PlanningAlerts

8 Comments

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

1. I am strongly opposed to this application for the development of a Liquorland store at 140-148 Union Road, Surrey Hills.

   As a local resident I am very concerned the family-friendly amenity of the surrounding area would be adversely affected by the impact of the sale of liquor. Society is moving increasingly to discourage the consumption of alcohol, particularly by our youth, and this proposal would do the exact opposite. The close proximity of the Surrey Hills train station with its large number of daily school student commuters is particularly relevant.

   The variety of small shops and cafes in this part of Union Road collectively create a delightful ambience which fosters a tangible sense of community. This is in stark contrast to the large-scale retail outlets elsewhere and is one of the key reasons people chose to live in Surrey Hills. To add a large scale Liquorland store with its attendant issues (insufficient parking, increased likelihood of anti-social behaviour, litter) would most certainly diminish this appeal.

   Residents also enjoy the benefits of quiet, litter-free streets where all age groups can feel safe to go for a walk. Many residents walk and exercise their dogs at night after work and my fear is this would be adversely impacted by both the existence and extended trading hours of a liquor store.

   In addition to a Liquorland being completely out of character with the streetscape, there are at least nine other bottle shops within a 3km radius of this location. The closest being 600m away on the corner of Canterbury and Union roads. Surely this area already has more than enough.

   Croydon Road is already used as a "rat-run" between Union Road and Canterbury Road. This problem will only be exacerbated by additional Liquorland customers, further diminishing the amenity of the local area.

   It is important for the concerns of rate-paying and long-term residents of the surrounding area to be heard and addressed. We are seeking to protect what we and visitors to the area value.

   This application should not be approved.

2. I think the liquor shop is not right not needed for this small village as one already on corner of union snc Canterbury. Also I am amazed a tobacco shop is allowed opposite this site as well. Totally wrong to allow a tobacco shop and now a liquor shop with high volume of schoolchildren using the railway station.

3. We do not need third liquor shop within 1km radius of the Surrey Hills train station. Parking is already extremely difficult on Union Road. I do not believe believe there will be any gain in adding another liquor store - only loss for for the community and the overall image of this urban area.

4. With 2 liquor/bottle shops in less than 1km from this site, one only 100m up the road on Union Rd and another 2 in less than 2km from the site we do not need yet another liquor shop. This development will emphasis the wrong message in a strong family orientated suburb and community, and it will destroy the small family businesses that already provide similar services. The development will also place a significant burden on the limited parking in the area.

5. I agree with the comments on this site. We have a lovely family atmosphere in Surrey Hills and to have a liquor shop smack bang in the middle of that could only be detrimental. A development of this nature amongst the lovely historical homes in Croydon Road would be a travesty, not to mention an eyesore.

   We have our homes protected from development to retain the historical aspect of this suburb so why aren't the streetscapes preserved as well??

   There are 5 liquor outlets within a 2 km radius of this development. There are two liquor stores in Union Road which are less than 1km away. It is not only unneccesary but also would undoubtedly effect the existing established businesses in the area. Who is protecting these small businesses who are trying to survive?? Surely the local council should have something to say about preserving small businesses??

   It would be a mistake to let this development pass through for MANY reasons not to mention that the residents of this street and this area pay exorbitant council rates and one of the reasons we continue to do that is to enjoy a quality of life in one of Melbourne's unique family suburbs - let's not homogenise this suburb by commercial developments.

   Mary Strachan
   Thursday 28 August 2014

6. Further to comments provided on this site regarding the proposed packaged liquor development (“bottle shop”) on 140-148 Union Road, Surrey Hills, the proposed bottle shop will a provide cheap and wide range of liquor in an area where it is easily accessible by public transport (120m to Surrey Hills Station and next to a bus stop) and have nine licensed liquor premises within 3km radius of the proposed development. As a result of increasing the physical and economic availability of packaged liquor, there is a real risk this will lead to greater alcohol consumption and related unwanted social behavior in the local community.

   This assertion is supported by international research showing positive relationships between high liquor outlet density and unwanted social behavior; for example, “Alcohol outlet density and assault: a spatial analysis” published by Michael Livingston, 2008, on Addiction, 103:619-628 and “Hours and Days of Sale and Density of Alcohol Outlets: Impacts on Alcohol Consumption and Damage: A Systematic Review” published by Svetlana Popova, Norman Giesbrecht, Dennis Bekmuradov and Jayadeep Patra, 2009, on Oxford Journals “Alcohol and Alocholism” Vol 44, Issue 5:500-516.

   In addition, the proposed development is within a close vicinity of fast food outlets such as Pizza Union (180m), Red Rooster (290m), Surrey Hills Noodles Express (180m), and a proposed café to be opened at the proposed Coles site (110m). These outlets (fast food and bottle shop) in combination with easy publicly accessible seating areas along Union Road, particularly Surrey Hills Neighborhood Centre, may attract group gatherings and potentially result in alcohol related harm to the public interest.

   In accordance to the proposed bottle shop application posted on the Boroondara Council web site, the applicant is intending to have a maximum of 3 staff on the premises at any one time and no consumption of liquor on the premises. Such intention hardly seems likely to have any significant impact on minimizing the negative impact caused by the increased exposure to alcohol in the community.

   Based on the above, such proposal would be contrary to:

   • The purpose of the City of Boroondara’s ‘Commercial 1 Zone’; and
   • ‘Reducing the alcohol and drug toll, Victoria’s plan 213-217’, as released by the Hon. Mary Woolbridge MP, Minister Mental Health, Women’s Affairs and Community Services.

   Car parking is another adverse impact on the local community should this proposal be permitted. In accordance to the application under the section of 52.06 car parking, the applicant highlighted that it would be required to provide 5.71 car spaces. However, given the availability of public transport (Surrey Hills Railway Station), the applicant would only provide 3 on-site car spaces. Such a proposal would not only further worsen the existing parking problem in the local community but also further encourages Surrey Hills Railway Station and potentially Surrey Hills Neighbourhood centre seating area be gathering points for drinking.

   Finally, the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office stated in its web site that “a responsible authority must consider ‘as appropriate…[t]he effect on the amenity of the area in deciding a permit application or approving a plan. It must also consider the objectives of planning, one of which is securing a pleasant working and living environment. A pleasant environment equates with amenity.” Such a development would result in a loss of amenity due to increasing liquor outlet density, worsen car parking availability and traffic congestion in the immediate affected roads and potential cause an increase in antisocial behavior.

   Such application for planning permit for the use of land for the sale of packaged liquor should be refused based on the adverse impact on the public interest in the local community.

7. The Surrey Hills Union Road shopping strip is a relatively small, neighbourhood centre, in close proximity to the Surrey Hills Railway Station. It services the family friendly residential streets that adjoin it,
   
   There are a number of reasons why the Liquorland application should be rejected.
   1/ firstly, the proposed store is simply unnecessary. There are two other liquor stores in Union Road (one merely 200m away). Three liquor stores within two blocks on the same street in a family neighbourhood is clearly excessive.
   2/ secondly, the proposed store is directly opposite the station and station car park, which will make the station, car park, the neighbourhood centre and surrounding streets a likely target for groups congregating at night to drink.
   3/ thirdly, the location of the proposed store is in direct conflict with the stated requirements of the Victorian govt solicitor in assessing such applications, given the loss of amenity that would be suffered by the area and potential for increased antisocial behaviour.
   4/ a commercial development like Liquorland is totally out of character with the village.
   5/ finally the proposed opening hours (open until 11pm) are totally unwarranted for the area it will be servicing and will clearly exacerbate the above mentioned risks of antisocial behaviour in the area at night.
   An application like this - for a large, late night liquor store in a family shopping strip across the road from a train station - should be rejected.
   

8. Hidden by site administrators

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Boroondara City Council. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment