VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P667/2024
Permit Application no.MPS/2017/633/A 	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) - Merri-bek Planning Scheme – Amendment to permit – tavern – extension of hours – noise – disturbance – outdoor areas	

Applicant	Michael Marsicovetere	

Responsible Authority	Merri-bek City Council	
Respondent	Eugene Fisher	

SUBJECT LAND	134 Lygon Street
BRUNSWICK EAST VIC 3057	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	14 February 2025	

DATE OF ORDER	17 April 2025	

CITATION	Marsicovetere v Merri-bek CC [2025] VCAT 318    	
Order
Permit amended
1	In application P667/2024 the decision of the responsible authority is varied.
2	Planning permit MPS/2017/633/A is amended and an amended permit is directed to be issued for the land at 134 Lygon Street Brunswick East VIC 3057 in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The amended permit to add the following matters to the preamble:
Planning scheme clause	Matter for which the permit has been granted	

Clause 52.27	Extend the hours of trading allowed under a liquor licence	

Cassandra Rea
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	N. Haydon, town planner, Neil Haydon & Associates Pty Ltd.	
For responsible authority	D. Erdogan, town planner, Merri-bek City Council. 	
For respondent	J. Livingston, town planner, JLP Melbourne.	

Information
Description of proposal	Amend the existing permit that allows:
Buildings and works to the existing tavern, including extension of area for on premises liquor license to first floor, partial demolition, and construction of first floor terrace	
Description of amendment	Amendment to condition 3 of the permit to allow the extension of trading hours; 
Building and works to remove the existing deck and construct a new rear first floor deck that has a larger floor area; 
Construction of an acoustic screen around the deck and landing of stairs; and
An increase to the red line plan associated with the deck extension.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) – to review the decision to grant an amended permit.	
Planning scheme	Merri-bek Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Commercial 1 Zone 
Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 19
Parking Overlay - Schedule 1
Heritage Overlay - Schedule 438
Development Contributions Plan Overlay 	
Permit requirements	Clause 34.01-4: Construct a building or construct or carry out works
Clause 43.01-1: Construct a building or construct or carry out works including demolition
Clause 43.02-2: Construct a building or construct or carry out works
Clause 52.27: Extend the hours of trading allowed under a liquor licence
Clause 52.27: Increase the red line area associated with consumption or supply of liquor	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11.03-1S, 13.07-1S, 13.07-1L, 15.01-1S, 15.01-1L, 15.01-2S, 15.01-2L, 15.01-5S, 15.03-1S, 15.03-1L, 34.01, 43.01, 43.02, 52.27 and 65 	
Land description	The subject land is located on the eastern side of Lygon Street approximately 10 metres north of Piera Street.  It has a frontage of 5.16 metres, a depth of 30.46 metres, and an overall site area of 156m2.
The site is currently occupied by a tavern that operates within a building, rear deck and courtyard.  The maximum number of patrons permitted on the premises is 100.  	
Tribunal inspection	Unaccompanied, 13 February 2025 	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Merri-bek City Council (‘council’) has issued a notice of decision to grant an amended permit (‘NOD’) on 20 May 2024 for an existing commercial building that currently operates as a tavern at 134 Lygon Street, Brunswick East (‘site’).  
2	The proposal seeks the following changes to the current permit and plans:
•	Update of endorsed plans showing building and works that will extend the rear first floor deck and construct an acoustic screen around the deck and landing of stairs; 
•	Amend the red line plan associated with the deck extension;
•	Amend condition 3 of the permit to allow the extension of trading hours that will allow the use between 2:00pm to 1:00am (the following day) daily; and
•	Insert new permit trigger in preamble Clause 52.27: Extend the hours of trading allowed under a liquor licence under the Merri-bek Planning Scheme (‘scheme’).
3	As a part of council’s decision making on the proposal, the NOD approves the following changes to Planning Permit MPS/2017/633 (‘permit’):
•	Supersedes the previous endorsed plans;
•	Deletes a condition that controls the operating hours of the deck;
•	Deletes a condition that limits the number of staff;
•	Adds a condition that requires operation in accordance with an updated acoustic report;
•	Updates the condition that refers to the Environmental Protection Authority’s current regulation to control noise;
•	Inserts a new condition that requires amplification on deck to be calibrated by an acoustic consultant;
•	Inserts a new condition that requires a venue and patron management plan; and 
•	Inserts a new expiry condition providing an expiry for the amendment.
4	Michael Marsicovetere (‘applicant’) who is a local resident, seeks a review of council’s decision.  The primary issue for the applicant is concern that there will be excessive noise emanating from the outdoor areas of the tavern, disturbing nearby residents.  The health and wellbeing of residents could be compromised with further late night trading.  Furthermore, the applicant casts doubt that compliance with noise protocols pursuant to the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic) and associated regulations can be achieved.  
Procedural issues AND rulings 
Limit of discretion
5	As this is an application to amend an existing planning permit, I am only able to consider the proposed changes to the proposal, namely matters identified at paragraph 2 and 3. I do not have the discretion to consider the overall land use, as a whole.
Tavern Definition
6	An observation was made by the respondent during the hearing that the definition of ‘tavern’ is no longer in the planning scheme.  This observation was not accompanied by any request to modify the description of the use.
7	There were no submissions put to me that the tavern use had not commenced in accordance with what the permit has been granted for, and as such, I find that it is not necessary for me to direct an update to the tavern land use, or consider an alternative land use definition.  
Footpath trading
8	While the address of the land on the existing permit refers to the site, the existing endorsed plans includes a red-line plan that allows the sale and consumption of liquor under clause 52.27 of the scheme on part of the footpath.  
9	The proposal does not change this arrangement, and there were no submissions that this component of the previous approval had not been acted upon.  
10	It has not been sufficiently demonstrated to me that the exemption under clause 62.01 of the scheme relating to the use of land in a road if the use is associated with the use of adjoining land and is authorised by the Council under a local law does apply.  
11	Therefore in the context of this amendment, I am required to consider the increase in licensed trading hours that may occur on the footpath.   
Notice of decision to amend detail
12	I raised with parties the potential non-compliance of the NOD with Form 6 of Schedule 1 of the Planning and Environment Regulations 2015 (Vic) (‘form 6’) as it hasn’t used the prescribed heading ‘to what conditions is the amendment subject?’ and the NOD hasn’t been descriptive of the proposed changes. 
13	Whilst the NOD is missing the ‘to what conditions is the amendment subject?’ heading, the conditions appear on the document which allows everyone to know of the potential conditions to be imposed if an amended permit is granted.
14	It is possible through careful analysis to ascertain a more detailed description of the amendment than the one provided on the NOD as ‘Construction of an acoustic screen around the deck and landing of stairs, and an increase to the hours of operation’.  I have provided a more comprehensive list of the proposed amendments at paragraphs 2 and 3 above.  
15	The wording of form 6 is very specific that it requires:
All amendments that the responsible authority has decided to make to the permit must be included in the description of what amendment is being made to the permit.
16	Whilst the NOD description of the proposed changes is not as helpful as it should be to record and communicate the changes to the permit and plans, I nevertheless do not consider this to be fatal defect that would necessitate the decision to be remitted to council.  
What are the key issues?
17	The key issue for determination of this proceeding is whether the extension of the trading hours will create an unacceptable noise and amenity impact.  
18	Whilst the application includes the demolition of the existing deck and staircase with the construction of a new deck and staircase, this was largely uncontested although I note that some of the details of the buildings and works were clarified during the hearing.  
19	Having considered the submissions, and with regards to the relevant policies and provisions of the scheme, I have determined to vary the decision of the council.  My reasons follow.
What is the policy context? 
20	The site is located within the Commercial 1 Zone (‘C1Z’) and the Brunswick Activity Centre.  Commercial premises and mixed-use development are an established feature of the streetscape, and there are several bars, restaurants and cafes within close proximity to the subject site.  
21	The relevant purpose of C1Z is:
To create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses.
22	Clause 13.07-1L of the scheme seeks to manage the potential negative amenity and public safety impacts of licensed premises and entertainment venues, and to ensure that licensed premises and late-night entertainment venues make a positive contribution to the mix of activities available in activity centres.
23	The major activity centres, such as Brunswick Activity Centre, is the preferred location for licensed premises trading past 11:00pm although this does not imply that a permit should or will be granted, and an integrated decision ought to be made having regard to the range of planning policies relevant to the site and application.  
24	The applicant relies on a previous Tribunal determination Laurel Hotel v Moonee Valley CC (‘Laurel Hotel’) that states: 
23. 	It is also generally relevant in this regard that all uses in the Commercial Zone are also subject to the restriction in clause 34.01-2 that they must not detrimentally affect the amenity of the neighbourhood.
25	The careful consideration of the interface between commercial and residential land uses is required by the decision guideline at clause 34.01-8 of the scheme, as follows:
The interface with adjoining zones, especially the relationship with residential areas.
