PlanningAlerts

37 Comments

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

1. There are at least two Liquor shops operating within 1km of this application, there doesn't seem to be a need for another one in our 'Dry Area'.
   If this application for a Liquor Licence, is still to be considered, the premises should only able to open until 9pm.

2. I think a bottle shop on Union Road is completely unnecessary. We have so many available within a small radius - there is Duncan's just on the corner with Canterbury Rd and Purvis Cellars on the corner with Whitehorse. Let alone First Choice Liquor, Safeway Balwyn and the IGA Mont Albert. There are probably others I can't even think of! While I am not opposed to a modernisation of our little strip of shops to bring it into this century I think a 'bottle shop' does not fit with the aesthetic of Union Road or the family friendly area. Also, being so close to a train line would cause traffic congestion - the parking struggles as it is and the train crossing can become quite backed up both ways.

3. I can't see any reason why we need another bottle shop in this dry area. There is one on Canterbury road and the other one on Whitehorse road , all in walking distance. I don't think this application should be considered.

4. A packaged liquor outlet at this location is much more convenient for train users and people attending the strip restaurants.
   With an associated supermarket it would be a convenient addition for commuters and locals

5. Liquor can be easily purchased only metres from the site of this application. There are even more outlets within a km at Whitehorse Road and Mont Albert shops. There is a large, under-used Liquorland just up Canterbury Road. There is no need for this outlet, which would aim for long opening hours and be so close to the resident community [the other outlets are in clearly defined commercial zones.]

6. Please take traffic congestion into consideration. See how busy it is at peak time. There is not enough parking for this kind of business. Can only be considerable if the train line move to underground.

7. Liquor can be purchased 100m up the road so is not required here.

8. This application by LIQUORLAND should not be approved.

   Surrey Hills is located within the Dry Area of Boroondara and yet there are bottle shops within this location. This is because unlike hotels, they are a relatively new phenomenon (having emerged in the 1960's out of small bars in hotels) and as a consequence, have to date fallen outside the provisions of liquor licensing legislation for the Dry Area. They also pre-date the (2011) planning permit requirements which were introduced into Victoria’s Planning Scheme to treat bottle shops in the same way as other licensed premises.

   Just three other planning permits for bottle shops in the Dry Area have been granted by Boroondara Council since 2011. These permits were for bottle shops in much larger commercial centres (Burke Road and Whitehorse Road) and unlike the planning permit for Surrey Hills, were not the subject of an appeal to VCAT.

   On 6 May 2015, VCAT affirmed Boroondara Council’s decision to grant a planning permit. Significantly however, VCAT’s key reason for doing so was because Boroondara’s Planning Scheme did not include a schedule to clause 52.27 to reflect its Dry Area designation under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998. Had there been such a schedule, the planning permit would not have been issued.

   A large bottle shop located in the middle of Surrey Hills Village and at the end of a quiet residential street is unprecedented in Boroondara’s Dry Area.

   Under Schedule 3, clause 17 (2) (a) of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998, the VCGLR can order a vote of electors be taken in the neighbourhood surrounding 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills. Unless this application for a packaged liquor licence by LIQUORLAND fails without one, I strongly urge the VCGLR to exercise its discretion and conduct a poll.

9. I support this application. This won't make me or anyone else buy more alcohol, but as part of the Coles proposal it will add to the commerce and viability of the surrey hills village strip, which is obviously lacking at present. As a community we should not waste vcat resources, which have so many large scale planning decisions to adjudicate, on such a trivial matter.

10. Yes, the busy traffic already and the train crossing are reason enough to not approve this application! The delay for people going to work etc. would be considerable because of the build-up of traffic! And what about parking? Is a 2 or 3 story car park being built?These are just 2 of the reasons to make this area so unsuitable in my opinion apart from others that have been mentioned.

11. I too support this application.
    1. Parking already is a nightmare.
    2. We have far too many liquor stores in walking distance so we DON'T need any more.
    3. I am also concerned about the safety of my children walking down Croydon Road to the train station as there will be young under age kids hanging around waiting for some adult buy them alcohol then probably consuming it down at the Canterbury oval in Croydon Road.
    4. This is a DRY AREA.
    5. Please, please re-consider the application for this liquor store.

