Recent comments

  1. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Monique Drysdale commented

    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

  2. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Construction of 76 new...” at 243-247 Queens Pde Clifton Hill VIC 3068:

    Lou Baxter commented

    I object to any reduction in the parking requirements as continual such reductions have acerbated the parking problems of the inner suburbs.

  3. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Ricky commented

    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.

  4. In Coogee NSW on “New rear first floor additions” at 274 Rainbow Street Coogee NSW 2034:

    Mrs Katina White commented

    Dear Planning.

    As we are a next door Neighbour, can i ask how the architect has determined that this DA Application will not block all of our natural sunlight light into our kitchen and lounge room area as we live next door at 272A Rainbow Street.

    Given the heights and design that we have seen, we will lose all of out natural light into these area's of our home, given that the DA is for a bedroom, home office and bathroom it will extend and block entirely out natural sunlight light and we will have to have our lights on 24/7 in our kitchen and living area's

    I/we do not believe this should be approved, given the proximity of the adjoining Semi's and blocking natural sunlight.

    I would suggest the planners have a look at the street scape and this will become very self evident.

    Regards

    Katina White (sergis)

  5. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Peter commented

    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.

  6. In Blacks Beach QLD on “Hotel (Extension)” at 1-33 Slater Avenue Blacks Beach QLD 4740 L 241 Slater Avenue Blacks Beach QLD 4740:

    kenneth griffin commented

    i agree with the comments about this extension (definitely not required)though i will bet money Councilor Perkins was the first to put this hand up for this proposal, it appears to me our council is only interested in what businesses want to do, we, the people don't have a say about the quality of life we should be able to enjoy, in the suburbs in which we live

  7. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Susan A. commented

    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.

  8. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Pete R commented

    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.

  9. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Peter Lane commented

    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

  10. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Greg commented

    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
    ......

  11. In Richmond VIC on “Part demolition,...” at 3 Carroll St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Dr Peter Stahle commented

    It would be a travesty if this historic cottage were to demolished. Buildings such as this are increasingly rare and their character is part of the essential architectural fabric of Richmond. Typically part demolition results in structural damage that then "requires" complete demolition and consequent total loss of the historic integrity of the building. The only acceptable way to improve this site is through internal restoration within the building shell.

    I make this submission as a local resident in an adjacent street and a small business owner with an office off Carroll St

  12. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Review request under...” at 743 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Kelly Wratten commented

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I have only just located this information on the Council's site. I note that the apartments in this PROPOSED development are currently being advertised for sale but full approval is yet to be given. I would appreciate an explanation as to how this can occur? Further, if the onus is merely on the individual to keep an 'eye' out for these applications as no notification is given to residents in the immediate and affected vicinity.

    I have been a resident of Cobar Street (which runs parallel to New Canterbury Road) for 13 years.

    I am appalled at the amount of high density residential development occurring in the immediate vicinity. Bearing in mind that one side of New Canterbury Road comes under the control of Marrickville Council and the other under the control of Canterbury Council it is becoming apparent that neither of these authorities are 'talking to one another.

    Currently we have:

    Horizon development at No. 743 with 10 units - to be built right on a busy intersection/set of lights.

    Utopia development at No. 799 which boasts 32 units and is almost complete.

    Across the road - where a service station USED to be at No. 570 there is proposed development of a complex which I understand to be 7 storeys high which will be commercial and residential.

    At 610-618 where there still exists a service station - another PROPOSED development of 60 units.

    Parking in the side streets of Clargo and Ross is almost non-existent, as it is in Cobar Street, predominantly due to the fact that the houses were built in an era whereby vehicle access was not needed. This results in residents having to park on street. I have read the attached traffic report to this application and find it laughable at the suggestion that there are possible parking spaces in these streets. Further there are a number of unit complexes and the likelihood of 2 or more people occupying one unit generally results in two vehicles per household. Unit complexes only permit one space per lot forcing the 2nd vehicle onto the road way. This morning our driveway was partially blocked and cars are continuing to park right on the corner of Ross and Cobar Streets, so much so that they are in fact illegally parked.

    New Canterbury Road is extremely busy at peak times. I exit Ross Street at approximately 6.45am Mon-Fri and most mornings will have to wait up to 4-5 mins due to the heavy flow of traffic to be able to turn left. I note that for the Horizon development the exit will be left turn only, right onto the intersection.

    The bus network does not and has not for some time been able to meet the demand for the area. The light rail network will only take city bound workers to Central and not to the city centre. The train is getting busier and busier and is always an all stops service.

    I would like to express my disappointment and disproval at Council and developers. I most definitely do not support any further developments of this nature in the area.

    I look forward to receiving a response or alternatively can be contacted on 0410 421 968. I would appreciate notice being provided of any upcoming meetings regarding developments.

    Yours faithfully
    Kelly Wratten

  13. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Rod O'Hara commented

    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.

  14. In Blacks Beach QLD on “Hotel (Extension)” at 1-33 Slater Avenue Blacks Beach QLD 4740 L 241 Slater Avenue Blacks Beach QLD 4740:

    Philip Green commented

    We wish to oppose this extension for the liquor barn as we feel this will be unnecessary, unsightly and dangerous.

    One of the exits of the bottle shop is coming out onto McAlary drive, and this in itself will make the neighbourhood a dangerous place as the exit comes out on a blind corner into a suburban area with the addition of alcohol makes this lethal.

    There is already glass bottles broken on the streets around the tavern as it stands, and we don't wish for this to increase.

    There are also numerous bottle shops within a 5km radius of the existing bottle shop including at each Woolworth and Coles.

    At any time if you visit the current tavern and bottle shop, it is significantly empty, and we don't see the need for these extensions.

    The addition of trucks in our area will cause noise issues, and with the possibility of trucks using McAlary drive, once again, dangerous with young families and a hindrance.

  15. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Estelle commented

    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

  16. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Christine commented

    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.

  17. In Wantirna South VIC on “Multiple Dwellings & Car...” at 525 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    John Ferguson commented

    Where are people going to park?
    No parking dispensations for greedy developers or anyone else.
    Council, open your eyes and not your bank account.

  18. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Daniel commented

    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).

  19. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Sue commented

    Barny,

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

  20. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Barny's Fine Wines & Ales commented

    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.

  21. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Sue commented

    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.

  22. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Richard Lynch commented

    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.

  23. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Jan Bielecki commented

    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

  24. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    shawn davis commented

    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

  25. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Peter Lane commented

    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

  26. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Clare Conbelly commented

    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

  27. In South Toowoomba QLD on “Multiple Dwelling 2x3...” at 233-235 Geddes Street South Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Rebecca Eaton commented

    I strongly feel this application should be disallowed to proceed. Firstly, there is already a problem with traffic and excessive amounts of cars parked all the way along Cranley street, and the use of Cranley for thoroughfare traffic cutting through from Hume to Ramsay street. There is an existing block full of units directly diagonal to this block on the corner of Geddes and Cranley, the units currently being built at the bottom end of Cranley, the nursing home on the corner of Cranley and Hume, the childcare centre and schools down South street. Adding to this, there is a large church on the corner directly opposite no carparking meaning people park along Cranley street to access these services. Secondly, more units in this street and anywhere nearby would even further ruin the older and heritage style appeal and history of this area. Houses in this street existed when there was only farmland to be seen in between here and the centre of town, the approval of dwellings that aren't fitting to this older style of home is showing total disrespect for the history of these areas and people who have lived here for years. There is absolutely no need to overpopulate streets in this area when there is limited physical space and intrastructure to support this many people living in one small area of town. There is plenty of space for units or townhouses in areas where old world appeal won't be sacrificed.

  28. In South Toowoomba QLD on “Multiple Dwelling 2x3...” at 233-235 Geddes Street South Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Matt loch commented

    I want to know if this site will meet the heritage precinct area rules I had to abide by only a couple of years ago, also weather there is adequate sewer and stormwater infrastructure.
    Also the street is already busy with existing residents and the nursing home and local churches,
    has this been taken into consideration.
    Also the amount of quick money units in this area is ruining the heritage style of the area, and over populating the natural homely feel to the area, I can see how my land value can keep going up with the over crowding of these older style street.
    I demand this application be refused!!
    there has been no community consultation on the amount of units going up in this area!

  29. In Winston Hills NSW on “Alteration and addition to...” at 2 Jupiter Street Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Mrs S Aggio commented

    Application: DA/205/2014
    Address: Cor Lot 945DP 236828 Spl Cor, 2 Jupiter Street Winston Hills 2153

    As the next door neighbour to this property my objection to this development is an unforseen water problem due to overloading of the present system as the sewage junction is directly outside my home. I would like assurance that my home won't be flooded in a backup of sewage or drainage water.

    My second objection is that the new design of the proposed extension will seriously affect light entering my kitchen area to the point of complete obliteration of any sky which is now visible to me.

  30. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Luke Wood commented

    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

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts