PlanningAlerts

5 Comments

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

1. This application just is a sideways attempt to reach the same numbers as the original application that was turned down. 'Tenancy 1' was granted a liquor licence for 120 patrons last month.
   This application for a liquor licence for 'Tenancy 2' (signed by the same person as for Tenancy 1) for 170 patrons brings it to just 10 short of the 300 patrons for which the original licence was correctly deemed inappropriate for the neighbourhood. 2 liquor serving establishments of that magnitude side by side are out of character for the area. They would be better suited for Barangaroo.

2. This history of this site is a failed application for licenced premises seating 440 people; then downgraded to 330 which residents in the area vociferously protested as far too large a scale for the end of a quiet residential street, especially when no parking is provided by the premises and there is a perpetual battle with commuters (regardless of time limits which are not policed daily and plentiful public transport options) for residents to park in their own street. New applications were then submitted for one tenancy of 120 patrons , which was passed last month; and now this one. Given both applications are signed by the same person it is a cunning but blatant attempt to gain licence for the number of patrons that residents previously protested about. Two licenced premises on this scale are inappropriate for the area. The applicant may well cite other restaurants of a similar scale in the area but 1. They are not side by side, 2. They are on busy commercial street frontages but significantly are NOT on the corner of a long residential street which patrons would perceive as offering parking availability. Small businesses catering to the local population are welcome but a business on this scale is clearly designed to attract large crowds from elsewhere to be financially viable. The impact on our residential amenity will be enormous and for this reason the application should be rejected, not least for the underhand methods attempted to achieve the original patronage sought by the applicant.

3. We will still have a large number of patrons disturbing our quiet, residential street. Parking, noise etc concerns remain exactly the same. How many times must we lodge these complaints before the developers get it. Making these seperate licence applications ( signed by the same person) just shows what cynical disregard this developer has for the those already resident in the street not to mention those about to move into the building.

4. This application for an additional license is completely inappropriate for this quiet residential precinct, with many apartments in the same building and nearby streets presently enjoying peaceful living.
   The acoustics of this wonderful street will be destroyed every evening till late at night.

5. This application for 170 patrons is in addition to an allocation lodged last month by the same applicant for a license for 120 patrons for Tenancy 1 at 267 Cleveland Street, Redfern.

   It seeks to circumvent an application already denied for a license for 300 people for the same premises, and is an attempt by the applicant to obtain licenses for 290 patrons for the basement and ground floor of an apartment building at the end of a could se sac on a residential street, where the is scant parking for residents, never mind 290 patrons.

   As well, there are six licensed hotels within 1km of the the site for this new licence application, as well as myriad small cafes and restaurants with liquor licenses.

   The combined licenses (120 patrons approved, 170 applied for) comprising 290 licensed patrons in total is more apt for a precinct such as Darling Harbour or The Entertainment Quarter at Moore Park, and is unsuitable for an established residential neighbourhood, the amenity of which, and the nature of small and medium reassurances and cafe in the area, would be degraded significantly.

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished over 7 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 NSW Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment