PlanningAlerts

24 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. To Whom it may concern,

   We do not need another Liquor Store in Rosebery. Especially a Dan Murphy's. The residents of Rosebery have rejected applications on this very site twice before about having a Dan Murphy's at this location. When is Woolworths actually going to listen to residents instead of worrying about their profit. I hope the Council reject this proposal again as they have in the past. Ms Moore and Ms Barone please reject this application.

   Kind regards,

   Catherine Tiney

2. Dear CounciIlors,

   I cannot believe after we rejected this application before for a Dan Murphys liquor store they are applying again. There is a liquor store currently 150 metres away from this store that easily services the area. We do not need the extra traffic on Botany Road as it is congested currently. It will also have more undesirables come into the area where we are trying to solve the crime issues in the area.

   I hope the councillors look after the residents and small business again in rejecting this application. We need these big businesses to take note that it is the residents and the council who look after our community and not Big Business.

   Kind regards,

   Michael Jarman

3. To whom it may concern,

   How many times do we need to voice our disapproval of this idea?
   Twice now, the residents of Rosebery have unanimously rejected the idea of a Dan Murphy's along Botany Rd due to the amount of congestion it would cause on our roads, the increase of waste and the fact that the local bottleshop already adequately serves the people of Rosebery.

   It is not fair that the local business's in the area should suffer just so a quick dollar can be made.

   I know I speak for many members of Rosebery when I say that we are wholeheartedly against this proposal.

   Regards, Luke Wood

4. To Whom it may Concern

   This has been requested twice now and the residents of Rosebery have rejected this. We have a local liquor shop that serves our purpose and to put a Dan Murphy's 150 metres away is ridiculous.

   The traffic down Botany Road and the surrounding streets is bad enough now let alone putting a Dan Murphy's there.

   I hope the council takes into consideration the people of Rosebery and Beaconsfiels views and rejects this matter once and for all.

   Kind Regards
   Clare Connelly

5. To Whom this may Concern,

   I refer to an application by Dan Murphy's to open a liquor store on Botany Road, Rosebery (Source: City of Sydney, reference D/2014/505)

   My name is Peter Lane and I own the liquor store on Botany Road approximately 150 metres North and on the same side of the road of this proposed application to open up a Dan Murphy's Mega Liquor Warehouse.

   Firstly I have to say that I am dissapointed that the management of Dan Murphy's are a bit slow on the uptake as the NSW Police and Local Command Centre at Redfern, Sydney of City Council and most importantly the residents of Rosebery and Beaconsfield have all rejected this proposal twice before on this very same location.

   Barny's Fine Wines & Ales is a fully independent liquor store and was voted second best craft beer store in the country by Beer & Brewer magazine last year. Customers are very pleased with our selection of liquor available including a fantastic selection of wines including back vintages to suit all customers budgets. We have offsite storage and can receive deliveries six days per week like all the other surrounding liquor stores. With all the other liquor stores, and as well as the On Premise establishments within a 2 kilometre radious from us would be more than apple to cope with increased demand.

   Dan Murphy's has a store at Alexandra which is approximately 2 kilometres down the road and another at Kingsford which is approximately 3.8 kilometres away from this proposed location. It has previously been stated in the media that Dan Murphy's selling their cheep and nasty home brands creates binge drinking and is an issue for the industry at large. Currently the NSW State Government has passed laws to try and curve this sort of anti social behavior. Obviously by Dan Murphy's trying for a third time to have this application approved they do not agree with the residents of Rosebery and Beaconsfield, NSW Police and local command centre at Redfern, Sydney of City Council and the NSW State Government. THIS IS A WORRY IN ITSELF.

   The traffic flow on Botany Road is very congested and this location to have a Dan Murphy's store is not appropriate. This may attract more cars into an already congested area causing issues to traffic flow and increased frustration with motorists and residents.

   I sincerely hope that the NSW Police and local command centre at Redfern, Sydney of City Council and the NSW State Government listen to the residents of Rosebery and Beaconsfield as well as small business in again rejecting this proposal and make it VERY VERY clear to Dan Murphy's (Woolworths) that it is not them who decide on how our communities are built.

   In conclusion we wish to thank the local community and all of our wonderful customers for their continued support in preventing crime and making our community a wonderful place to live with our families.

   I will forward this letter to all appropriate departments.

   Kind regards,

   Peter Lane
   Barny's Fine Wines & Ales
   Shop 20 & 21 Botany Road (Cnr Botany Rd & Queen St)
   Rosebery NSW 2018

   More information can be found on our website:
   www.barnys.com.au

6. Dear Councillors I would like to express my dismay at Dan Murphys applying for the 3rd time to open this store.
   The community is against this application for many reasons.
   -There is already enough liquor stores in the area to service community needs.
   -massive increase in traffic on botany road, has a traffic report been conducted and if it has why has it not been submitted?
   -There are already 3 Dan Murphys within a 5 km radius-Alexandria 1.6km, Kingsford 3.1km and Wolli Creek 4.5km
   -Dan Murphys by their own admission "canabalisies" smaller stores in thier vicinity
   -The proposed site is less than 500metres from a school and existing Liquor Store
   -The beer barn business model of bulk sales at deeply discounted prices is particular dangerous for young and at-risk drinkers
   -Woolworths' focus on liquor stores will fatten up the corporate group's profits at the expense of increased numbers of victims of domestic violence
   please do not allow this development to go ahead
   regards Shawn Davis

7. To whom it may concern,

   There is no need nor requirement for yet another Dan Murphy's in the area of Rosebery and the surrounds (2 stores are within a 4 KM radius). The local businesses more than sufficiently support the area and the inclusion of a large corporate megastore will only be a hindrance due to increased traffic, noise and over saturation.

   As you may be aware, two previous proposals have been rejected thanks to unanimous support of the local community and businesses. This speaks volumes as to why this proposal should also be rejected and should not be considered again in the future.

   Regards,

   Jan Bielecki

8. When will these people (Dan Murphy/Woolworths) take their bat and ball and go home? An application by Dan Murphy/Woolworths for a retail outlet on this site has been declined twice. We don't need a Dan Murphy's in Botany Road. We have a Barneys Liquor outlet at 747 Botany Road. The proposal (if approved by Council) will put Barneys Liquor out of business and put people out of work. The principal players here are corporate heavyweights, moral lightweights and a greedy profit making juggernaut. Please Clover, knock this one out again.

9. Enough of the hysterics. I don't care whether Dan Murphy's is approved or not but there are many inaccuracies in the comments so far and each of them has an element of NIMBYism. Let me address them:

   * read the Social Impact Statement on the Council’s website – many of the arguments previously posted are not evidence based.

   * the citizens of Rosebery have not rejected the Dan Murphy's previously, Sydney Council has.

   * on reading the Social Impact Statement, it looks like the Alexandria Dan Murphy’s licence will be removed. So the argument that there are 2 or 3 Dan Murphy’s within close proximity falls away.

   * the current development is not the same as the development that was previously rejected i.e. there is no McDonalds. The combination of land uses is, in my view, the major reason the Council rejected previous Development Applications.

   * the development will not increase waste, it will just move it from location A to location B.

   * I am all for competition and generally find local bottle shops way too expensive. In a market economy why shouldn't price be one consideration out of many and why shouldn’t I have choice. I'll take price over service or product range any day. I have been into Barney’s , but am unlikely to go again, it’s just too expensive.

   * I don't think Dan Murphy's of itself will have a marked effect on Botany Rd - why don't you argue about the 88 units that will be above it and the apartment block that will be broadly across the road. Traffic was not a reason for rejecting the previous Development Application. I think a Woolworth’s will generate much more traffic than a Dan Murphy’s as the potential pool of customers is much larger.