12. I strongly object to this application by Liquorland.

    There is absolutely no need for a liquor store in an area which is already well serviced by several outlets in more appropriate commercial locations within a few kilometres of the proposed site.

    The location, at the intersection of a quiet residential street and a small shopping strip, is inappropriate.

    Its proximity to a pedestrian crossing, a large and busy railway crossing and a major intersection at Canterbury Road, the lack of parking and narrow Union Road will increase traffic congestion and the likelihood of an accident. It is not convenient to stop off here to buy alcohol. There aren't enough restaurants open at night on Union Road to warrant its need. Locals have enough options to not need another outlet. Those passing through will drive on to a more convenient spot to stop and buy alcohol.

    Recent violence at nearby Chatham Station brings into question the need for making alcohol readily available in a largely quiet, family friendly, residential area and highlights a more serious consequence of opening a liquor outlet in an inappropriate location.

13. There is no need for yet another liquor outlet in this area as the area is already well served by liquor outlets.

    The Union Road 'Village' area is not suitable for the traffic that a liquor outlet is likely to generate. Purchasing liquor is usually a destination purchase generally by car due to the weight of items purchased, whereas the existing retail outlets in the 'Village' are either coffee shops or retail outlets which don't usually require a car to carry purchases home.

    With the railway crossing and very limited parking, a liquor outlet will cause significantly increased congestion and make the area less attractive overall.

14. Please reconsider this application. The area does not need another liquor outlet and we have safety and traffic congestion concerns in croydon rd.

15. Agree with all the comments above. There are bottle shops that are walking distance from the train station and even closer from this proposed location. Parking is already a nightmare. This liquor license will only bring detriment to the area. Please take into consideration the needs of the existing and future community.

16. I agree with all my fellow residents on the reasons for the objections against this proposal.

    However, I strongly disagree that the very body I have to lodge my objection to is the very body (VCGLR) that just, seemingly unilaterally, recently lifted the ban on the sale of alcohol in the Camberwell area. We, as residents of this - so called anachronistic - alcohol licensing laws area, were not consulted or had an option to vote for or against this lifting.
    Herman Cramer

17. The new Liquor bottle shop should not be permitted to open in our residential streets. It is inappropriate for a residential street such as Croydon Road and it will greatly impact the local residents. It should remain as a “Dry Area”.

18. A packaged liquor outlet is unnecessary on the corner of Union Road and Croydon Road. Within walking distance there is already a liquor outlet. This is a village shopping precinct, with limited parking, very near a train crossing, that already has parking and traffic issues. We certainly do NOT need a large commercial venture that will change the village environment that we have all searched for. Large delivery trucks will only cause further traffic congestion.

19. I object to the application by Liquorland in the strongest possible terms. There is a liquor outlet literally metres away on Union & Canterbury Rds, and in addition the area is well serviced with liquor outlets very close by on the corner of Union & Whitehorse roads, in Hamilton St Mont Albert and several large outlets in Whitehorse Rd Balwyn.
    Furthermore the area already suffers from significant traffic congestion and adding the delivery vehicles to this quiet residential precinct would compound the problems.
    There are many young families in this area and the excessive promotion of alcohol consumption is concerning in an era where the evidence of the damage that drinking alcohol can cause.

20. I concur with the comments opposing the application by Liquourland to set up an outlet at 140 Union Road Surrey Hills.

    Any liquor outlet for packaged liquor encourages use and abuse of the products.

    I consider that the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquour Regulation needs to act according to the implication of their title and that means in the best interests of the community they are making decisions about. This is a dry area. Families have chosen to live here for reasons which may include that amenity. Their choice needs to be respected.

21. Completely unnecessary and I oppose the application 100%!! I don't understand why the Council can even consider this seeing so many of the residents are opposed to it! It is time you start listening to us.
    You are contributing to the demise of our Dry Area. There are more than enough locations to purchase alcohol for residents of Surrey Hills. DON'T GRANT THIS!

22. As a resident of Surrey Hills I object to a bottle shop at the Surrey Hills Village.
    The residents in this area have decided to live in a “dry area” and should have a say whether a liquor license is approved by conducting a poll to obtain the feedback from the community.
    The proposed bottle shop will detrimentally affect the Surrey Hills village community and amenities. It could attract undesirable individuals getting off the train station and obtaining alcohol from the bottle shop which could then be consumed in the surrounding residential streets. This will increase the noise levels and affect the harmony and family environment of the Surrey Hills area.
    This proposed bottle shop will further increase the traffic congestion and noise in the quiet residential area due to the truck deliveries, waste trucks and vehicle noise. It also does not have adequate customer parking and with the current limited street parking it will further add to the current over saturation of the parking in the surrounding residential streets.

23. As a resident of Surrey Hills I object to a bottle shop at the Surrey Hills Village.
    The residents in this area have decided to live in a “dry area” and should have a say whether a liquor license is approved by conducting a poll to obtain the feedback from the community.
    The proposed bottle shop will detrimentally affect the Surrey Hills village community and amenities. It could attract undesirable individuals getting off the train station and obtaining alcohol from the bottle shop which could then be consumed in the surrounding residential streets. This will increase the noise levels and affect the harmony and family environment of the Surrey Hills area.
    This proposed bottle shop will further increase the traffic congestion and noise in the quiet residential area due to the truck deliveries, waste trucks and vehicle noise. It also does not have adequate customer parking and with the current limited street parking it will further add to the current over saturation of the parking in the surrounding residential streets.

24. I believe a Liquorland outlet in Union Road is totally unnecessary as there are outlets within a few kms of the proposed site. The Union Road/ Surrey Hills Village will be changed totally and for what, bringing alcohol sales into what is termed a "dry area"!
    I have been a resident of Surrey Hills and within close proximity to Union Road for 30 years and definitely do not want this application to be granted, as do so many others.

25. I object to the application by Liquorland and I do not think the application should be approved. There is a liquor outlet literally metres away on Union & Canterbury Rds, and in addition the area is well serviced with liquor outlets very close by on the corner of Union & Whitehorse roads, in Hamilton St Mont Albert and several large outlets in Whitehorse Rd Balwyn.
    Furthermore the area already suffers from significant traffic congestion and adding the delivery vehicles to this quiet residential precinct would compound the problems.
    There are many young families in this area and the excessive promotion of alcohol consumption is concerning in an era where the evidence of the damage that drinking alcohol can cause.
    A recent study reported in the Australian and The Age see http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/more-ambulance-callouts-in-areas-near-big-bottle-shops-report-20150526-gha2o2.html found there were more ambulance callouts in areas near bottleshops related to falls, and another study found a link between the rise in licenced premises and the alarming rise in alcohol-related ambulance callouts.

26. I object to this application by Liquor Land.

    A liqour outlet is not necessary. Liquor can be purchased within 100 metres and there are at least 3 liquor shops operating within 1km of this application. We do not need another one in a dry area.

    Traffic congestion and parking is already a problem.

    Adding a liquor shop so close to the train station raises concerns for the safety of children or anyone walking to the train station. It would compromise a family friendly area and make the area less attractive.

27. I object to a liquor store in a residential street in a family oriented neighbourhood such as Croydon Road.

    The location of the liquor store being at the end of Croydon Road and a short walking distance to many homes on the street, while also being in the vicinity of a busy train station will forever alter the amenity of this area.

    Croydon Road and Guildford Road and the areas nearby have always been an area attracting families and the elderly to set up homes. For us, the safety and security of our homes and families are of paramount importance.

    The possibility of having a liquor store in such a short vicinity to our homes, not only will increase foot traffic but may also lead to alcohol induced crime. In fact, it is almost impossible not to associate the liquor store with the possibility of greater grafiti, greater numbers of loiterers and rubbish. I would not feel safe walking on the street after hours in such a situation.

    One must also consider the train station and therefore the possibility of people loitering around due to the easier accessibility to alcohol.

    Secondly, as it is, Croydon Road already has quite a lot of parking restrictions to cope for the traffic that uses it due to the train station. It will not cope with delivery trucks and further car parking traffic as a result of the liquor store.

    Finally, the location of this liquor store can be distinguished from any other applications as it is to be located at the end of a residential street not in a commercial area, but actually at the end of a residential street literally next to family homes. If in my view, if it is possible to have a liquor store at the end of a residential street in Melbourne, prized for its family orientation and the safety of the area, then, you have opened the floodgates for having a liquor store on any street in Melbourne. This is clearly not what VGLRC and harm minimisation is about.

28. I shudder at the thought of defacing the elegant vibe of the Union road shopping/cafe strip with large obscene posters in garish colours offering liquor. I drink wine and buy alcohol and in order to do so have a great many options from which to buy. Some within walking distance of Guildford Road where I live.

29. I object to a Liquorland or any other bottle shop opening in this particular area of Union Road Surrey Hills because of traffic congestion, narrow side streets already full of parked cars, and the fact there are a number of bottle shops already close by.

    William.

30. I strongly object to granting a(nother) packaged liquor licence in this area, on the corner of a street which is otherwise almost totally residential with considerable amenity for local residents. The proximity to the Surrey Hills train station poses the risk of consumption of alcohol near the station, where measures have recently been taken to address rising violence in the area. There is no link between additional provision of alcohol and reduction of violence in Melbourne.

    I also strongly object to the VCGLR overriding the Dry Area designation without conducting a poll. What benefits are going to the Boroondara Council and Victorian Govt coffers as a result of granting this application, versus the detriment to the amenity (including increased traffic congestion and difficulty parking) for the local community?

31. 1. There is no need for this shop. There is a nearby liquor store at the corner of Canterbury and Union Roads and another at Whitehorse Road/Union Road.

    2. There is already a problem with traffic in this area as the nearby railway gates are often closed, being on the busy Belgrave/Lilydale line. Traffic trying to get out of the side street has a problem now and the presence of this store will only make it worse.

    3. There is very little parking in the vicinity.

    4. Apart from this store being unnecessary, it is inappropriate for the area, being in a small shopping area largely devoted to small businesses (pharmacy, dry cleaner, florist etc.) and coffee shops.

    For all these reasons, I do not support this application.

32. There are already two liquor shops a short distance from each other on Corner of Canterbury/union and Whitehorse /union roads and another at Hamilton Street Mont Albert, where is the planning sense in providing a third outlet in the vicinity Liquorland or other it will just put smaller operators out of business.

33. Absolutely no need for yet another liquor store in this area. As many other have already stated, there are at least three others within walking distance of the proposed one, and another is superfluous. The dry area is a rarity in this part of Melbourne and many people purchase houses because of this. If it is to be at all considered there should certainly be a strict 9.00 pm closing time.

34. There is no community need nor demand for a further liquor shop on Union rd when there are already 2 with another at Hamilton Street Mont Albert. Council have an obligation to meet community needs not the pockets of liquorland.

35. I object to this application by liquor land. There's no need for another liquor outlet as there's one already close by at corner of union rd and white horse rd. This will put more pressure on the traffic which is already very congested on the union rd and lack of parking will be big problem as well. Of course more noise due to the busy traffic!

    by Jian Hu

36. I believe the Liquorland application in Union Rd has no benefit for the community, therefore should be not be approved. The area is well serviced for liquor outlets, some within walking distance. The Union Road shopping strip already has traffic congestion issues - train station, train crossing, Community Centre, cars, buses and limited parking. Lastly, the character of this strip needs to be protected - Liquorland will certainly detract from the nature of this shopping area.

    By Judith B

37. I strongly object to a second bottle shop in Union Road. This will change the neighbourhood character. I am a long term resident and object to the change in the area.

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished almost 9 years ago. It lasted for 28 days. 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 Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment