumption of liquor for up to 500 patrons.
• Buildings and works, including part demolition and painting.
• Advertising signage.
• A waiver of car parking requirements.
• A waiver of loading bay requirements.

1. The use and development must accord with plans previously endorsed under permit PL09/0086, the endorsed plans. Any alterations must be approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.
2. The sale and consumption of liquor may only occur:
   • (a) Between 10am and 11pm Sunday;
   • (b) Between 12 noon and 1am the following morning, Good Friday and Anzac Day;
   • (c) Between 7am and 1am the following morning, on any other day (including mornings of Good Friday and Anzac Day).
3. No more than 500 patrons are permitted on the premises before 12.00 midnight on any day of operation defined in Condition 2. After midnight, no more than 360 patrons are permitted on the premises, within the operating hours defined in Condition 2. The following restrictions apply on patron numbers in outdoor areas at the premises from Sunday to Thursday:
   • (a) Mid level outdoor area - 70 patrons.
   • (b) Mid level front balcony - 10 patrons.
   • (c) Top level outdoor area - 70 patrons.
   • (d) Top level outdoor area (uncovered smoking area) - 20 patrons.

Restriction on the patron numbers in outdoor areas on Friday and Saturday night must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Within 3 months of the issue of this permit, a Noise and Amenity Action Plan [NAAP] to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plan must be generally in accordance with the Noise Management Plan submitted to Council on 16 March 2011, but modified to address:
   • (a) Lighting within the boundaries of the premises,
   • (b) Security lighting outside the premises.
   • (c) Details in relation to security and patron management both on site and off site, generally based on the recommendations of the expert evidence by Global Security dated 3 July 2012 to provide for:
     • (i) A security policy
     • (ii) A security management plan, and
     • (iii) Enhanced operating procedures.
2. The sale of liquor for patrons approved by this permit must be managed in accordance with the endorsed Noise and Amenity Action Plan [NAAP] at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Noise levels from the premises must not exceed those required to be met under:
   • (a) the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise Industrial, Commercial and Trade), No. N-1; and
   • (b) the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2.
4. Patrons must be advised to take account the needs of local residents for peace and quiet after 10pm on any day, by displaying a prominent notice at the main exit point(s) with words to the effect of "Please respect our neighbours and leave the area quietly", to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. The location and details of the sign (including advertisement) must accord with the attached endorsed plans. Any alterations must be approved by the Responsible Authority.
6. The sign must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. No flashing, intermittent, or changing colour light is permitted in association with advertising signage.
8. The approval granted for the advertising sign will lapse 15 years from the date of this permit.
9. This permit will expire if the use of for the sale and consumption of liquor for 500 patrons is not commenced within two years from the date of this permit. All development must be completed prior to the commencement of the use. The Responsible Authority may approve an extension to these time limits if a request is made within 3 months of expiry.

[1] I have considered all submissions presented by the parties although I do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.

[2] This is generally identified by parties as the area of Swan Street between Punt Road and Church Street but also includes hotels such as the Cricketers Arms Hotel and Royal Hotel in Punt Road, and the London Tavern in Lennox Street.

1. [3] This includes patrons of the MCG, AAMI Stadium, Rod Laver Arena, Hisense Arena and the general Yarra River Precinct described in the Yarra Planning Scheme as "being Victoria's premier sport, recreation and entertainment destination" - clause 11.04 - 4

[4] Corner Hotel, The Precinct and Holliava.

[5] Bar 9T4, The Post Office, The Sneak Bar and various licensed restaurants.

[6] The Cricketers Arms Hotel and Royal Hotel are both on Punt Road. The London Tavern is in Lennox Street.

[8] All but one of these attended the hearing. Ms Austin was unable to attend but her written affidavit was accepted unchallenged.

[10] Swancom Pty Ltd v Yarra CC (includes Summary) (Red Dot) [2009] VCAT 923

[11] In Swancom Mark I, the Richmond Club Hotel was closed due to fire damage.

[12] Bureau of Meteorology statistics indicated the overnight low on this night was 24.1 degrees Celsius.

[13] This was on my inspection on Saturday 15 December where I saw two sets of people drinking in public areas. One was in the car park area south of Swan Street, directly west of the rail overpass. The second was two people sitting at a public bench at the corner of Stanley Street and Swan Street, opposite Bess Restaurant.

[14] My paraphrasing of his commentary that "this one does not keep me awake at night", inferring that some licensed venues did.

[15] Recalling that the RCH was closed due to fire damage at the time of evidence and submission of Swancom Mark I. Prior to the fire, however, the RCH did have license to accommodate 360 patrons.

[16] Liodakis v Yarra CC & Anor [2012] VCAT 1394

[19] Liquor licenses permit consumption of alcohol within an area defined by a red line on a plan endorsed by the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation.

[20] Saturday 15 December. This night, in addition to being a warm Saturday evening, close to Christmas also coincided with events at AAMI Stadium, the MCG and a sell out band at the Corner Hotel.

[21] [2011] NSWLEC 1210 - Solotel Pty Limited v Woollahra Council - Paragraph 52.

[22] Mr Biles drew an analogy as to when did you know that water was too hot for a frog, being when the frog was boiled.

[23] As tabulated by the Tribunal in Swancom Mark II, paragraph 24. This concludes there are 3,729 patrons in the area. The Tribunal then allowed an additional 200 patrons at the Corner Hotel for Friday and Saturday nights, bringing the total number now approved to 3,929 for these nights.

[24] When tens of thousands of people are leaving events at stadiums in Olympic Boulevard and the MCG.

[25] Including the review of issues in Bambou Restaurant v Stonnington CC, Swancom Mark I, Practice Note 61 and Decision Making Guidelines Pursuant to Section 5 of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor regulation Act 2011, Applications for Liquor Licenses to Trade after 1.00am.

[26] Bambou Restaurant v Stonnington CC (includes summary) (red dot) [2010] VCAT 1758

[27] See same sources as in footnote 25 above.

[28] With most train services ceasing shortly after midnight and the last tram leaving at about 1am.

[29] Richmond Club Hotel v Yarra CC [2010] VCAT 450

[30] The provisions of clause 52.27 have been amended to make it clear that a planning permit is required if the number of patrons allowed under any licence is to be increased. My emphasis added.

[31] Referred to at the hearing as a Noise and Amenity Plan and at times a Venue Management Plan during the hearing