UNI STU­DENTS AT RISK FROM ‘BARN’

Southern Gazette (Victoria Park) - - Opinion -

OVER two years ago on 17.4.2015, fol­low­ing two pre­vi­ous re­fusals, the MCJDAP by a vote of 3-2 con­di­tion­ally ap­proved a de­vel­op­ment ap­pli­ca­tion for de­mo­li­tion of the BWS bot­tle shop next to the Como Ho­tel and the con­struc­tion of a Dan Mur­phy’s liquor barn.

On 13.8.2015, ALH the owner sought to change two con­di­tions.

It was suc­cess­ful in re­mov­ing the con­di­tion that “low­est price guar­an­tee” not be dis­played on the build­ing, but not in ex­tend­ing the time from two to three years, by which con­struc­tion was to be sub­stan­tially com­menced. Con­se­quently, de­vel­op­ment ap­proval has since lapsed.

Mean­while, an ap­pli­ca­tion to vary the tav­ern li­cence that cov­ers both the ho­tel and ex­ist­ing bot­tle shop was heard by the Liquor Li­cens­ing Com­mis­sion on Oc­to­ber 27, 2017. The main ob­jec­tors are the City of South Perth and Save Como Ac­tion Group, to­gether with in­di­vid­ual ob­jec­tors.

The chair­man in­di­cated that two is­sues are to the fore, traf­fic, and a pri­mary ob­jec­tive of the Liquor Con­trol Act 1988: to cater for the re­quire­ments of con­sumers for liquor and re­lated ser­vices, with re­gard to the proper de­vel­op­ment of

the liquor in­dus­try, the tourism in­dus­try and other hos­pi­tal­ity in­dus­tries in the State.

I think that the two other pri­mary ob­jec­tives (a) to reg­u­late the sale, sup­ply and con­sump­tion of liquor; and (b) to min­imise harm or ill­health caused to peo­ple, or any group of peo­ple, due to the use of liquor are not get­ting the at­ten­tion they de­serve.

A par­tic­u­larly vul­ner­a­ble group for binge drink­ing is 18-24 year olds and Curtin Univer­sity is a major at­trac­tor of that age group to the area.

Only three MCJDAP mem­bers out of five were sat­is­fied to the ex­tent of ig­nor­ing the con­di­tions for de­vel­op­men­tal ap­proval spec­i­fied by Main Roads WA and State Plan­ning Pol­icy 5-1 Re­gional Roads (Ve­hic­u­lar Ac­cess).

In ad­di­tion all failed to take into ac­count State Plan­ning Pol­icy 4.2 Ac­tiv­ity Cen­tres for Perth and Peel sec­tion 5.6.1 Bulky goods re­tail­ing and mixed busi­ness, which makes it quite clear that:

The en­croach­ment of bulky goods re­tail into res­i­den­tial and in­dus­trial zones should be avoided

Fur­ther­more, lo­cat­ing such de­vel­op­ment in an ad hoc man­ner or as rib­bon de­vel­op­ment along re­gional roads is dis­cour­aged.

Bulky goods re­tail should be de­vel­oped with ac­cess and ur­ban de­sign con­trols so as not to in­ter­fere with traf­fic flow and safety, or de­tract from the amenity of pub­lic trans­port or the lo­cal­ity

In re­gard to the traf­fic is­sue, ALH was or­dered to file and serve within 28 days: 1. A clear anal­y­sis of en­trances and ex­its to the prop­erty and 2. Re­port on traf­fic in South Ter­race where con­cern is great­est (rel­a­tive to Nor­ton Street).

The saga is on­go­ing. CAROL ROE, Man­ning

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.