   * I resent and reject the association between Dan Murphy's and undesirables - let's close down Barny's too.

   * Dan Murphy will employ more people than Barney’s ever will.

   * If the zoning permits the use of the property as a liquor store then approval should be granted weighing up all the Council zoning controls.

   All I ask is that the argument is evidence based and devoid of hysteria and emotion.

10. Dear Sue,

    I would like to correct you on a few of your statements,

    -Alexandria Dan Murphy's is NOT closing down, they are simply moving a dormant license.

    - The Social Impact Study on the Council's website is based on FACT. A similar study and same evidence has been used before in the last two failed applications for the Dan Murphy's Rosebery development. To say that the report isn't accurate or 'evidence based' is simply incorrect.

    - To say that the residents of Rosebery themselves have not rejected the proposal is outlandish and untrue. The residents are (once again) firmly against the proposed development.
    Local churches, community groups, schools and many local business owners have been in contact in order to voice their disapproval at this unnecessary development.
    This has previously been rejected TWICE in exactly the same location. Surely this evidence is enough to prove that it is the residents who are against this development.

    Obviously you are unfamiliar with the Social Impact Assesment, perhaps you can come down to Rosebery and take a look at our copy as we have one in store for you to read.
    Alternatively you can send one of your bosses from Woolworths to come and talk to us if you are too busy.

11. Barny,

    You've misinterpreted my comments - but I'll leave it at that.

12. To whom it may concern,

    I am a local and I write these submissions as a formal objection to the proposed Dan Murphy’s site at Rosebery.

    Sue I totally disagree with your post-dated 29 April 2014 and I give the following reasons below. I would like to note that I am not attacking you in any way but rather would like to clarify issues that must be raised to the council so that they can refuse the application for a third and final time.

    Sue you state as your first point:

    “Read the Social Impact Statement on the council’s website – many of the arguments previously posted are not evidence based”.

    You state that many of the arguments posted have no evidentiary standing. I then ask you the question; do you disagree with the following 4 comments made?

    1. “There are already 3 Dan Murphy’s within a 5m radius – Alexandria 1.6km, Kingsford 3.1km and Wolli Creek 4.5km” – comment by Shawn Davis.

    If you do disagree please have a look on page 24 of the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) document, which states:

    “The current or future residents of Rosebery (and future shoppers to the DM Rosebery Store) already have access to packaged take-away liquor as part of their daily, weekly or monthly shop (see Figure 2). Whilst perhaps not as convenient to many, the publics also have access to 3 existing DM Stores (i.e. Alexandria; Kingsford; and Wolli Creek)

    I would also like to take you to page 43 of the SIA, which states,

    “With the nearest existing stores at Alexandria - 1.6kms (SLD) away, followed by Kingsford - 3.1kms (SLD) and Wolli Creek - 4.5kms (SLD) away”.

    Do you then disagree with the next two comments?

    2. “This has been requested twice now and the residents of Rosebery have rejected this” – comment by Clare Conbelly

    3. “The residents of Rosebery have unanimously rejected the idea of a Dan Murphy’s along Botany Rd due to the amount of Congestion it would cause on our roads”. – Comment by Luke Wood

    One cannot deny the fact that Dan Murphy’s has been stopped twice already.

    Finally do you disagree with this comment?

    4. “Dan Murphy’s by their own admission “canablises” smaller stores in their vicinity” – Comment by Shawn Davis.

    I would like to take you to page 25, point 65 of the SIA where Dan Murphy’s states that:

    “Whilst it is accepted the DM Rosebery store will sell more alcohol than say a typical convenience style store, it will merely take a larger share of the existing expenditure within the community (see paragraph 8 of Attachment 2). That is to say it will cannibalise sales from other retail liquor stores”.

    Does this not then illustrate that the proposed Dan Murphy store will have adverse economic impacts to the local and surrounding communities and businesses.

