PlanningAlerts

1 Comment

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

1. What exactly is being proposed for this site? There are no details of this planning application available on-line.
   Based on what we do know however:
   1. A bottle shop does not typically involve the consumption of alcohol on-site and certainly not in Boroondara's Dry Area.
   2. The heavily contested application by Liquorland in 2015 for a bottle shop in Union Road has made it very clear that unless Boroondara Council adopts a Licensed Premises Policy, VCAT is likely to approve all applications for bottle shops.
   3. My objection to this application is based on the fact of the Dry Area as a matter of law, its intent and significance to community expectations of amenity.
   4. I represent a large number of residents in Surrey Hills whose only interest in this application is to preserve the amenity and integrity of the Dry Area.
   5. We are not wowsers; we are simply people who value the amenity of our unique Dry Area much more than the (arguable) convenience of having liquor outlets in our midst. It’s why many of us choose to live in Surrey Hills and raise our families here.
   Relative to Victoria, we have a higher proportion of youth aged from 5-24 years, and of parents and homebuilders aged 35 – 49 years. (Source City of Boroondara Community Profile)
   Boroondara also has the highest concentration of schools in Australia.
   6. The Dry Area has been in place for almost 100 years and far from being an anachronism, is widely admired for its high amenity.
   7. We value this unique legacy of our predecessors and want to maintain it for both ourselves and for the benefit of those who come after us.
   8. In objecting to this application we are seeking to protect this family-friendly area from alcohol-related harm in all its guises and to avoid associated adverse amenity impacts.
   9. Boroondara Council ought to be aware of the growing body of scientific evidence from Australian and overseas studies that identify a linear relationship between the densities of packaged liquor outlets and alcohol-related harm. This is of great concern to us.
   10. Currently, of the total number of packaged liquor outlets in Boroondara, more than 70% (36) are located in the Dry Area. This figure is disproportionate to both its size and population.
   11. It’s relevant to note that in 1998 the Victorian government changed packaged liquor licences to allow these outlets to trade until 11PM (from 9PM) in order to compete with hotels where packaged liquor sales occurred until 11PM.
   They are direct competitors in the market for the supply of liquor.
   12. Since 1998, the number of packaged liquor outlets in our Dry Area has doubled with the trend being away from small independently owned outlets.
   13. The majority of these packaged liquor outlets are located on major roads in larger commercial zones.
   14. This can be contrasted with the current application in a small shopping strip which would be greatly diminished by its presence.
   15. Given the evidence of harm, we are concerned the increasing presence of packaged liquor outlets in our community is eroding and undermining the integrity of our designation as a Dry Area.
   16. We believe this is undemocratic and goes against the intent of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 (the Act) as it relates to Victoria’s only Dry Area.
   17. Our community (which includes local businesses) has existed and developed with the knowledge that it is a Dry Area and with the reasonable expectation that residents would have a say in relation to licensed premises coming into the area.
   18. Every statute has “work to do” and legislation referring to the Dry Area in the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 is no exception.
   19. This Act gives legislative recognition to the Dry Area, allowing it to be retained, altered or repealed by a vote of the electors. Schedule 3, cl. 18 (1).
   20. The residential community has never lobbied either Boroondara Council or the Victorian government to alter or repeal the Dry Area.
   21. Likewise, Parliament has never seen fit to repeal the Dry Area despite having had ample opportunity to do so while making multiple changes to the Act over the years.
   22. The Dry Area therefore remains in place. The question is whether it is serving its intended purpose.
   23. The main reason for the Dry Area was the fact that the temperance movement won the Dry Area ballots in the old Camberwell and Box Hill areas. Its current purpose is to preserve the status quo in terms of amenity of the area. It is submitted that this purpose is to reduce the risk of harm by restricting the physical availability of alcohol in the Dry Area. Enhanced neighbourhood amenity follows as a direct consequence.
   24. In relation to harm, Dr Michael Livingston provides evidence that:
   “increasing the number of packaged liquor outlets in a neighbourhood is likely to increase rates of risky drinking, rates of alcohol-related harm and the negative amenity impacts of alcohol in that neighbourhood”.
   “the majority of studies have found straightforward linear relationships between (packaged liquor) outlet densities and harm rates, which suggest each additional outlet is likely to make at least some contribution to increasing rates of harm”.
   25. In relation to the physical availability of alcohol, it is significant that around 80% of all alcohol consumed is now sold via packaged liquor outlets. When the provisions relating to the Dry Area were enacted, hotel and other “on-premises” licensees were responsible for supplying most of the alcohol consumed by Victorians. Packaged liquor outlets didn’t exist.
   26. It is submitted that if (in 1920) packaged liquor outlets had existed and we had known about their link to serious alcohol-related harms, they too would have required a mandatory poll to determine licence applications in the Dry Area.
   27. The question in 2017 is how effective is the Act in restricting the physical availability of alcohol in the Dry Area when 80% of all alcohol consumed is supplied by packaged liquor outlets?
   28. The Act empowers the Liquor Commission “if it thinks it proper” to order a vote of electors for liquor licence applications in the Dry Area. Schedule 3, cl. 17 (2) (a).
   29. Until May of 2015, the Liquor Commission has been exercising this discretion in respect of restaurant and café licences which were introduced in 1998.
   30. The success of Dry Area polls for these (relatively low risk) licences should not be misinterpreted as community support for what is widely accepted as the higher risk of harm associated with packaged liquor licences.
   31. It is respectfully submitted that given its longstanding designation as a Dry Area, the community’s lower threshold to alcohol-related harm and adverse amenity impacts ought to be recognised and given special consideration by Boroondara Council..
   The existing risk-based approach of the Liquor Commission needs to be calibrated for a lower tolerance of risk of harm in order to meet community expectations for the Dry Area.
   32. For much of its long history, the object of harm minimisation has been akin to a footnote in the Act.
   33. In 2009 in response to the need to increase safe drinking practices and to mark the priority to be given to harm minimisation, the Victoria government put harm minimisation front and centre as the principal object of the Act. It reinforced this by also requiring every discretion conferred by the Act to be exercised and performed with due regard to harm minimisation (refer Liquor Control Reform Amendment (Licensing Act) 2009 and Second reading speech given by Minister for Consumer Affairs).
   34. In section 4 (1) the objects of the Act include:
   (a) to contribute to minimising harm arising from the misuse and abuse of alcohol, including by —
   (ii) ensuring as far as practicable that the supply of liquor contributes to, and does not detract from, the amenity of community life;

   It is submitted that the amenity of community life in the Dry Area warrants special consideration by the Liquor Commission. The longstanding restrictions on liquor licensing have given rise to community expectations of fewer adverse amenity impacts related to the availability of alcohol within the area.
   35. This application will detract from and be detrimental to our amenity and can be expected to encourage the misuse and abuse of alcohol. This fails to meet community expectations of amenity for our Dry Area.
   36. We know our amenity is high and that we represent a lower risk of harm than other areas – these are precisely the outcomes we expect in our Dry Area and are seeking to maintain. We are highly sensitive to the risk of alcohol-related harm given our longstanding designation as a Dry Area.
   37. We are not immune from alcohol-related harm however, and an application to increase the physical (and economic) availability of alcohol in Surrey Hills, in close proximity to community facilities, public transport, park and residential properties, will undoubtedly erode our neighbourhood amenity.
   38. Dr Michael Livingston provides strong probative evidence this will happen and so we ask Boroondara Council to be pro-active and disallow this application.
   39. We believe it is reasonable and appropriate for Boroondara Council to treat planning applications for packaged liquor licences in the Dry Area differently from those for the rest of Boroondara.

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