The evidence
28The hearing commenced on site and a view of the units, carpark and loading bays was conducted in the company of the parties and their experts. Discussion regarding the need to alter the levels within the carpark to facilitate vehicle movements was heard from the traffic experts. No details of that work are included in the application. The carparks of the adjacent McDonalds and the Bakehouse restaurants were also inspected and the constraints to enable a legal U-turn within Sowerby Street and the availability of on-street parking were also discussed.
29Evidence was heard on site from Mr Ma, one of the pharmacists of a business operated from Auburn Street, Goulburn. Mr Ma and his business partner, Mr Athea, had lodged an objection to the application. Mr Athea also gave evidence by telephone during the hearing. The issues raised in that objection and heard from Mr Ma can be summarised as follows:
The proposed pharmacy has a large retail floor space and is stocking retails goods that are found in pharmacies, health food stores, supermarkets mobility shops and pet shops in addition to dispensing pharmaceuticals. This is contrary to the purpose of the B6 zone, which he says is to ensure that centres remain the focus for business and retail activities.
Traffic from the highway is insufficient to sustain the proposed pharmacy and it is their belief that it is intended to attract trade from the existing CBD.
The application would jeopardise services provided currently in Goulburn i.e. extended pharmacy trading hours, local employment.
There are no doctor's clinics within 5 kilometres of the site and insufficient residents to sustain the pharmacy.
Inadequate parking available for staff and customer needs.
Area is well serviced by the existing pharmacy services and any new pharmacy should be located in the CBD to enhance access to both locals and travellers and to provide services that complement existing pharmacies, doctors and other health professionals.
Current tenant wants to stay and would be evicted if consent is granted.
Has a clinical and financial interest against the granting of approval for the proposed development.
30At the conclusion of the site view, the parties travelled by bus through the B6 zoned land and then to Marys Mount, the council's main residential release area which is located at the north-western extent of the City of Goulburn. The land zoned for a local neighbourhood centre to service that area was viewed. The bus then travelled to another local centre, Bradfordville, in the north-east of the city and returned to the main CBD where the location of businesses, particularly pharmacies, hospitals and medical centres, was observed.
31The owner of a hairdressing business located in Clifford Street Goulburn, Ms Lowe, was visited at her premises during the proceedings. She had submitted one of the form letters of objection to the council and a subsequent affidavit to the proceedings, Exhibit 4. The content of that form letter objected to the application on two grounds, those being repeated below.
The opening of a Chemist Warehouse outlet in a B6 Enterprise Corridor Zone will adversely affect the overall security of retail outlets in the economic centre of Goulburn. The range of goods sold and the apparent predatory pricing used, especially in their catalogues will adversely affect my business. The impact of the new business opening outside the economic centre of Goulburn will attract many of my customers away from the business centre and we believe will have a substantial impact on our business. It will also affect a whole range of businesses including but not limited to, convenience storeys, pharmacies, hairdressers, pet shops and suppliers, and service stations where convenience goods are sold.
The car parking at the proposed site is totally inadequate and will cause hardship for other outlets in the Sowerby St area.
32Ms Lowe's affidavit confirmed that she had signed the form letter and stated that she was concerned that approval of the application would be detrimental to the Goulburn CBD and its businesses, particularly hairdressing salons, that it would have adverse economic effects on retail outlets in the CBD because it will draw customers away from the CBD and its shops, shops in the CBD will lose passing trade, it would cause customers to drive to the outskirts of town rather than to the CBD to buy products that are otherwise available in the CBD and it will have greater bulk buying abilities and will cause customers to leave the CBD. Her evidence given on site went to these issues and included a concern in relation to the competition the proposed pharmacy will provide to her business which, she says could result in an impact of -10 to 15% of her retail business and that such an impact may result in the need to reduce staffing of her salon by one staff member. Her other concern is in regard to moving businesses out of the CBD which affects passing trade. She says that it is a small community that relies on passing trade and loss of that trade would be a concern.
33Further evidence was heard in Court from three more objectors, all pharmacists who run their businesses from premises located within the Goulburn town centre and who had filed affidavits in the proceedings. The first was Mr Douglas, the pharmacist and owner of the Priceline Pharmacy which, whilst having frontage to the main retail street, Auburn Street, is accessed from within the Centro Mall, a centre anchored by a Coles supermarket and Kmart discount department store, which also contains a number of specialty shops and a food court. The evidence provided in the first of two affidavits included a copy of a submission lodged with the council by a planning consultant who had been engaged by Mr Douglas for the purpose of preparing an objection to the application. In addition to those issues raised by the consultant Mr Douglas stated that the rents in the CBD are higher than those outside it, and because the application is for a site outside the CBD, he is concerned that its approval would not maintain the economic strength of the CBD and would have a negative impact on businesses within the CBD, particularly pharmacies.
34The second affidavit sworn by Mr Douglas included an advice from an accountancy firm specialising in pharmacies that suggested that Mr Douglas' pharmacy may suffer a cumulative loss of sales of up to 20% if the application was approved and also said that the siting of the proposal had the potential to change the dynamics of shopping in Goulburn and therefore the future growth of Mr Douglas' pharmacy. In addition, a letter from a Mr G Stephan, a property manager from api, was attached. That letter was addressed to Mr Douglas and stated that in the instance of him electing to reduce floor space, the company would advocate that he no longer trades as a Priceline Pharmacy. That letter suggests that the floor space deemed appropriate for such establishments was from 320sqm to 430sqm and that any floor space below 300sqm would lead to a dramatic reduction in overall turnover to his business and, even if it continued to trade as a Priceline pharmacy, the reduced floor space would be fiscally damaging as the outlay of costs/fees associated would not be justified given the reduction in actual turnover and net profit.
35Mr Douglas' submission was based on that advice and he said that he had purchased a vehicle to keep up with the demand from sick and particularly elderly customers for delivery of prescription medication in the Goulburn area which are delivered free of charge and that if his business experienced a drop in turnover, this would jeopardise the viability of this service and would also force him to reduce staff levels by 20%, impacting on the level of service received by his customers.
36His evidence provided to the Court stated that, whilst he would be relieved if the application was refused for the good of the town, he thought that he would adapt to the financial impact by reducing floor area and curtailing services such as the free delivery service however he does not know the outcome of that adaptation.
37Mr Plowman also filed an affidavit and provided evidence to the Court. He is the registered pharmacist and owner of a chemist within the Market Place shopping complex, a centre anchored by a Woolworths supermarket, which is located on the corner of Verner and Sloane Streets. Mr Plowman had engaged a health industry consultant to prepare a submission on his behalf to the council and that submission was attached to his affidavit. That submission estimates the turnover of the proposed chemist, the subject of the application would be somewhere between $15-20million per annum and on this basis it concluded that the application would lead to a 'massive adverse impact, not just on pharmacies in the economic centre of Goulburn but also on a range of other industry groups in that centre.' It also states that on anecdotal evidence from other pharmacies, turnover can be affected by between 20-25% and on that basis, the pharmacies in the Goulburn economic centre have estimated that approximately 25 staff will be retrenched and that as the application only proposes 7 staff, this would not compensate for the job loss.
38Mr Plowman's affidavit included floor area calculations of the existing chemists with Goulburn and that proposed by the application and he concludes that it is larger than any others and that 75% of the floor space would be retail space that provides for the sale of a wide range of goods of a general retail nature that are presently sold through existing general and specialty retail outlets in the CBD. He was also concerned about the level of parking proposed by the applicant which, he says, is not sufficient to cater for staff and customers.
39At the time of preparing his affidavit, Mr Plowman said that he did not have enough information to estimate the impact of the application on his business however, during cross examination, he advised that he believed there was not enough room in Goulburn for a Chemist Warehouse and that whilst it would not lead to his business closing he would he would lose up to 5 staff based on a 20% drop in turnover. He based this on the information prepared by his consultant, an estimate of the number of prescriptions to be dispensed from the site as being 500-600 per day and distributing that number as a loss of 100 to each pharmacy, which, he said equates to a 20% loss in his turnover.
40Mr Plowman advised that he was the author of the form letter submitted to the council by a number of business operators within the CBD and that two of his senior girls had canvassed Goulburn to obtain signatories to that letter.
41The final pharmacist to provide evidence to the Court was Mr Athea, the business partner to Mr Ma, who operates a business, Blooms the Chemist in Auburn Street, Goulburn. Auburn Street is accepted to be the main street of the CBD. In his affidavit, he raised similar concerns to those detailed above and also his concerns that the application is in the B6 zone and that approval of the application would be contrary to the objectives of that zone. He says that tourists will not sustain the proposed business so it would rely on drawing patronage from the CBD, would conflict with, rather than complement the existing pharmacies in the CBD, its shorter opening hours would fragment the current patronage enjoyed by the existing pharmacies and will weaken that trade. He says that the current level of pharmacy service in Goulburn is adequate and that this includes the provision of extended hours service to its customers which, whilst not viable, is a service provided that would be less viable and could lead to a cut in trading hours with subsequent impact on wages and employment for some of his current staff.
42Mr Athea's aural evidence was that he saw the application creating another business centre in the B6 zone, which he says is there to service the highway.
43Expert evidence was heard for the applicant from, for the applicant, Mr Leyshon (economic) and Mr Shiels (traffic/ parking and planning) and for the council, Mr Fensham (economic), Mr Hallam (traffic/parking) and Mr Stewart (planning).