General News
29 February, 2024
Council refuse new bottle shop
A planning application for a new bottle shop next to Aldi has been thrown out, with councillors arguing an eighth liquor establishment in Maryborough would further contribute to alcohol-related disadvantage. Lodged in June last year, the planning...
A planning application for a new bottle shop next to Aldi has been thrown out, with councillors arguing an eighth liquor establishment in Maryborough would further contribute to alcohol-related disadvantage.
Lodged in June last year, the planning application sought approval for the sale of liquor through a new bottle shop at 111 Burke Street, Maryborough — a building owned by, and adjoining the Aldi supermarket.
While the officer’s report handed down at Tuesday night’s council meeting recommended the application be granted, councillors instead voted in favour of a motion to throw the application out.
The new motion was based on the grounds that the application would negatively impact on the surrounding area, there is no net benefit to community or evidence the application would meet social needs and statistical evidence of disadvantage in the shire, related to alcohol and drug related problems.
The subject site the application relates to is currently occupied by No Limits Health Clubs’ gym, despite the initial application referring to the site as vacant.
Gym owner Ben Wintle had been in an ongoing lease agreement with Aldi to occupy the site since October 2012 and told The Advertiser in November last year he believed renegotiations were in place regarding lease of the site, however no contract had been drawn up.
Mr Wintle initiated a community campaign calling for residents to make objections against the application, even starting a petition which, at the time it was presented to council, contained 653 signatures in an attempt to secure the gym’s existing location.
According to the report tabled at Tuesday night’s meeting, council received 12 objections relating to the application.
These objections centred around the loss or “forced closure” of the existing gym, concern regarding the loss of health benefits as a result of the gym’s potential closure and economic impacts to the gym owner — all of which, according to the officer’s report, are not relevant planning considerations.
Introducing the motion to turf the application, councillor Wayne Sproull clarified that council had no place nor capacity to interfere with lease agreements between businesses.
“There’s been a fair bit of public comment which I always welcome but a lot of that commentary has been around the gym, feeling that council is somewhat choosing between the two,” he said.
“I’m sympathetic to the community’s concerns but I must be 100 percent clear — this motion has nothing to do with the gym.
“Council does not, and should not, get involved with private business arrangements. The decision that is before us is simply whether we should grant a liquor licence or not.”
The liquor license application would have brought the total number of licences to 20 in the Maryborough township, inclusive of packaged liquor stores, entertainment venues and restaurants, as well as drive through bottle shops and pubs.
Cr Sproull referenced a number of statistics highlighting the relationship between alcohol and disadvantage, suggesting that instead of approving the application, council should instead seek to mitigate existing disadvantage in the community.
“Alcohol is a contributing factor to various health concerns within our shire and as per our officer’s report, there are 19 venues within a 500 metre radius of the proposed venue and these are a mix of both consume-in, and pre-packaged, take home outlets,” he said.
“Studies in Victoria have demonstrated that increased density of packaged liquor outlets at the postcode level are associated with increased rates of family violence and chronic disease.
“There is no denying that the increase in density of take-home liquor venues has negative impacts on communities and we have an opportunity to try and prevent that.”
All councils in Victoria are required by law to consider planning applications relating to their respective municipalities when lodged and while the application conformed with these legislated requirements, Cr Grace La Vella said community sentiment on the proposal was clear.
“We have a community who have summarised, vehemently, the impact of losing a gym by endorsing a bottle shop and the negative impacts it could make on so many,” she said.
“Health benefits, both physical and mental, far outweigh the benefits of alcohol consumption.”
However not all councillors were in agreement, with long-standing councillors Geoff Lovett and Chris Meddows-Taylor arguing instead that, as legislated, the decision must be made from a purely planning perspective.
“Under the Local Government Act 2020 we are required to only take certain facts into consideration on planning issues,” Cr Lovett said.
“Recently, this council heard personally a number of objections — all heartfelt, all genuine, and many of the comments and concerns raised I agree with.
“As an elected councillor, my personal feelings and emotions must be put aside. We are required to make decisions based on the law and the facts presented to us.
“We need incontrovertible evidence that this application, if approved, will add to the disadvantage and social issues that we already have and I don’t believe that evidence has been supplied to this council.”
Councillors Sproull, Anna De Villiers, Liesbeth Long and La Vella voted in favour of refusing the application, while councillors Lovett and Meddows-Taylor voted against. Cr Gerard Murphy declared a conflict of interest prior to the matter being heard and did not take part in the vote.
The permit applicant can now take the matter to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and lodge an application for the matter to be reviewed within 60 days of council’s decision.
Speaking after the council’s decision, Mr Wintle said he would continue trying to secure a new lease agreement with Aldi.