26	The extension of the trading hours triggers clause 52.27 (Licensed premises) of the scheme.  The purposes of this clause of the scheme 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.
27	The decision guidelines of clause 52.27 of the scheme are:
•	The Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
•	The impact of the sale or consumption of liquor permitted by the liquor licence on the amenity of the surrounding area.
•	The impact of the hours of operation on the amenity of the surrounding area.
•	The impact of the number of patrons on the amenity of the surrounding area.
•	The cumulative impact of any existing licensed premises and the proposed licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding area.
What is the noise impact?
28	The existing planning permit restricts the operation of the tavern to 100 patrons.  The proposal will not change this.  
29	However, with the increase in trading hours, the applicant is primarily concerned about excessive noise emanating from outdoor areas associated with the licensed premises which would unreasonably have an impact upon their amenity.  The effect of the amendment of the permit would be two outdoor areas for the licensed premises operating until 1:00am daily.   
30	At present, the courtyard is unrestricted in relation to the number of patrons which can operate until 11:00pm Sunday to Thursday, and 1:00am Saturday and Sunday.  The deck ceases operation at 10:30pm, in accordance with condition 4 of the current planning permit.      
31	The applicant recognises that there are ‘lots of previous Tribunal decisions’ that find that at the interface with commercial and/or licensed premises that there needs to be a tempered expectation with regards to the level of amenity afforded to nearby dwellings.  
32	The applicant cites paragraph 140 of the Laurel Hotel decision: 
By contrast, the area to the rear of the property has a conventional level of residential amenity at night, albeit with the intrusion of car and tram noise along Mount Alexander Road. This is a more continuous, background noise, rather than the type of noise from patrons or amplified music which is far more disruptive to sleep and residential amenity especially at night.
33	The applicant submits that it is both patron noise and music noise above the background noise that has the potential to reduce residential amenity.  
What do the acoustic experts say?
34	I do not have the benefit of evidence to assist me to form an opinion about the potential noise impacts. 
35	However, the following information from acoustic engineers have formed part of the submission by parties:
a	Enfield Acoustics report dated 24 July 2023 prepared on behalf of the permit applicant/ respondent (‘Enfield Acoustics report’); 
b	EMM Consulting Pty Ltd peer review letter dated 20 November 2024 prepared on behalf of the applicant (‘EMM Consulting Pty Ltd peer review letter’); and
c	Endorsed Renzo Tonin & Associates Acoustic Report dated 2 October 2020 for a nearby site at 133B & 135 Lygon Street, East Brunswick and endorsed as a part of Planning Permit MPS/2017/89/A (‘Renzo Tonin & Associates Acoustic Report’).  
36	The respondent relies upon the Enfield Acoustics report that accompanied the amendment application that concludes:
….we are satisfied that the trading hours on the permit can be amended to 1am without resulting in adverse noise impacts. Because the latest hour (1am) during the most sensitive day (weekday) sought has been considered in our assessment, we are also satisfied that the extended hours during earlier, afternoon hours would not result in material noise impacts.
37	The starting point for the assessment of acceptable noise impacts is to establish background noise levels.  
38	In this instance, the applicant challenges the cited background noise level provided in the Enfield Acoustics report.  The EMM Consulting Pty Ltd peer review states:
EMM’s findings indicates there is inconsistencies between Enfield Acoustics background noise levels, when compared to EMM long-term background noise measurements at 22 Piera Street, Brunswick East completed in May/June 2024 and Renzo Tonin & Associates (RTA) background noise measurements completed in 2016 and reviewed in 2020. As a result, Enfield Acoustics has set night-time music noise levels that are potentially 5 – 8 dB higher, when compared to long term background noise levels completed by EMM and RTA.  
39	I am not persuaded that the background noise reading in the Renzo Tonin and Associates report for the site 133B and 135 Lygon Street, Brunswick East is an indicator of the correct background noise level for this site.  I find this for the following reasons:
•	The site, 133B and 135 Lygon Street, Brunswick East, is located on the other side of Lygon Street and in a mid-block location;
•	The receptor locations were nominated having regard to the relevant location of the site and the nearby sensitive locations;
•	The reading taken in 2020 may have been influenced by changes in activities due to the Covid-19 pandemic; and 
•	At least nine years have passed since the background noise measurement was taken in 2016.   
40	The applicant states that the receptor locations used to inform background noise as a part of the Enfield Acoustics assessment was influenced by road noise which explains the alleged difference of background measurement undertaken at the applicant’s property by EMM Consulting Pty Ltd.  
41	The respondent suggests that the difference in the background noise levels could be accounted by the fact that the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (Vic) under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic) and the incorporated Noise Protocol (Publication 1826.2, Noise Limit and Assessment Protocol for the Control of Noise from Commercial, Industrial and Trade Premises and Entertainment Venues, Environmental Protection authority, March 2021) (‘noise protocol’) assesses impact based on the closest noise receptors, which would not be measured from the applicant’s property located approximately 55 metres ‘as the crow flies’ from the closest point of the licensed premises.  
42	From the material provided within the Enfield Acoustics assessment, but noting that I did not have any expert before me, I am satisfied that the correct site and correct procedure has been followed to establish background noise.  Even if I am wrong, council seeks to include a condition on the amended planning permit to require compliance with the noise protocol which will require the background noise level to be established to ascertain the acceptable level of any increase in noise.  
43	With respect to the assessment of the increase in noise levels, I agree with the approach of the Enfield Acoustics report to model potential noise on the basis of a typical busy Saturday and a quiet Wednesday.
44	With respect to patron noise, Enfield Acoustics assessment uses City of Yarra Guidelines- Managing Noise Impacts in Urban Developments, recognising that this guideline is not underpinned by the scheme.  The use of this document was not challenged by the applicant, nor were any alternative guidelines suggested to assist in assessment of amenity impact that patron noise may have upon residential amenity.
45	The respondent accepts a condition that limits the deck and courtyard area to a maximum of 60 patrons at all times. This is in contrast of the existing circumstance where the planning permit does not control specifically how many of the 100 patrons allowed for the tavern can access the courtyard at one time during the authorised hours of operation.       
46	I agree with the applicant that the plans show insufficient detail on how the deck will be acoustically treated given the amendment seeks to occupy the deck until 1:00am daily.  During the hearing, the respondent provided additional information from Enfield Acoustics that the screens/ balustrading of the first floor deck to have a density of 15kg/m2.  I have included a condition on the permit to require this information to be shown on the plans.  
47	I have imposed a condition to ensure that within three months of commencing the extended hours of operation use, that an acoustic review is undertaken to ascertain that that the set up complies with the conditions of the amended permit.  
48	Overall, I am satisfied that there will not be an unreasonable decrease in amenity associated with the increase in trading hours.  This is based on imposing a condition limiting the number of patrons within the courtyard and first floor deck to 60 patrons and a couple of other noise mitigation techniques.   
What trading conditions do other premises operate with?
49	The trading conditions of other licensed premises operating as restaurants and bars in this major activity centre was provided by the applicant based on planning permit information.  The respondent provided a similar analysis based on liquor licence information.  There were differences in their purported trading conditions between planning permit and liquor licences.  
50	It was not put to me that there was an unacceptable cumulative impact that would create, or further degrade amenity for nearby residential properties.  
51	Whilst the analysis provides a context for late night trade in the area, I do not find that this case turns on what hours or trading conditions apply for other nearby sites.  I say this in acknowledgement that the strategic context for these sites will be the same under clause 13.07-1L of the scheme that seeks to manage the potential negative amenity impacts of licensed premises, but it is likely that their interfaces with sensitive land uses will be different.
52	Ultimately, in this case, the licensed premises will need to operate in compliance with the noise protocols which prescribes a calculation to assess acceptable noise impact for sensitive land uses.    
What conditions are appropriate?
Preamble
53	The previous preamble is not before me and I will leave it to the council to update or translate the amended permit into regulation compliant form, save the updated preamble will need to express approval for the extension of the hours of trading allowed under a liquor licence granted by this decision. 
Added conditions
54	I have included the following conditions:
•	Provision of a demolition plan given that approval is specifically required for the demolition of the existing first floor deck.
•	Update of the redline plan to align with the footprint of the building so that it does not inadvertently show part of the right of way within the licensed area.
•	Elevations of the screens/ balustrading to be clearly labelled and notate a density of 15kg/m2.  The northern boundary screen to be a minimum of 1.95 metres from the finished floor level of the deck.
•	Deletion of the previous condition 1(a) requirement which relates to the previous approval and update preamble of condition 1 to refer to the advertised plans dated 14 March 2024.
•	The condition limiting the number of patrons on the deck and courtyard to 60.
55	The applicant requests a condition that specifies that the roller door is to be closed during trading hours.  As the operation of the tavern has already been established, it is not typically within the discretion of the decision maker of an amended permit to impose conditions that applies to the current approved use.  However, in this instance, as the respondent agrees to a condition that requires the roller door to the right of way to be closed at 9:00pm, I will include the agreed condition.  The benefit of this condition is greater than just perceived acoustic attenuation as it also assists with broader patron management.   
56	The acoustic report that accompanied the application only suggests one specific condition requiring the amplification system for all outdoors areas must be calibrated by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer.  This has been included in the NOD, and I will impose this requirement.  
57	I find the condition sought by the applicant imposing a peer review of the acoustic report that accompanied the application is not necessary as another imposed condition simply requires noise levels associated with the use must at all times comply with the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (Vic) under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic) and the incorporated noise protocol.  
58	I also do not consider it necessary to impose a condition to require a limiter device to be installed.  Regardless of if a limiter advice is installed, the tavern must operate in accordance with the noise protocols.  The permit operator may choose to use a limiter device of their own accord to ensure that there are no potential non-compliances coming from music noise.  
59	I have not included conditions requiring speaker location or CCTV as I consider this to be beyond the boundaries of the amended permit.  Similarly, I have not imposed conditions relating to time restrictions for the playing of music external to the building as conditions imposed requires compliance with the noise protocol.   
60	I have not required for the number of patrons to be shown on the endorsed plans.  There is a stand-alone condition that clearly expresses the number of patrons allowed, and can be enforced if required.  
Conclusion
61	Overall, the site is located within the C1Z and a preferred location for licensed premises trading past 11.00pm.  The combination of conditions will limit noise emissions from the tavern so that emissions do not have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of the surrounding area, as required by clause 13.07-1L of the scheme.   
62	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied.  An amended permit is granted subject to conditions.

Cassandra Rea
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions
Permit No	MPS/2017/633/A	
planning scheme	Merri-bek Planning Scheme	
responsible authority	Merri-bek City Council	
address of the land	134 Lygon Street
BRUNSWICK EAST VIC 3057	
the AMENDED permit allows:
Amended Plans
1	Before the use and development commences, amended 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 must be generally in accordance with the plans advertised 14 March 2024 but modified to show:
(a)	A notation regarding the installation of closing mechanisms for the double doors leading to the first floor deck in accordance with condition 6;
(b)	Update of redline plan to align with the footprint of the building particularly in the location of the right of way;
(c)	Demolition plan showing the extent of demolition of the first floor deck and staircase;
(d)	Update of the plans to show the screening to notate a density of 15kg/m2;
(e)	The screens/ balustrading associated with the deck to have acoustically treated screening on the north, south and east (between the deck and the stairwell) sides of the deck to be a minimum of 1.7 metres above finished floor level of the deck.  The northern boundary screen to be 1.95 metres above the finished floor level of the deck;
(f)	A Venue and Patron Management Plan in accordance with condition 14.
Compliance with Endorsed Plans
2	The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. This does not apply to any exemption specified in Clauses 62.01, 62.02-1 and 62.02-2 of the Moreland Planning Scheme unless specifically noted as a permit condition.
Hours of Operation
3	The use allowed by this permit must operate only between the following hours:	
(a)	Monday to Sunday	2:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. 
Patron Capacity
4	The maximum number of patrons permitted on the premises must not exceed 100.
5	The maximum number of patrons permitted in the outdoor areas (First Floor Deck & Courtyard combined) must not exceed 60. 
Noise
6	The automatic double doors leading to the first-floor deck must be fitted with an automatic self-closing mechanism(s) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The doors must not be propped open, and the closing mechanism(s) must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7	An acoustic screen 1.7 metres high must be fitted around the three (3) sides of the first-floor deck (including the stairwell) in accordance with the details specified in the endorsed acoustic report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