    Your Second Point states that:

    “The citizens of Rosebery have not rejected the Dan Murphy’s Previously, Sydney council has”

    Even though I respect the fact that Sydney Council has the right to reject a DA application, we cannot state that the community of Rosebery did not upraise against Dan Murphy’s twice already by initiating Facebook Groups, Signing Petitions and getting Local organisations like the Police objecting to the 2 proposals that have been rejected. I think this is clear evidence proving citizens are against a Dan Murphy’s Rosebery Store.

    Your third points states that:

    “On reading the social Impact Statement, it looks like Alexandria Dan Murphy’s Licence will be removed. So the Argument that there are 2 or 3 Dan Murphy’s within close proximity falls away”

    With no disrespect your comment is wrong. I refer you to page 6, point 4 of the SIA, which your comment is referring too,

    “Subject to obtaining the necessary approvals from the Council to operate the DM Rosebery Store, a separate application to remove the Licence from its current location at Alexandria to the DM Rosebery Store (a removal distance of 1.53kms SLD only) must be made to and approved by the Liquor Authority”

    Sue, please look at footnote 3 on page 6, this footnote refers to the wording of Licence. This footnote states the following and I quote from the SIA:

    “See the definition of “Licence” The Licence is not the packaged liquor licence applying to the existing Dan Murphy’s store at 2/10 Fountain Street Alexandria”.

    This means that the Dan Murphy’s Alexandria Store will still remain open and will still be able to sell alcohol to the public on an ongoing basis. This then disproves your 5th comment,

    “The development will not increase waste, it will just move it from location A to location B”.

    I would now like to take you to your 7th point that states,

    “I don’t think Dan Murphy’s of itself will have a marked effect on Botany Rd – why don’t you argue about the 88 units that will be above it and the apartment block that will be broadly across the road. Traffic was not the reason for rejecting the previous Development Application. I think a Woolworths will generate much more traffic than a Dan Murphy’s as potential pool of Customers is much larger”.

    The reason that the 88 Apartments have been approved was due to the development having ample car spaces for residents and visitors. The Dan Murphy’s application is only for 27 Car Spaces. We all know that the majority of Dan Murphy’s sites have more than 27 car spaces, this is a fact. This will not be enough for the current site. The fact that the current Dan Murphy Rosebery application is illustrating that there will be an excess of 10 major “Dan Murphy” Signs (Please see page 16 of Sutherland Associates Planning Document) along the eastern boundary of the site will attract considerable traffic movement along Botany Road into the subject site or Hayes Road and Jones Lane. Concern is also raised with respect to traffic and public safety, as it is located on a major road and in very close proximity to the traffic lights situated on Botany Road. Not only do these signs cause traffic issues they can be considered to be of excessive dimension resulting in a visual intrusion and is out of character with other advertising signage facing botany road.

    Sue what Guarantees can Dan Murphy’s and there parent company Woolworths give not only to Sydney City Council and the Residents of Rosebery that potential customers do not stop their cars on Botany Road so that they enter from the Botany Road entrance? Botany Road is a clear way during peak hours causing more traffic congestion and potential harm to the public if customers stop their cars on Botany Road during these hours.

    Further the entry to Dan Murphy’s through Jones Lane will cause an unnecessary amount of traffic to flow through a lane already congested due to existing business use. This in turn will cause problems in Hayes Road by having cars parked illegally and any of shoot will then be funneled into Botany road.

    You state that “Traffic was not the reason for rejecting the previous Development Application” then why has no traffic generation report submitted? If a traffic generation report has been conducted has the report been derived strictly from the amount of car parking provided on the site i.e. 27 car spaces? I ask this question, as this report is then limited only too figures provided as a result of the additional parking provided on the site. If this is the case then the report has not accounted for spillover traffic that cannot be accommodated on the site. We all know that Dan Murphy’s attract a lot of people they even state it themselves on Page 12, Paragraph 18, Line 3 of the SIA;

    “In contrast Dan Murphy’s Liquor stores are larger format destination stores designed to appeal to a regional market …”.

    Does this not illustrate then that 27 car spaces will not be enough and the possibility for extreme traffic congestion on Botany road, Hayes Road and Jones Lane is high?

    Sue I would like to address another of your Points,

    “Dan Murphy’s will employ more people than Barney’s ever will”

    This is a valid point and I agree. Sue I am not sure whether you are aware but the proposed application illustrates at page 31, paragraph 90 of the SIA that Dan Murphy’s will employ between 25-35 employees. The SIA states on page 28, paragraph 81 that “The DM Roseberry Store is unlikely to have any impact on existing levels of alcohol consumptions” and they will “not introduce new drinkers” which can be found on page 10, paragraph b of the SIA. To have this many employees working consistently will only be possible if alcohol consumption increases substantially. The question is how will they do this without increasing alcohol consumption? I have an idea is it because they will “cannibalise” everyone else!

    I would like to make two final points. Firstly I agree with your comment sue that competition is a good thing. I however believe that what Dan Murphy’s is currently trying to achieve in this case is a Monopoly of not only the Liquor Market but also a Monopoly of liquor stores in the area and surrounding areas. The fact that they have already three stores within a 5km radius of the proposed Rosebery site illustrates this.

    Secondly and finally I would like to ask this question to the council. What benefit will this bring to the community that the community already doesn’t have? In my submission there is no public need for the existence of another Dan Murphy’s Liquor store when there is already three Dan Murphy stores within a 5km radius of the proposed Rosebery site and I quote from the SIA at paragraph 3 on page 47,

    “The DM Rosebery store is also not the first Dan Murphy’s store in this region, with existing nearby stores at Alexandria, Kingsford and Wolli Creek. Residents can also purchase products through Dan Murphy’s on-line business and have it delivered to their new home”.

    Does this not prove that there is NO PUBLIC BENEFIT for this site to be approved?

    I ask the council too take note of what I have said above and too form a unanimous decision to REJECT the proposed application to place a Dan Murphy’s store at 767 – 797 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018 (D/2014/505).

13. How can Dan Murphy's Try again! I am a local and i can not understand why Dan Murphy's does not understand that our local community does not want them in our area. There is 3 already within 5 km of the proposed site. I think that this is more than enough. I do not want to walk the streets with my children and for them to be open to 10 Major Dan Murphy's Signs! Our Children are already exposed to an over saturation of Alcohol advertising.

    I just want to add something to Daniel's point above. The Social Impact Assessment states that Dan Murphy's will have 25-35 employees. The Architectural drawings also states that there will be only 27 Retail Car Spaces. I can not understand where all of these Dan Murphy's Employees will be parking because the site only has 27 car Spaces. This is not enough for customers let alone staff. Will the employees then park on the streets which are already over congested! There is major traffic issues with this Dan Murphy's Site!

    Council please reject this application. Enough is Enough.

14. Surely 3 liquor premises in under 5km is sufficient....enough of monopolisation and support the small businesses so that places in the area like the wonderful Barny's Fine Wines & Ales can continue to offer the personalised friendly service we enjoy having in the community. Estelle

15. To whom it may concern,

    I am writing to officially voice my opposition to the proposed Dan Murphys Liquor Store on Botany Road. There are already two Dan Murphys stores in the area (Alexandria & Kingsford) not to mention the many pubs & bottleshops along Botany Road.

    Please reject this proposal.

16. All se arguments are completely absurd. Dan Murphy's hardly sells home brand products and has quite a large selection of craft beers these days at a substantially cheaper price then barneys. There's no good having 600 different beers if you can't shift them. Most beers arent like wine, they don't store well.

    Put dan Murphy's in, saves me driving 5 mins around the corner where these young fit school kids are more than capable of walking to, to get their hands on some cheap alcohol. Only to be denied as law requires id checks on anyone that looks under 25
    ......

17. Dear Greg,

    I would like to correct you on a few points about your recent post in regards to and application for Dan Murphy’s to open in Rosebery. Barny’s Fine Wines & Ales stocks a large range of home brand products, I think where you are confused is that Woolworths (Dan Murphy’s parent company) stocks many home brand products that they actually own themselves and are not available to outlets outside of the group including Coles and independent outlets.

    In regards to your comment about moving 600 beers. We stock 850 beers all of which sell regularly so I am not sure on your point. A recent study has found that beer consumption in Australia is at an all-time low in the past 45 years as consumers go from drinking quantity to quality. It is mainly lagers that do not store well and need a turnaround of around 6 months. The industry has come a long way in the past decade and most beers can last years, so your statement is not factual.

    The Dan Murphy’s style beer barn appears to be going in the opposite direction than the communities needs if you go off the above research.

    According to NSW Greens MP John Kayne, overwhelming evidence shows that high concentrations of bottle shops result in increased domestic violence. The beer-barn business model of bulk sales at deeply discounted prices is particularly dangerous for young at-risk drinkers. Woolworths' focus on liquor stores will fatten up the corporate group's profit at the expense of increased numbers of victims of domestic violence.

    Of more concern is how one or more Woolworth’s liquor stores were refused delivery by Carlton United Breweries last year for selling VB at a loss. You may think that the cheaper the better but all licenced premises are under a strict law of the RESPONSIBLE SERVICE OF ALCHOHOL it is not like we are selling clothing etc. Alcohol if abused can have catastrophic consequences to the person drinking it and the community at large. Maybe OLGR (Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing) should have looked into this, as in my opinion it is not responsible. The intention of quality liquor stores isn’t to sell alcohol so the public can get intoxicated; it is to sell quality alcohol to be enjoyed and to add to a great night out.

    I feel bad that you currently have to drive 5 minutes down the road to go to Dan Murphy’s Alexandria or Kingsford. Maybe if the traffic wasn’t so bad you could get there in 2 minutes. If a Dan Murphy’s is approved for Botany Road Rosebery it will probably take you 10 minutes to get there as the traffic is already at gridlock at peak hour.

    We have better service and Knowledge than Dan Murphy’s on beer and wine. Barny’s was voted second best beer store in the country by Beer and Brewer magazine. http://www.beerandbrewer.com/awards-2013 This is awarded on range and service to the industry. The award is open to all liquor stores in the country and is voted by the general public and judges and not by individual stores.

    I look forward to broadening your horizons on beer and wine next time you visit Barny’s Fine Wines & Ales.

    Kind regards,
    Peter & Shawn
    Barny’s Fine Wines & Ales

18. Greg has let the cat out of the bag there. While the owners of Barney's may source pride from an "independent" status and an unmanageable range of beers in a cramped store, I've been stung more than a few times with a uber premium priced six pack that is of questionable freshness and so have visiting friends.Im sure the brewers want their beers presented at full potential also. The boutique local bottle shop has become the absolute last resort rather than a go to convenience for me because everybody else comes second to bragging rights in the current model. Also the elephant in the room with these small stores also is that none of them can deny ever selling stock they themselves have purchased at Dan Murphy's so they kind of support Woolworth's aswell.
    I think rosebery would benefit from quality, well priced liquor. Please approve this council.

19. To whom it may concern,

    I am honestly appalled at the attitude of Dan Murphy's to think that they can continually try and force themselves upon our community. The above comments are lost on me as quality of alcohol and range is irrelevant. What is releveant is the bottom line, which is that TWICE now the people of Rosebery have rejected this application!
    We do NOT need another Dan Murphy's opening in this area. Their are already too many liqour stores in the surrounding areas.

    Please council, reject this application.

20. I am a concerned resident.

    I would like to make reference to Section 3(1)(a) of the NSW Liquor Act 2007, which states,

    “To regulate and control the sale, supply and consumption of liquor in a way that is consistent with the expectations, needs and aspirations of the community”.

    We do not need Dan Murphy’s in our community. We have proven this by our community rejecting two previous applications before. The aspiration of our community is not to have a Dan Murphy’s in Rosebery.

    I would also like too make reference to one particular incident that occurred at the Alexandria Dan Murphy’s shop where a teenager who was part of an armed gang, stormed the Dan Murphy's bottle shop at Alexandria with a sword, handgun, chain and baseball bat and stole $600. (http://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/news/teenagers-appeal-against-armed-robberies-sentence-/2134988/).

    I have shopped at this store before and I have noticed that Dan Murphy’s Alexandria now has to have security guards at the front door to stop these incidents from occurring. We don’t need that type of criminal activity in our beautiful family orientated suburb of Rosebery. I want my children and the children of the Rosebery community to walk our streets without the fear of this type of criminal activity occurring in our area.

    I also want to make reference to an article published by the Sydney Morning Herald in January 2014 where Commissioner Andrew Scipione and Assistant Commissioner of Police Mark Murdoch have criticised the ability to bulk buy at bottle shops expressing concern about the impact of “pre-loading” or drinking at home before heading to a licensed venue due to the increase of bottle shop density in some areas which has been affirmed by the liquor licensing authorities. Trying to open this Dan Murphy’s Rosebery when there are already three existing Dan Murphy’s within 5km of this location is a great concern to me and to the residents of Rosebery.

    Please Clover Moore Object the Dan Murphy’s Rosebery application as you too also believe that the government should also do more to address the problem of "pre-fuelling", where people fill up on shop-bought liquor before hitting pubs and clubs as stated in a article written by the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 January 2014 (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/restrictions-may-push-sydney-street-violence-into-suburbs-clover-moore-warns-20140121-316ge.html).

    Please Clover Moore and counsellors REJECT this application for a Dan Murphy's store at Rosebery.

21. There is already a Dan Murphy's store at Alexandria and Kingsford which are very close to the proposed site, not to mention numerous others throughout Sydney.

    Traffic is already congested along Botany Road at this location.

    Demand for alcohol sales can easily be met by existing stores in the area of which one in particular supports many small associated independent and craft brewers, especially in Australia.

    The residents do not want this store.

22. To whom it may concern,

    Botany road tonight was just shocking. It took me forever to get home and now I hear Dan Murphy's has applied to move here again to our fabulous community of Rosebery.

    The traffic is already very very congested on Botany Road, why would anyone want a Dan Murphy's on an already stretched infrastructure.

    Councillors please reject this for a third time. I don't want to spend my life in traffic. I would rather spend quality time with my husband and children.

    Please think of our wonderful community when deciding on this proposal.

    Yours sincerely,

    Monique Drysdale

23. I would like to strongly object to the proposal to build a Dan Murphy's store on the above site on a number of grounds. I have lived in the apartment block opposite the site at 1 Shirley St Alexandria for over 10 years and I have witnessed and participated in the evolution of the community here. I objected to the siting of a Dan Murphy's store on this site some time ago when the proposal was attached to a large McDonald's drive-in fast food outlet, and to the stand alone McDonald's drive- through and my position has not changed (Proposals D/2010/2173 and D/2012/286). I am only dismayed that the Dan Murphy's proposal has come back again when I thought after all our hard work the last time the issue of such a large scale, inappropriate, traffic-bearing development was behind us. So I again submit a my objections to the proposal.

    I was reccently delighted to discover that the site was to be used to build much needed medium density housing. I went to see the plans for the development in the display centre in Botany Road . There people were being told that a Woolworths Store will open on this site. Like me, they didn't realise that the Woolworths Store is in fact to be a Dan Murphy's which is owned by Woolworths. The potential purchasers of the apartments are expecting a supermarket.

