Council voting split on bottlo

Orange City Council had previously overturned a staff recommendation to refuse the development in June and instructed them to bring back a notice of approval.

But when the notice came back on Tuesday night, it was accompanied by an objection from police due to its proximity to low socio-economic areas and a childcare centre. 

Canobolas Local Area Command crime manager Detective Inspector Bruce Grassick said the licensing officer failed to refer the development application (DA) to himself and Commander Superintendent Shane Cribb for endorsement.

“There was no protocol followed,” he said.

“There are figures that are quite damning to that particular location.”

Detective Inspector Grassick said of the 498 reported assaults in Orange between July 2016 and June 2017, 69 occurred within a one-kilometre radius of the Alpine Shopping Centre, almost 14 per cent.

“Of particular concern there were 176 assaults in the 1.5 kilometre radius, which is almost 36 per cent of assaults in Orange,” he said. 

He said the Liquor Act required authorities to be satisfied no other takeway liquor service was reasonably available to the public, yet there were two outlets in a one-kilometre radius and eight within 1.5 kilometres. 

FoodWorks Supermarket owner Dhruv Patel said the police figures were exaggerated and there were only eight outlets in the vicinity as the crow flew. 

“But in fact if you have to walk, it’s 2.5 kilometres,” he said.

He objected to police conditions not to sell alcohol before midday and not to sell fortified wine or beer in 750 millilitre bottles or more, and not to sell wine in casks more than two litres.

“That’s part of the business – if I can’t sell those products, I can’t pay the rent, I can’t pay electricity.”

Councillor Scott Munro supported the bottle shop, saying the sector should not be left to the supermarket giants.

“I know hard it is to need that extra sale,” he said.

Councillor Glenn Taylor asked councillors to consider the police objection.

“They have to deal with the ramifications of it,” he said.

The vote was split five councillors apiece, meaning the proposal must come back to a future council meeting for a re-vote.