8	The rear roller door to the outdoor courtyard must be closed no later than 9:00pm daily.  
9	Prior to the commencement of the extended use and at all times during the operation of the use, the provisions, recommendations and requirements of the Acoustic Report prepared by Enfield Acoustics Pty Ltd dated 24 July 2023 must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10	The deck/outdoor area must not be used for live music and no music other than of a type and volume appropriate to background music may be emitted from external speakers in the outdoor areas. Background music is defined as any music played at a level that enables patrons to conduct a conversation at a distance of 600 millimetres without having to raise their voice to a substantial degree. It is not background music if it is played at a level which requires patrons to shout or use a stage voice such as that used by an actor in the theatre, in order to carry out a conversation at such a distance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11	Noise levels associated with the use must at all times comply with the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (Vic) under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic) and the incorporated Noise Protocol (Publication 1826.2, Noise Limit and Assessment Protocol for the Control of Noise from Commercial, Industrial and Trade Premises and Entertainment Venues, Environmental Protection authority, March 2021), or any other superseding regulation to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12	Within three months of the extended use allowed by this amended permit, the owner and/or occupier of the land must submit an additional Acoustic Report (‘Set Up Acoustic Report’) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority which demonstrates compliance with all conditions of this planning permit, or which outlines any measures considered necessary to achieve compliance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
13	All recommendations contained within the Set Up Acoustic Report must be implemented no later than three (3) months after the date that the Responsible Authority advises in writing that it is satisfied with the report, or as otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority. The endorsed plans must also be amended within three (3) months, or as otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, to accord with the recommendations contained in the Set Up Acoustic Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14	Should the Responsible Authority deem it necessary, the owner and/or occupier of the land must submit an Acoustic Report assessing the operation of the premises (‘Operational Acoustic Report’) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority which demonstrates compliance, or which outlines any measures considered necessary to achieve compliance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
15	All recommendations contained within any Operational Acoustic Report must be implemented no later than three (3) months after the date that the Responsible Authority advises in writing that it is satisfied with the report, or as otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority. The endorsed plans must also be amended within three (3) months, or as otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, to accord with the recommendations contained in the Operational Acoustic Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Venue and Patron Management Plan
16	Within two (2) months of the date of approval of this amended permit (MPS/2017/633/A), a Venue and Patron Management Plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The Plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and include:
(a)	Hours of operation of all parts of the premises, consistent with the conditions of this permit;
(b)	The maximum number of patrons on the site and within the rear deck at any given time, consistent with the conditions of this permit; 
(c)	How the venue will manage patrons entering and leaving the venue, including security personnel and queuing arrangements;
(d)	Noise and amenity complaint handling processes;
(e)	Staff training for patron management. This must include the administrative measures to be implemented to ensure that staff:
i	Monitor the number of patrons using the rear desk at any given time; and
ii	Restrict overly inebriated or aggressive patrons from using the rear deck (i.e. escort them through the front door adjacent Lygon Street).
(f)	Management of outdoor areas;
(g)	Details of seating to be provided on the rear deck; 
(h)	The types of music allowed at the premises and all associated controls;
(i)	Noise attenuation measures consistent with the Acoustic Report endorsed under this Amended Permit, which is to form part of the approved Venue and Patron Management Plan; 
(j)	External lighting and baffling;
(k)	Rubbish storage including any glass bottle handling within external areas to limit noise escape from the premises between 10:00pm and 7:00am;
(l)	Waste collection must be conducted in accordance with EPA Publication 1254 ‘Noise Control Guidelines’ and must not occur between 8:00pm and 7:00am the following day on Monday to Friday and must not occur between 8:00pm and 9:00am the following day on Saturday and Sunday;
(m)	Emptying of bottles into bins and glass crushing on the premises must not occur after 10:00pm, and before 7:00am weekdays or before 9:00am on weekends. 
Once submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, the Venue and Patron Management Plan will be endorsed to form part of the permit. 
The Venue and Patron Management Plan endorsed under this permit must be implemented and complied with at all times, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Development Contributions
17	Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Development Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Moreland City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan. The Development Infrastructure Levy is charged per 100 square metres of leasable floor space.
If an application for subdivision of the land in accordance with the development approved by this permit is submitted to Council, payment of the Development Infrastructure Levy can be delayed to a date being whichever is the sooner of the following: 
(a)	a maximum of 12 months from the date of issue of the Building Permit; or 
(b)	prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivision. 
When a staged subdivision is sought, the Development Infrastructure Levy must be paid prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for each stage of subdivision in accordance with a Schedule of Development Contributions approved as part of the subdivision.
Permit Expiry
18	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	the development is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of issue of this permit; 
(b)	the development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of issue of this permit;
(c)	the use is not commenced within four (4) years from the date of issue of this permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the period referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or;
(a)	within six months after the permit expires to extend the commencement date; or
(b)	within 12 months after the permit expires to extend the completion date of the development if the development has lawfully commenced.
19	The development and use approved by the amendment to this permit (MPS/2017/633/A) will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	the development is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of issue of the amended permit; 
(b)	the development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of issue of the amended permit;
(c)	the use is not commenced within four (4) years from the date of issue of the amended permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or:
(a)	within six months after the permit expires to extend the commencement date; or
(b)	within 12 months after the permit expires to extend the completion date of the development if the development has lawfully commenced.

– End of conditions –