    In essence this type of 'booze barn' has no place in a medium density residential area. Smaller community friendly outlets are to hand. In particular, Barney's Fine Wines and Ales lies within 400metres. The proprierters there are part of this community and a Dan Murphy's store, which will have the capacity of a retail giant to undersell all their prices, will kill their business. While Barny's specialises in Fine WIne and Ales and serving regular local customers, it must also make a large part of its income on general and casual wine and beer sales, which would soon evaporate. Mascot Liquor, a larger store, is just 1.8 km away and there are 2 pubs within a kilometre of the site, The Rosebery and The Newmarket. Other small outlets are also close by. There is a Cellarbrations in Botany Road, Alexandria and a Dan Murphy's in McEvoy Street, Alexandria, a very short distance from here.

    We are certainly not under-serviced here in terms of liquor stores and the closest to hand and most threatened by this Goliath of a liquor outlet is a small business that has found a place as part of the community, that is, Barny's.

    In fact for our community, the arrival of a Dan Murphy's in the area will only mean an exponential increase in the availability of cheap alcohol, which research has shown is a threat to social cohesion and family life. A media release concerning Liverpool Council's rejection of a similar Dan Murphy's proposal in Moorebank in Augusr 2013, titled "Booze Barn rejection a big win for Liverpool" stated that according to emergency services workers, the rejection of the proposal is "a sign that the council is serious about putting the needs of the local community ahead of big business self-interest."

    I would also like to point out that apart from being within walking distance of two other liquor outlets, the proposed Dan Murphy's is less that 500 metres from a school. What is the message here for children and young people? I would like to ask you to consider very carefully the potential social impacts of the proposed development and the effect it may have on the formation of the future community.

    Another immediate and very serious problem the development would cause is the issues of traffic. A Dan Murphy's of this size will attract more traffic from other suburbs as people come to source cheap alcohol. The site is entirely unsuited for high volume comercial traffic. Jones Lane is a narrow access lane that services workshops and not a proper thoroughfare. It will not be able to handle the the kind of traffic generated by a big Dan Murphy's store as a volume of cars turn in to park there. Turning into Hayes Road from Botany Road, coming from the Mascot direction will cause chaos in Botany Road and Hayes Road. This was always our objection to a development of this type on this site.

    This traffic will also put unsupportable and unnecessary strain on the traffic and parking situation of the residents of the new complex.

    I trust that Sydney City Council will also put the needs of our local community here in Rosebery/Alexandria/Beaconsfield ahead of big business and reject this proposal.

    Thank you for your consideration this matter.

24. I'm not a local resident, however, I have known one of the owners for many many years and have observed his passion and dedication for the wine industry. Having read all the previous comments it is blatantly obvious that the local residents are against the opening of a further Dan Murphy's with 2 previous applications being successfully blocked.

    I think Dan Murphy's and Barny's both have a place in the market as they offer something different to their customers.

    Dan Murphy's bulk buying power is able to offer wine & beer at discounted prices, however, they seem to employ staff with very little or no knowledge of the products they sell - it is all about price.

    On the other hand Barny's is a specialist business which not only offers an excellent range of boutique beer & wines, but both owners experts and clearly passionate about their business and it shows.

    It would be a serious shame to see a boutique business like Barneys swallowed up by another large retail chain store like Dan Murphys/Woolworths.

    Surely 2 Dan Murphy stores in a 5 km radius is sufficient! That hardly seems to like fair play - more like "killing" the opposition. Should the ACC have something to say about this?????

    Please support the independent business owners of Australia we have enough large chain stores already and need to encourage and support small businesses!
    Janine

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished almost 10 years ago. If you chose to comment now, your comment will still be displayed here and be sent to the planning authority but it will not be officially considered by the planning authority.

Your comment and details will be sent to City of Sydney. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment