Ice Box Liquor Pty v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2026] NSWCATAD 4;

... There is no controversy about the existence of the existing bottle shops as commercial competitors of the putative business of the Applicant in these proceedings. While the fact that they are commercial competitors was relevant to questions of standing and interest, and aside from questions of density, the position of the Second and Third Respondents with regard to the Applicant is of no material relevance. At the hearing, the Second and Third Respondents were entitled and did address the considerations that are relevant to the Tribunal's determination of the statutory test.

1. On the remitter, the Second and Third Respondents continued to present their opposition to the application in the same manner as they had at the original hearing. That is, while openly acknowledging that they had significant commercial interests in the outcome of the proceedings, they contended that the only relevant consideration on which submissions they made concerned the applicable statutory test.

1. The ultimate issue to be determined is whether or not to grant the Applicant a packaged liquor licence with regard to the Premises.
2. Anterior to the ultimate issue are three matters that have arisen in these proceedings. Those matters are, in summary:

(1) The scope of the remitter;

(2) The extent to which new evidence should be considered;

(3) The applicable statutory provision to be applied is, where the central provision has been the subject of amendment between the first hearing and the remitter;

1. The appeal proceeded on at least 12 grounds, two of which were upheld. The concluding paragraph in Narraport AP at [71] summarised the outcome of the appeal in the following terms:

The appellants have succeeded in relation to Grounds 2 and 3 in relation to the Tribunal's assessment of the Vintage Cellars licence. However, the other grounds have not succeeded. The Appeal Panel is not satisfied that the errors of law (whether they be questions of law or note) have been made out.

1. That conclusion was predicated upon the finding by the Appeal Panel that I had erred in my reasons in Ice Box 2024 in the extent to which I considered a liquor licence that had been granted ten years earlier to the Coles Group under its Vintage Cellars brand, but which had never been used, for a liquor store almost directly opposite the Premises. I will refer to this licence as the Vintage Cellars Licence in conformity with the terminology adopted in Narraport AP.
2. As the Appeal Panel noted in dismissing Ground 11 of the appeal, which sought leave to challenge some factual findings, that error affected multiple aspects of the reasons and was capable of affecting the overall conclusion. The Appeal Panel found [264]-[267] that:

The only errors that have been made out concern Grounds 2 and 3. These errors concern the Tribunal's treatment of Vintage Cellars. That reasoning affects multiple categories and multiple findings; but not all. It will be necessary to redetermine the particular individual risks of harm, ignoring the comparative difference in treatment between the Vintage Cellars licence and the licence. This will necessitate review of the evidence in relation to those findings. Further, it is not possible to discount the possibility that this will in turn affect other findings. It is certainly capable of affecting the overall conclusion, on a weighing up exercise, once the risks are recalibrated (if necessary). This process may benefit from further submissions from the parties.

The first respondent rejects the notion that it is necessary to review all the evidence again and seeks to be heard further in relation to the relevance of the amendments to the Liquor Act.

The Appeal Panel has determined this is not an appropriate ground of appeal to warrant the Appeal Panel holding a new hearing. The matter is to be remitted in relation to the matters the subject of Grounds 2 and 3.

1. What is clear from the above, and other passages in Narraport AP, for example at [272], is that while the scope of the remitter called for reconsideration, not a complete re-hearing, the error nonetheless requires a full reconsideration of all findings that were affected by error and a recalibration of the risks - including the ultimate findings. In that regard, I was assisted to some extent by the submissions of the Applicant, who undertook what the Second and Third Respondents described as a "needless and difficult task of first identifying which of its findings were inconsistent with the reasons of the Appeal Panel." What fell from that analysis is that several aspects of the original reasons were unaffected by the Appeal Panel's findings, while obviously some parts of the original reasons were affected. For example, considerations regarding traffic management and parking amenity were not matters concerning which the Vintage Cellars Licence had any bearing.
2. However, in determining the matter on remitter in this case, I am obliged to look again at each of the relevant factors and form a view as to the appropriate weight to be given. This is for two reasons: first, because my statutory task is to determine the correct and preferable decision at the hearing of the matter on remitter under s 63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW), having regard to the statutory considerations set out in the Liquor Act: Walker Corporation Pty Ltd v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority [2009] NSWCA 178 (Walker Corporation) at [26], [38]; and second, it may be that the relative weight to be given to each factor will vary relative to my new findings having removed the error from my consideration and having taken into consideration the new or updated evidence: Walker Corporation at [39]-[40], citing Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Wang [2003] HCA 11, (2003) 215 CLR 518 at [73]- [74].

1. Having regard to Walker Corporation at [40] and Wang at [71], I considered it within my discretion and consistent with my statutory task to decide what, if any, further evidence should be admitted or considered on the remitter. I heard the parties before the commencement of the remitter hearing on the extent to which I should admit further evidence. The Applicant submitted that new or further evidence should be restricted to updated crime statistics, whereas the Second and Third Respondents submitted that they should have the opportunity to put on updated evidence, including updated or newly-published research, and expert evidence regarding the nature and extent of the risks associated with granting a licence with reference to the new data and research. I determined that new and updated crime statistics would be admitted, and further, that I would allow new evidence - that is, evidence not available at the original hearing - to be admitted.
2. Ultimately, this meant that in addition to the evidence adduced or tendered at the first hearing, I received updated crime statistics, some further expert evidence on social planning from Ms George, qualified by the Applicant and Professor Ryan, qualified by the Second and Third Respondents, and a further three research articles that had been published after Ice Box 2024.
3. On reviewing Professor Ryan's evidence, I note that she had referred to research materials published after her March 2024 report. That material, as opposed to Professor Ryan's opinion, is not fresh evidence and therefore outside of the direction I gave. Additionally, I was presented with a series of 21 further research articles, not all of which are referred to by Professor Ryan, most of which were available to tender at the initial hearing. To the extent that Professor Ryan bases her opinion on that material, I have accepted it, particularly since there is no prejudice to the Applicant, as Ms George has had the opportunity to comment on it. Much of the material, however, including national surveys conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) in 2023 and updated in February 2024 (i.e. months before the first hearing), does not assist because that material does not address harms and risks at the community level - the LGA or the suburb. Without limiting my consideration of all the material, I have generally preferred material published since the last hearing, including the AIHW reports in November and December 2024.

Which version of s 48 of the Liquor Act applies?

1. A further issue is that since the determination of the original decision, the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW) has been amended by the 24-Hour Economy Legislation Amendment (Vibrancy Reforms) Act 2023 (NSW), with the effect that, from 1 July 2024, s 48 in the form applied in Ice Box was repealed and replaced. For convenience, I have extracted below both the former version and the current section 48 of the Liquor Act.
2. Former s 48(5) of the Liquor Act was in the following terms:

(5) The Authority must not grant a licence, authorisation or approval to which a relevant application relates unless the Authority is satisfied, after having regard to -

(a) the community impact statement provided with the application, and

(a1) any published cumulative impact assessment that applies to the area in which the premises the subject of the application are located, and

(b) any other matter the Authority is made aware of during the application process (such as by way of reports or submissions),

that the overall social impact of the licence, authorisation or approval being granted will not be detrimental to the well-being of the local or broader community.

1. That provision has been substantially replicated in s 48(3) of the Liquor Act, which states:

(3) The Authority must not grant a relevant application unless the Authority is satisfied, having regard to the following, that the overall impact of the licence, authorisation or approval the subject of the relevant application will not be detrimental to the wellbeing of the local or broader community -

(a) the statement of risks and potential effects that accompanied the relevant application,

(b) any published cumulative impact assessment that applies to the area in which the premises the subject of the relevant application are located,

(c) any other matter the Authority is made aware of during the application process, including, for example, by way of reports or submissions.

1. As can be seen from the above, the terminology of former s 48(5) and the current provision, s 48(3), is not materially different. The current provision appears to be a more streamlined reformulation, with the only additional requirement being for the licence applicant to provide the Authority with a "statement of risks and potential effects", rather than a "community impact statement". Both the current and former provisions oblige the Authority (and now the Tribunal) not to grant a licence unless it is satisfied that the overall social impact of the licence will not be detrimental to the local or broader community, having regard to various sources of information about those risks.
2. In Australian Regional Group v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2024] NSWCATAD 305, Senior Member Isenberg at [4]-[9] considered the same issue where a licence applicant had applied in December 2022 for a packaged liquor licence and, by February 2024, had applied for review in the Tribunal of the Authority's decision. The Tribunal in that case noted that there were no transitional provisions and referred to the Appeal Panel's decision in Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Customer Service (NSW) v Kalkan [2022] NSWCATAP 112, in which it was held that in the circumstances of that particular matter, the Tribunal should apply the law as at the date on which the matter came before the Tribunal. However, Kalkan was distinguishable since the application was lodged with the Tribunal after the legislative amendments had come into force. SM Isenberg then referred to the apparent inconsistency between Kalkan and the High Court's decision in Fruginiet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] HCA 16; (2019) 266 CLR 250 at [14]- [15], which referred Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi [1980] FCA 85; (1980) 31 ALR 666, to an earlier decision, with approval. In Fruginiet, at [14] the High Court, considering the jurisdiction of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal, stated:

... [The AAT's jurisdiction] is subject to the same general constraints as the original decision-maker and should ordinarily approach its task as though it were performing the relevant function of the original decision-maker in accordance with the law as it applied to the decision-maker at the time of the original decision.

1. Consistent with the approach taken in Fruginiet, SM Isenberg also considered that, s 30(1)(c) of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW). That section provides that the amendment of an Act does not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the relevant Act. This supported SM Isenberg's conclusion that, in applying for administrative review of an administratively reviewable decision, the Applicant had an "accrued" right within the meaning of s 30(1)(c) of the Interpretation Act and consequently, the former provision was applicable. The Tribunal in Cozanitis v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2025] NSWCATAD 24 at [33]- [41] has followed the same approach.
2. There is some doubt as to whether a "right" contingent on a discretionary decision can be preserved or be said to have accrued. In that regard, the Second and Third Respondents referred me to the detailed discussion by the learned authors Herzfeld and Prince Interpretation, 3rd Edition, Thompson Reuters at [9.580]-[9.700]. While acknowledging there is some doubt about this question, I respectfully agree with SM Isenberg's analysis of the authorities and the application of s 30(1)(c) of the Interpretation Act for the reasons set out in Australian Regional Group. I also consider that the decision in Kalkan is distinguishable on its facts from these proceedings for similar reasons to those set out in Australian Regional Group.
3. Accordingly, I have proceeded in determining this matter on the basis that former provision s 48(5) of the Liquor Act applies. If I am mistaken in that approach, I consider that, in the context of a hearing which at first instance extended over five days and a remitter hearing which went for more than two days, the information provided to the Tribunal on which it can base its assessment of the overall impact on the local and broader community is superior to that which a licence applicant brings at first instance to the Authority. Therefore, the provisions, in the context of a fully litigated administrative review, are relevantly indistinguishable.

1. The Authority's decision to refuse the Applicant's application for a packaged liquor licence is amenable to review by this Tribunal under s 13A of the Gaming and Liquor Administration Act 2007 (NSW) (Administration Act), and ss 7 and 9 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act.
2. As noted earlier in these reasons, the Tribunal is obliged to determine the application by deciding the correct and preferable decision having regard to the material before it, including any factual material and the applicable law: s 63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act.
3. Neither party, in proceedings of this kind, bears a legal burden of proof_; Smith v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority_ [2018] NSWCATAD 224 at [25]. But the Applicant has, nonetheless, a practical or evidentiary burden to ensure there is sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to reach the requisite level of satisfaction required to be reached pursuant to particular provisions of the enabling statute; Auld v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2018] NSWCATAD 25 at [50]; ALDI v Foods v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2019] NSWCATAD 43 at [88].

1. Section 3 of the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW) sets out the legislative objects and the matters to which regard must be had when securing those objects. That section is as follows:

3 Objects of Act

(1) The objects of this Act are as follows -

(a) 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,

(b) to facilitate the balanced development, in the public interest, of the liquor industry, through a flexible and practical regulatory system with minimal formality and technicality,

(c) to contribute to the responsible development of related industries such as the live music, entertainment, tourism and hospitality industries.

(2) In order to secure the objects of this Act, each person who exercises functions under this Act (including a licensee) is required to have due regard to the following -

(a) the need to minimise harm associated with misuse and abuse of liquor (including harm arising from violence and other anti-social behaviour),

(b) the need to encourage responsible attitudes and practices towards the promotion, sale, supply, service and consumption of liquor,

(c) the need to ensure that the sale, supply and consumption of liquor, and the operation of licensed premises, contributes to, and does not detract from, the amenity of community life,

(d) the need to support employment and other opportunities in the -

(i) live music industry, and

(ii) arts, tourism, community and cultural sectors.

1. The objects set out above are reflected in the community impact provisions under s 48 of the Liquor Act, most notably, subsection 48(5).
2. As the Tribunal in Bun v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2020] NSWCATAD 60 at [73] observed:

... the Tribunal must be actually satisfied that the overall social impact of the proposal will not be detrimental. [emphasis in original]

1. The term "overall social impact" was considered extensively in Kallin Pty Ltd v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2019] NSWCATAD 36 where, at [20], the Tribunal stated:

As suggested in Macedon Ranges Shire Council, the meaning of "overall social impact" will be influenced by the subject matter and purpose of the Liquor Act. Clearly the Act is concerned with the minimisation of harm associated with misuse and abuse of liquor (including violence and other anti-social behaviour), as well as ensuring that the sale, supply and consumption of liquor contributes to, and does not detract from "the amenity of community life" (s 3(2)). Therefore in my view, these factors, where relevant, will inform the meaning of "overall social impact". The Act also refers to other social impacts, such as the balanced development of the liquor industry and of related industries, such as the live music, entertainment, tourism and hospitality industries.

1. When considering the overall social impact, the Tribunal is required to take into account both positive and negative aspects of an application: Smith v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2018] NSWCATAD 224 at [30].
2. Accordingly, the Tribunal must not grant an application for a liquor licence unless it is satisfied that the overall social impact of the licence will not be detrimental to the well-being of the local or broader community: s 48(5) of the Liquor Act, having regard to the material set out in the subparagraphs to that section. In that regard, I do not accept the submission of the Second and Third Respondents that "it is, and should be, difficult for an applicant to obtain a packaged liquor licence unless some clear advantage can be shown". That submission mischaracterises the statutory task.

1. The Authority, as required under section 57 of the Liquor Act, issued guidelines including GL4010 - Guideline 6, Consideration of Social Impact under section 48(5) of the Liquor Act 2007, which is dated 13 October 2021 (Guideline 6). Despite the legislative change, the Authority did not provide me with an updated version of Guideline 6; however, regardless of whether the former or current s 48 applies, I consider Guideline 6 to remain directly relevant to the subject matter of these proceedings.
2. Pursuant and subject to the limitations stated in s 64(4) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act, the Tribunal may have regard to Guideline 6. The relevant parts of Guideline 6 are paragraphs 25 - 49, and, where relevant, I have had regard to that material. In particular, I have adopted the definitional aspects of "local community" and "broader community" set out in Guideline 6 such that I consider the local community to comprise the suburb of Woollahra (Suburb) and the "broader community" to be the local government area of Woollahra (LGA) being an area of sufficient breadth though without imposing on myself any artificial limitations. As I noted in Ice Box 2024 at [20], I consider the proper construction of the term "local or broader community" to the chaussure of s 48(5) of the Liquor Act, to be disjunctive. Therefore, both the local and the broader community are to be considered.

Section 58 Bundle

1. At the first hearing, the Authority tendered a bundle of documents it had previously filed under the Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 58 (s 58 Bundle). The s 58 Bundle, which extended to over 770 pages, included a copy of Guideline 6 and otherwise comprised material relevant to the review of the decision.
2. The s 58 Bundle also included the following material:

(1) The Applicant's completed application form and associated documentation, including a community impact statement dated 7 June 2021 and updated Alcohol Plan of Management dated November 2021; the licence application seeks authorisation to sell liquor from a shop on Queen Street at Woollahra between 10:00 AM and 9:00 PM Monday to Saturday and between 10:00 AM and 8:00 PM on Sundays;

(2) Compliance record search for the Applicant, showing no incidents;

(3) A notice of determination of a development application dated 4 February 2021. On that document, Woollahra Council recorded that:

(a) The development application was unsatisfactory against the following criteria:

(i) Social impacts and outlet density of licenced premises;

(ii) NSW Police response, including that the application had not demonstrated that the social impacts have been minimised or can be controlled "due to the over-supply of liquor outlets in Woollahra"; and

(iii) Non-compliance with Chapter F3 of the Woollahra DCP 2015, meaning that it has not adequately demonstrated that the impact on the amenity of nearby and adjacent residences has been addressed, nor has it addressed the "existing and likely cumulative social impacts" and that it has not demonstrated that it has formulated appropriate management practices to minimise anti-social behaviour on surrounding residential premises.

(b) The development application was found to be satisfactory with regard to:

(i) Parking and truck deliveries;

(ii) Heritage, including with regard to the renovation of the shopfront; and

(iii) Building works.

(4) A complying development certificate issued by Woollahra Council;

(5) Summary of key statistical data about the Woollahra area;

(6) Photographs of the location, aerial photographs of the area which show the proximity of the site to the Existing Bottle Shops and other licenced premises;

(7) Documents concerning the Vintage Cellars Licence in respect of a site across the road from the Premises.

(8) The minutes of a meeting of the Board of the Authority that took place on 16 February 2022, in which the Board, contrary to the recommendation of Authority staff, refused the Applicant's liquor licence subject to conditions on its opening hours. In its concluding remarks refusing the liquor licence, the Authority's Chairperson stated that:

[H]aving considered the positive and negative social impacts that are likely to flow from granting the Licence, serious concerns in relation to outlet clustering and the social impact of approving the Applicant remain particularly in light of the objections received.

The Authority is not satisfied that the above matters mitigate the risks sufficiently such that the overall social impact of granting the licence would not be detrimental to the well-being of the local and broader communities. Rather the Authority is satisfied that the additional liquor licence would not facilitate the balanced development, in the public interest, of the liquor industry.

1. At the first instance hearing, the Authority also relied on Harm Minimisation and Community Impact Reports, which were provided in updated form throughout the hearing of this matter. In setting out the following matters, I note that in Ice Box 2024, I had described the reported rates for non-domestic alcohol-related assaults, malicious property damage offences and incidents of disorderly or offensive conduct at the suburb and LGA as being at levels that were all significantly below the rest of NSW. On reviewing the crime statistics on the remitter, including the updated statistics, it is clear that my findings were, to some extent, incorrect. While nothing turned on this in the determination of the appeal in Narraport AP, as the matter has been remitted for reconsideration and all evidence from the first hearing has been relied upon, it is appropriate to review this material and make appropriate findings, as I have now done. The following paragraphs correctly reflect the crime statistics presented in the first instance hearing.

1. In the initial hearing, the first Harm Minimisation Report of relevance was called the Further Updated Harm Minimisation Report. That report was filed on 5 April 2023. It contained data for the year to December 2022, and that data is referred to below in comparison with the data set out in a later report covering the years to December 2024.

1. A Final Updated Harm Minimisation Report, dated 19 July 2023, was tendered as an exhibit at the first hearing (July 2023 Harm Minimisation Report), showing that:

(1) As at 10 July 2023, there were five packaged liquor outlet licences in the suburb and 49 in the LGA of Woollahra.

(2) The five packaged liquor outlet licences included the Vintage Cellars Licence and an outlet called Frootbat Australia that, by all accounts, is an online-only liquor retailer without a storefront presence.

(3) The density rate of packaged liquor outlet licences per 100,000 population, arising from those figures, was 69.55 for the suburb and 91.60 for the LGA, compared with a rate of 39.02 for all of NSW.

(4) The incident rate of alcohol-attributable hospitalisations for the LGA was 768.5 compared with 527.0 for all of NSW. However, the rate of deaths attributable to alcohol was lower in the Woollahra LGA compared with the whole of NSW; 16.3 for the LGA, compared with 19.2 for the whole of NSW.

(5) The July 2023 Harm Minimisation Report, consistent with all the Harm Minimisation Reports in evidence, asserts that the period of data for alcohol attributable deaths and hospitalisations is 2019/20 - 2020/21. However, the data presented for this topic varies across reports. I have assumed, therefore, that the label has not been amended in each report and that the subsequent reports provide data for later periods than 2019/20 - 2020/21.

(6) The two-year trend for incidents of domestic assaults related to alcohol was stable in the LGA but had increased for the rest of NSW. The rates of those types of offences were significantly lower than the rest of NSW at the LGA level, with an increase at the suburb level in the year to March 2022, with some apparent mean reversion for the year to March 2023.

(7) Rates for non-domestic alcohol-related assaults in the LGA exceeded the NSW rate for the years to March 2022 and March 2023; however, the rate for the same type of offending at the suburb level was below the rate for NSW as a whole and, indeed, for the LGA.

(8) Rates of malicious property damage offences at the suburb and LGA levels were significantly below the rest of NSW.

(9) The rate of incidents of alcohol-related disorderly or offensive conduct at the LGA level was higher than the rate for the rest of NSW. Both rates were described as stable on a two-year trend. The rate at the suburb level varied widely: in the year to March 2022, no such offences were recorded; in the year to March 2023, three were recorded, leading to a rate well above the NSW-wide rate for the same period.

1. On remitter, the Authority provided the Tribunal with two further Harm Minimisation Reports. The first was dated February 2025 (February 2025 HMR), which contained data for the 12 months between September 2023 and September 2024. The second was dated April 2025, which contained data for the 12 months between December 2023 and December 2024 (April 2025 HMR).

1. The February 2025 Harm Minimisation Report, which showed that:

(1) There had been no change to the number of packaged liquor outlet licences in the suburb of Woollahra; there remained five such licences, including the Vintage Cellars licence and the online liquor retailer Frootbat Australia.

(2) There had been an increase of three packaged liquor outlet licences in the LGA; so that there are now 52 such outlets in the LGA, whereas when the matter was first before me for the purposes of Ice Box 2024, there had been 49 packaged liquor outlets. No other evidence about the other outlets was tendered by the parties on remitter; however, the social planning experts, as I discuss below, considered this increase in the course of giving their updated opinion evidence.

(3) The density rate of packaged liquor outlet licences per 100,000 population, arising from those figures, remained stable at 69.55 for the suburb and, as a consequence of the three additional licences granted in the period, the density of licences had increased to 97.20 for the LGA. This is compared with a slightly increased rate of 39.52 for all of NSW.

(4) The February 2025 Harm Minimisation Report records that the rate of alcohol-attributable hospitalisations for the LGA remained higher than the rate for the rest of NSW. Because of the issue noted at paragraph 45(4) above, it is impossible to tell what period this data, in fact, relates to. However, the report discloses that the rate of hospitalisations had increased slightly to 778.0, with a similarly slight increase to 528.0 for all of NSW. The rate of deaths attributable to alcohol in the Woollahra LGA remained lower compared with the rate for the rest of NSW, consistent with the data set out in the July 2023 Harm Minimisation Report.

(5) The two-year trend for incidents of domestic assaults related to alcohol was reportedly "stable" for the LGA for the period up to September 2024. In fact, there was a slight decline in the rate of these incidents at the LGA level from 74.8 for the year to September 2023 to 69.2 for the year to September 2024. For the whole of NSW, the incidence of domestic assaults related to alcohol declined even further, by 2.6% per year. The overall NSW rate for these incidents was 118.1 for the year to September 2023 and 115.0 for the year to September 2024. The rate of domestic assaults related to alcohol remained significantly lower at the LGA level in that period. The incidence rate in the suburb was lower again, at 13.9 per 100,000 head of population, for both the year to September 2023 and for the year to September 2024.

(6) Regarding the two-year trend for incidents of alcohol-related non-domestic assault, the rate for NSW fell significantly by 9.3% per year, but the rate for such offences in the LGA remained, reportedly "stable". However, it may be seen that the rate for such offences at the LGA level also declined from 107.7 for the year to December 2022 (as shown in the previous Harm Minimisation Report), to 104.7 for the year to September 2023, and then to 91.6 for the year to September 2024. I have assumed that, due to the small sample size, no trend data were reported at the suburb level. As with domestic assaults, the rate of incidence for these kinds of offences at the suburb level was significantly below the rate for the rest of the LGA and for NSW. In the period covered by the February 2025 Harm Minimisation Report, the rate for alcohol-related non-domestic assault for the year to September 2024 was 55.5 (compared with 88.7 for NSW and 91.6 for the LGA).

(7) The two-year trend for incidents of malicious damage to property to September 2024 was stable at both the LGA and NSW levels. No trend data was available at the suburb level. The February 2025 Harm Minimisation Report showed, consistent with the earlier report, that rates of malicious property damage offences at the suburb and LGA levels were significantly below the rest of NSW.

(8) The trend for incidents of alcohol-related disorderly or offensive conduct in NSW overall fell by 22% over the two-year trend period to September 2024. No trend was provided in the February 2025 Harm Minimisation Report with respect to the LGA. Nonetheless, it was clear that the rate of these offences at the LGA level remained higher than the rate across the rest of NSW. The rate at the suburb level varied widely, as it had in the first report: for the year to September 2023, two such offences were recorded, giving the suburb and incidence rate of 27.8 (compared with a rate for NSW of 20.7); in the year to September 2024, no such offences were recorded, leading to a rate of zero.

1. The April 2025 Harm Minimisation Report showed that:

(1) There had been no change in the number of packaged liquor outlet licences in the suburb or LGA from the number shown in the February 2025 Harm Minimisation Report. That is, there were five packaged outlet licences in the suburb and 52 in the LGA.

(2) The April 2025 Harm Minimisation Report included the same data as the February 2025 Harm Minimisation Report for rates of alcohol-attributable hospitalisations and deaths for the LGA or NSW as a whole; that is, there was a higher rate of hospitalisations but a lower rate of deaths in the LGA when compared with the whole of NSW.

(3) The two-year trend to December 2024 for incidents of domestic assaults related to alcohol was reportedly "stable" for the LGA and for the whole of NSW, which had previously reported a statistically significant decline, as noted above. In the following table, I have set out the rates for these types of offences extracted from the Further Harm Minimisation Report tendered at the first instance hearing (and referred to at paragraph 45 above), and the April 2025 Harm Minimisation Report:

Table 1: Rates of Alcohol-Related Domestic Assaults 2021 - 2024

(4) The number of incidents is, perhaps, more illustrative of how the rates reflect reported incidents of domestic assaults related to alcohol at each statistical level. Accordingly, in the following table, I have extracted the number of alcohol-related domestic assaults between December 2021 and December 2024 in NSW as a whole, the LGA and the suburb, as contained in the Further Harm Minimisation Report tendered at the first instance hearing and the April 2025 Harm Minimisation Report, as follows:

Table 2: Number of Alcohol-Related Domestic Assaults 2021 - 2024

(5) The two-year trend reported for incidents of alcohol-related non-domestic assault to December 2024 was "stable" in terms of the LGA and the whole of NSW. Once again, however, the rate of these offences declined at both the LGA and State levels. There were five such incidents in the suburb in the year to December 2023, resulting in a rate well below the LGA and NSW rates. However, there were seven incidents of this type for the year to December 2024, resulting in the suburb having a higher rate for that period than either the LGA or NSW as a whole.

(6) The two-year trend to December 2024 for reported incidents of malicious damage to property was reported as being stable at the suburb, LGA and NSW levels.

(7) The two-year trend for incidents of alcohol-related disorderly or offensive conduct in NSW overall continued to show a decline, though slightly less sharply than the rate of decline recorded by the February 2025 Harm Minimisation Report. In the April 2025 Harm Minimisation Report, the decline at the State level was 19.4% over the two-year trend period to December 2024. No trend was provided in the April 2025 Harm Minimisation Report with respect to the LGA or the suburb. Nonetheless, in the year to December 2023, the rate of these types of offences was the same as the rate for NSW and then increased above the State rate in the year to December 2024. The rate at the suburb level varied widely, as it had in the earlier reports: for the year to December 2023, no offences of this kind were recorded, giving the suburb an incidence rate of zero (compared with a rate for NSW of 18.5 and an LGA rate of 18.3); then, in the year to December 2024, there were two such offences recorded, leading to a rate of 27.1 (compared with a rate for NSW of 14.9 and a rate for the LGA of 25.6).

1. What is to be taken from the above is that despite an increase in the density of packaged liquor outlets in the LGA, there has been no increase in the number or rate of reported criminal incidents that are attributable to alcohol misuse.

1. The Authority called Senior Constable Franks to give evidence about the NSW Police Force's objection to the licence at the first hearing of the matter. His affidavit evidence was to the effect that the proposed store created conditions conducive to harm materialising. Those harms included:

(1) The sale of alcohol to minors or the sale to adults on behalf of minors; this was said to be due to the congested foot traffic and the opportunities that it created. I see no proper factual basis for that suggestion and reject it.

(2) The location is near Centennial Park and other hotels and could be a source of "pre-loading" before concerts and events. In that regard, the evidence showed that there are several closer, more conveniently located, outlets than the proposed site for such activity. Accordingly, I have placed no weight on that evidence.

(3) The proximity of the proposed store, so close to other liquor outlets, might allow service of alcohol to patrons who have been refused service elsewhere. Having regard to the fact that refusals of service and anti-social behaviour usually occur in the evenings, and having regard to the proposed bottle shop's hours, I do not consider this to be a matter of serious concern.

1. Senior Constable Franks was cross-examined by counsel for the Applicant at the first hearing. He was asked about the police response as part of the application process for the Vintage Cellars Licence in 2014. In respect of that application, the police had not raised any similar grounds of objection to the Vintage Cellar's proposal; the only conditions sought to be imposed by the police for that proposal were that a CCTV camera system be installed and that a plan of management be adhered to. Reflecting on his evidence from the first hearing, I accept that Senior Constable Franks was not involved in the earlier response to the Vintage Cellar's licence application and that he was entirely sincere in expressing his concerns about the Applicant's proposed operation of a packaged liquor outlet at the Premises.
2. Senior Constable Franks, in the context of being asked questions about the lack of any incidents reported relating to the Existing Bottle Shops, also accepted that police would expect to receive reports of assaults and other criminal incidents adjacent to licenced premises such as hotels, bars and nightclubs rather than packaged liquor stores.
3. The Authority did not seek to recall Senior Constable Franks to give evidence at the remitter. The Second and Third Respondents did not seek to call him either. Therefore, he did not provide any evidence regarding the further crime statistics presented on the remitter. At the original hearing, however, Senior Constable Franks was asked about the ten incidents of domestic violence-related assaults recorded in the BOSCAR statistics for the year ended December 2022. With regard to those earlier incidents, Senior Constable Franks conceded that the NSW Police Force had not linked any of those incidents to either of the Existing Bottle Shops and that there was no basis to suggest that any of these incidents were related to the sale of packaged liquor or any liquor outlet.
4. At the first hearing, Senior Constable Franks was also able to confirm for the Tribunal his observations of the opening hours of the butcher, takeaway chicken shop and restaurant. He told the Tribunal that, after the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions, these shops traded into the evening, the last of which the restaurant traded, at least on some evenings until 9:00 PM.
5. Senior Constable Franks lastly explained that the reason that NSW Police had not objected to the licence at an earlier time was due to workloads; therefore, the lack of opposition was administratively inadvertent. I accept that evidence and place no weight on the fact that the police had not sought to object when the Applicant first sought a licence from the Authority.

1. Consistent with the Applicant's reliance on the crime statistics at first instance, on the remitter, the Applicant did not object to updated crime statistics being provided to the Tribunal. The Authority provided this material and it is set out above.
2. In addition to evidence from various lay and expert witnesses, the Applicant tendered at the first hearing the following documentary evidence:

(1) Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOSCAR) data for alcohol-related crimes from January 2013 to December 2022. The BOSCAR statistics showed that;

(a) Incidents of alcohol-related domestic assault are higher than the average for New South Wales;

(b) The suburb records a low rate of incidence for every other criminal offence, including alcohol-related assaults, when compared to the rest of New South Wales.

(c) The hot-spot maps prepared by BOSCAR using its data set show that the Premises are located in a low-density area for assault and domestic assault, and are a medium-density hot-spot for the offence of malicious damage to property.

(d) The LGA has higher densities of offences, including non-domestic assault, particularly at weekends.

(2) The more recent statistics tendered at the first hearing recorded a fall in alcohol-related domestic violence. Though, as the Second and Third Respondents submitted, it would be unwise to consider such a limited range of data in terms of trend. Instead. I have had greater regard to the series of data, including "two-year trend" information contained in the various harm minimisation reports tendered by the Authority in the proceedings and which I have set out, in ratio, at paragraph 48 above.

(3) The Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), which is a statistical index created by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and indicates the relative advantage and disadvantage of a community at various levels of aggregation. The suburb of Woollahra is in the second-lowest percentile for socio-economic disadvantage, and the Woollahra LGA is in the lowest percentile. By comparison, Sydney is in the 56th percentile, and the whole State of New South Wales is in the 45th percentile of disadvantage. It is beyond doubt that the suburb and LGA of Woollahra are areas of high relative socio-economic advantage. This does not mean, of course, that there are not poor or vulnerable persons in those areas, nor does it mean that people of high socio-economic advantage are automatically protected from the harms of excessive alcohol consumption.

(4) 2021 Census for the suburb of Woollahra and the Woollahra LGA, which as Sarah George, the expert social planner qualified by the Applicant in these proceedings, notes, the census data shows that:

(a) the Woollahra LGA displays robust socio-economic and demographic characteristics, and the representation of groups at higher risk of alcohol-related harms is not high. Specifically, there is a low representation of vulnerable communities, the unemployed and people on low incomes; and

(b) Residents of the suburb are more likely to be female, middle-aged, university-educated, employed full-time, working in high-paying jobs and residing in their own homes that are either fully owned or mortgaged.

1. At the first hearing, the Applicant read affidavits from several witnesses who were made available for cross-examination. The Applicant also relied on documents that were tendered.
2. In my reconsideration of the evidence tendered in the first hearing, my summary and findings of that evidence has remained substantially unchanged; accordingly, much of the following has been adopted from Ice Box 2024. However, I have reviewed all the evidence, taking into account the findings of the Appeal Panel in Narraport AP, as well as the further evidence filed and the submissions of the parties on the remitter.

1. David Owens is the manager or director of the Applicant. At the first hearing, the Applicant read two affidavits from Mr Owens, and counsel cross-examined him on behalf of the Second and Third Respondents. In addition to deposing about matters which may be in favour of the application for a packaged liquor licence, Mr Owens's first affidavit, in fact, annexed two earlier affidavits he had made relevant to these proceedings and which are also included in the s 58 Bundle. The two earlier affidavits were both made on 16 December 2021.
2. In the first of 16 December 2021 affidavits, Mr Owens deposed to the proposed business model or sales offerings of the Applicant's store, if opened.
3. By his second affidavit of 16 December 2021, Mr Owens states his reasons for the Applicant purchasing the property, his observation of traffic and pedestrian activity near the property, as well as addressing various matters concerning a petition the Applicant obtained and the reasons for submitting a complying development consent. As to the opinions provided by Mr Owens, I have taken these as a descriptive account of his reasons, as a director of the Applicant, for the commercial decision to purchase the site in the first place rather than as evidence proving as fact the matters he opines about; in particular I have treated in this way Mr Owens' assessment of what are the type of retailers proximate to the site and the position of a liquor store near other food retailers. Mr Owens also deposes, in his second affidavit, that the Applicant's previously submitted development application had been refused by the council two days after it was lodged. However, it would appear from the notice refusing development consent in the s 58 Bundle that the previous development application was lodged on 16 October 2020 and refused on 4 February 2021.
4. Mr Owens swore a third affidavit in March 2025 that was read at the remitter hearing, without objection. In his third affidavit, Mr Owens addressed some matters in Professor Ryan's supplementary report concerning pricing, and he also recorded his own observations on the pricing of the Second and Third Respondents, based on his visits to the relevant websites and attendance at the Existing Bottle Shops.
5. The evidence in Mr Owens' third affidavit sought to address the opinion expressed by Professor Ryan that price discounting by the Applicant's stores under a kind of store loyalty program (called Members Only specials) might tend to facilitate increased sales of alcohol. Mr Owen's unchallenged affidavit evidence was that he had searched for and visited the Existing Bottle Shops and then prepared a comparison of prices of the eight products identified by Professor Ryan in her supplementary report, comparing the advertised Members Only specials price offered by the Applicant with the prices for the same products sold by the Existing Bottle Shops. In that regard:

(1) Mr Owens was not able to identify any prices from searching the internet as they related to Moncur Cellars. He was able to identify only three of the eight products listed in Professor Ryan's report that were also sold at Moncur Cellars when he visited the store. Mr Owens' evidence was that the prices of those items at Moncur Cellars were, in each case, higher than both the Applicant's and Jim's Cellars prices. In one case, for example, a 700 ml bottle of gin was for sale at Moncur Cellars for $80, whereas the Applicant was selling the same bottle for $69.99, and the same product was being sold at Jim's Cellars for $66.

(2) Mr Owens identified all eight products as available for sale at Jim's Cellars. The price information for Jim's Cellars was obtained from the Jim's Cellars website (five instances) and from the physical Jim's Cellars store (three instances). In each case, Mr Owens says that the prices on offer by Jim's Cellars were not discounted; instead, they appeared to be the regularly offered price. In all but one case, the prices offered by Jim's Cellars as the regular price were lower than those offered by the Applicant as Members Only specials. There was a single instance in which the Applicant offered a six-pack of beer for one cent less than Jim's Cellar's price.

1. Mr Owens' evidence in cross-examination, which took place in the course of the first hearing and, was concerned with questions of amenity, planning, marketing, and the range of products to be offered. He was not required for cross-examination on the remitter. In cross-examination, Mr Owens accepted that the area in which the proposed liquor shop was located was "not thirsty", which I took him to mean that he accepted that there were many opportunities to purchase and consume liquor. As the Second and Third Respondents submitted, the statutory criteria do not call for a needs-based assessment, but it may reduce the Applicant's argument that there is a positive impact of having another bottle shop open in an area already abundant with liquor supply outlets.
2. In the course of the first hearing, Mr Owens' credit was the subject of some attack by the Second and Third Respondents. He was questioned about why the application form sent to the Authority stated that there were no issues raised by local councils or other consent authorities when, earlier, the Applicant's development application had been rejected by the council on amenity grounds, and the NSW Police Force had registered a strong objection that had been included in the reasons provided for the rejection of that development application. Mr Owens could not adequately account for why the response was made in those terms. On the basis of his answers in cross-examination, the Second and Third Respondents invited the Tribunal at first instance to find that Mr Owens had not been honest in his answers concerning this matter. While Mr Owens' responses were not sufficient in some aspects, I do not find that Mr Owens was trying to be dishonest or evasive in his answers. A more innocent explanation was apparent from his evidence as a whole: he seemed to have considered the opposition of the council and the NSW Police to a development application as being something quite different from opposition concerning a packaged liquor licence. Even had I concluded Mr Owens was being dishonest with regard to this topic, that would not lead me to reject his evidence on every topic; there was simply no basis for me to do so, and, indeed, the Second and Third Respondents in submissions relied on other aspects of his evidence to make good other aspects of their submissions concerning amenity near the location of the proposed liquor shop.
3. It was an uncontroversial fact that the Applicant had made a development application to redevelop the site for a bottle shop and that this application had been rejected by Woollahra Council. The details of that rejection are set out at paragraph 42(3)(a) above. It was also uncontroversial that sometime later, the Applicant submitted what is commonly known as a complying development which allowed the Premises to be used as a bottle shop without being subject to an approvals process undertaken by Woollahra Council. To the extent that the Respondents suggest the Applicant had been underhanded in this approach, I reject that suggestion. The fact that the Applicant was able to avail itself of an outcome under the planning laws and regulations that it could not obtain through another process is neither underhanded nor is it particularly relevant to the question before the Tribunal. The relevant fact is that the Applicant has planning consent to be able to operate a bottle shop at the Premises, subject to being granted an appropriate liquor licence.
4. Mr Owens was also cross-examined in the first hearing about the terms of a summons that had been issued by this Tribunal at the request of the Applicant to the NSW Police Force for records of crime relevant to the Existing Bottle Shops. The summons returned no documents, i.e. there were no COPS reports of incidents associated with the Existing Bottle Shops. However, the Second and Third Respondents also submitted that Mr Owens or the Applicant had deliberately ensured, by the terms of the summons, that the summons would not include COPS records regarding other packaged liquor premises in the area. Mr Owens denied this, and there does not seem to be any basis, aside from the terms of the summons, on which that submission could be made. A reasonable, and less conspiratorial, explanation for the terms of the summons may have been that the Existing Bottle Shops are the most proximate and, therefore, most relevant to the Tribunal's consideration. On remitter, there was no attempt to explore this issue further. I reject the submission made by the Second and Third Respondents that the manner in which the summons was issued was a deliberate strategy on the part of the Applicant. I also reject the submission that the Tribunal was left with only a selective view of the police records associated with packaged liquor sales in the area. However, I do accept that the absence of any COPS records obtained under the summons does not allow me to infer that an additional liquor outlet in the same area will not cause incidents to occur.

1. Adam Purcell provided two reports and a supplemental affidavit in these proceedings; all of that evidence was tendered at the first hearing. In reviewing his evidence on remitter, I have not changed my opinion of its tenor or my assessment of the weight to which it should be given in my consideration or findings. Accordingly, and consistent with my opening comments concerning the review of the Applicant's evidence, the following summary and findings arising from Mr Purcell's evidence have been directly taken from Ice Box 2024.

(1) The first report, dated 31 October 2021, was included in the s 58 Bundle and provided Mr Purcell's observations and analysis of the Premises and the surrounding area in October 2021. Mr Purcell's first set of observations took place between 4 and 7 PM on Friday, 29 October 2021 and between 9 and 11 AM on Saturday, 30 October 2021.

(2) The second report, dated 22 December 2022, was annexed to Mr Purcell's affidavit of 23 December 2022 and provided his further observations of the Premises and the surrounding area over three attendances on Saturday, 3 December 2022, between 10:00 AM and noon, on Friday, 9 December 2022, between 4:00 and 6:00 PM, and on Thursday, 22 December 2022, between 3:30 and 6:30 PM.

(3) His reports address issues of social need, convenience, parking availability, and impulsive liquor purchases.

(4) His supplemental affidavit addresses the report of Professor Ryan, Senior Constable Franks and Mr Coady, a town planner qualified by the Second and Third Respondents, about children seeing alcohol served or consumed in Queen Street.

1. At the first hearing, the Second and Third Respondents were critical of Mr Purcell's evidence on the following fronts:

(1) Mr Purcell professes opinions that he is not qualified as an expert to provide. I accept that criticism and have outlined how I propose to deal with those aspects of Mr Purcell's evidence below;

(2) He left out crime statistical data, which he considered to be an aberration, instead of addressing it, and his conclusions were inconsistent with the BOSCAR data available. With regard to this, the Tribunal prefers the actual BOSCAR evidence before it without commentary from Mr Purcell in any event;

(3) Mr Purcell's so-called local knowledge is obsolete. I disagree entirely with that submission. I accept that Mr Purcell is an experienced former police officer with knowledge of and experience in enforcing licensing laws. In this case, his experience in the Rose Bay local area command is also relevant. Though the Second and Third Respondents called this experience "obsolete", I do not accept that this is necessarily the case. Additionally, at the date of the hearing, Mr Purcell was the then-President of the Eastern Suburbs Liquor Accord. I consider that local knowledge gained as a serving police officer in the community is not so easily displaced - a matter that applies with equal force to Senior Constable Franks' evidence.

1. Though phrased as an expert report, for the reasons I set out in Adamson v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2022] NSWCATAD 394 at [13]- [15] and [17], I do not consider that Mr Purcell's opinions should be given weight in the manner of expert opinion. However, as with my consideration of Mr Purcell's evidence in Adamson at [19]-[24], the Tribunal was assisted by Mr Purcell's observations of his attendance at the Premises and its environs. I give limited weight to his opinions on licensing and no weight at all to the opinions he expresses on the basis that he is an expert about local amenity that are beyond even those areas of expertise he professed having.
2. Mr Purcell attended each of the existing venues and gave evidence of his observations concerning the ability of consumers to purchase packaged liquor. He observed the venues, the parking access and the street activity. Mr Purcell's observations of these things are all matters upon which the Tribunal may rely.
3. Mr Purcel's observations included that:

(1) There was no convenient way to purchase packaged liquor if one were shopping at any of the food shops located directly on the strip where the Applicant's liquor shop is proposed.

(2) The position of the proposed site has access to numerous 30-minute parking spots that Mr Purcell observed had a high turnover at the times of his observations on Friday early evening and Saturday mornings. Mr Purcell observed that the parking near Moncur Cellars was either subject to a 2-hour limit or had "no stopping" signs. In his first report, Mr Purcell observed that parking outside Jim's Cellars (which is located on Ocean Street) was subject to timed clearway lane restrictions between 3:30 and 6:30 PM on weekdays. In his second report, Mr Purcell observed that the area outside Jim's Cellars was later subject to a no parking zone between 3:30 and 6:30 PM on weekdays.

(3) While there are several outlets that have packaged liquor licences, the number of physical venues offering takeaway liquor for purchase is less than the number of licences might suggest. Mr Purcell's evidence was that he attempted to purchase takeaway liquor from the Woollahra Hotel, the Phoenix Hotel, the Centennial Hotel and the Light Brigade Hotel and was unable to do so. Mr Cooney, the owner and licensee of the Phoenix Hotel, says in his affidavit that his venue is permitted to, and regularly does, sell packaged liquor, though he concedes that the sale of packaged liquor is not the primary focus of his business. In the case of Woollahra Hotel, which is owned by the Second Respondent, he was directed to go around to the bottle shop around the corner (which was, presumably, Moncur Cellars). Mr Purcell also observed that when he attended Moncur Cellars on a Friday afternoon/early evening, there was a queue. He further observed that Jim's Cellars was not open on Saturday morning at 10:45 AM.

1. I give no weight to Mr Purcell's comments concerning the type of stock on offer by the Existing Bottle Shops. The fact is that alcohol was available to be purchased within the trading times of those outlets; the type of product on offer is not especially relevant when considering the matters to which the Tribunal must have regard.
2. I give no weight to Mr Purcell's opinions concerning crime in the area or his analysis of crime hotspots for domestic and non-domestic assaults in particular. These are matters outside his area of expertise and are not observations of fact. The various harm minimisation reports that are in evidence are to be preferred. As to the hot-spots, there is nothing to be revealed by the fact that domestic assaults take place more in residential streets and in a retail district, for example. While family and intimate partner violence may take place anywhere, it is more commonly understood to occur in the private confines of a residence and the hot-spots map supports that understanding

1. The Applicant relied on the evidence of Anton Reisch, who is a traffic and transport planning consultant. His evidence was tendered at the first hearing and relied upon on the remitter. In reviewing his evidence on the remitter, I have not changed my view of it. Therefore, much of the following material is a re-statement of my summary and findings of Mr Reisch's evidence from Ice Box 2024.
2. With regard to his experience and qualifications, Mr Reisch is appropriately qualified and experienced to provide the opinions set out in his report on the subject of traffic and transport planning. The Applicant qualified him to respond, among other things, to matters in Mr Coady's reports that had been served on the Applicant by the Second and Third Respondents. Mr Reisch prepared a report annexed to his affidavit, and counsel also cross-examined him on behalf of the Second and Third Respondents. His report addressed:

(1) the use of the rear access to the proposed liquor store in Peaker Lane for deliveries and customer pick-up;

(2) whether there would be an increase in the intensity of demand for parking near the proposed store, with specific reference to Queen Street;

(3) whether the proposed store would lead to unacceptable increases in pedestrian use on the footpath near the proposed store;

(4) whether the proposed store would increase general convenience to customers or enhance the local retail precinct's ability to provide one-stop shopping.

1. Mr Reisch referred to the material upon which his conclusions were based as including other evidence tendered by the Applicant, including material from Mr Purcell and Mr Owens, the traffic surveys undertaken by a firm called Austraffic (who were commissioned by the Applicant's solicitors), his observations of the vicinity and his review of the material in Mr Coady's report. His conclusions, in summary, were that:

(1) While there was no doubt that Peaker Lane is narrow and a single vehicle could prevent other cars or trucks from passing, the deliveries to the rear of the proposed store in Peaker Lane would be "essentially identical" to those in place for the current shop operating at the site and that there was no evidence that the change to a liquor store would create greater demands on the use of Peaker Lane for deliveries;

(2) Parking demand on Queen Street and adjacent areas would not be significantly more than the demand created by the current store, nor would the characteristics of that demand be materially different;

(3) The proposed liquor shop would have to have one-third more customers than the existing shop to generate sufficient demand for one additional car space.

(4) There is no evidence available to suggest that there would be greater pedestrian traffic generated by the liquor shop above the present levels of pedestrian traffic entering the current shop (and by inference, Mr Coady's opinion on this point is not soundly based). Further, Mr Reisch opined that the removal of flower buckets placed out on the footpath by the operator of the current store would increase the available area of the footpath, representing a substantial improvement in pedestrian amenities outside the proposed store.

1. Mr Reisch said he would not support any of the following measures that had been inherently supported by Mr Coady:

(1) Restrictions on the use of Peaker Lane, including banning set down for delivery or customer vehicles where a vehicle is unable to pass a parked vehicle.

(2) Banning parking in any local lanes where the potential exists for a vehicle to meet another vehicle travelling in the other direction.

(3) Remove benches, tables, take-away counters, and counter seating on footpaths to improve pedestrian amenity.

1. Mr Reisch comments that no part of Woollahra Council's reasons for the rejection of the development application concerned traffic access or parking. He noted specifically that Council had commented that parking and truck deliveries were considered to be satisfactory and that Council expected the intended use of the premises as a liquor store to be similar to the existing shops along Queen Street.
2. A primary criticism of Mr Reisch's report was that he visited the area once, for an hour. Further, his report was criticised because Mr Reisch did not have any information concerning the current practice of deliveries for the existing use of the site. Instead, he had assumed that the Council, when assessing the development application, had regard to this issue and was satisfied. I do not accept that criticism. The site area is quite contained, and an expert of Mr Reisch's skill and experience is capable of being able to garner the necessary observations and measurements if required to assist the Tribunal without lengthy or repeated inspections. Mr Reisch was also able to draw on the observations of Mr Purcell and Mr Coady and the traffic survey that had been commissioned separately.
3. Mr Reisch's conclusions are logically drawn; the site is currently used as a retail shop with customers and deliveries. It is true that a liquor store and a store that sells mainly fruit and vegetables are different businesses; they may attract different customers and have different peaks of trading. However, there was no evidence before the Tribunal to describe how or what those differences were. The submissions of the Second and Third Respondents suggested that deliveries made by a liquor store would be extensive and that customers of a liquor store would require greater use of car pick-up since the items were bulkier. I cannot accept that as the case in all circumstances: a bottle of wine is, no doubt, lighter or less bully than some items from a greengrocer (for example, melons and other cucurbits, potatoes, oranges, flowers), and while I can readily accept that liquor can be purchased in bulk quantities, so too, from general experience, can items from a fruit and vegetable store.
4. In cross-examination, which took place at the first hearing, Mr Reisch accepted that his observations of loading and unloading were not statistically significant and that he would have conducted further surveys of Peaker Lane if time had permitted - a matter that he already recorded in his report. However, I do not consider these concessions detracted from his evidence, having regard to his experience and training.

1. Mr McDonald is a town planner qualified by the Applicant. He provided an expert report dated 22 December 2022 that was annexed to an affidavit of the same date. Mr McDonald provided a further report dated 3 March 2023 that was annexed to a second affidavit also made on 3 March 2023.
2. Mr McDonald gave concurrent oral evidence with Mr Coady, the town planning expert qualified by the Second and Third Respondents for these proceedings.
3. In reviewing his evidence again, I have not changed my view of his evidence, and much of the following has been extracted from my reasons in Ice Box 2024.
4. In his first report, Mr McDonald referred to visiting the location of the proposed liquor outlet several times, though he identified only two occasions on which he attended the area with particularity. Mr McDonald comments on the amenity, conformity with planning controls and local environmental plans and the size of the proposed store. Mr McDonald noted that the proposed store could not be objectionable on those bases.
5. Mr McDonald also stated in his first report that the scale of the outlet is a relevant consideration for the Authority under Guideline 6, though scale cannot, in my respectful opinion, relate only to the size of the premises but the intensity and extent of the business likely to be conducted there. However, the size of the premises may tend to indicate the scale or intensity of the operation. It is relevant to note, as Mr McDonald states, that the proposed outlet would occupy a space of 61 sqm (though there was some debate about whether this was the actual size or only the trading area size) but that, by comparison, Vintage Cellars had been granted a packaged liquor licence to operate and outlet almost directly across the street from the proposed site in premises covering 215 sqm (i.e. more than three times the area).
6. A significant amount of Mr McDonald's first report was unhelpful in that it made a direct comparison with the Existing Bottle Shops with regard to pricing, range, parking, children walking past those shops, and the market for alcohol. This gave rise to some extensive cross-examination of Mr McDonald; the evidence that arose from that cross-examination did not greatly assist the Tribunal either. The Existing Bottle Shops are not the subject of these proceedings. The fact that those outlets may have less than adequate parking, or that children can observe liquor for sale from their shop windows, or that they offer heavily discounted liquor to the local area are not matters that are relevant to the Tribunal in this case. The relevant question here is whether or not a packaged liquor licence, if granted for the Premises, will be detrimental to the well-being of the local or broader community. The conduct of the Existing Bottle Shops, even if it were reckless or detrimental (and I expressly make no finding on that subject), could have only marginal contextual irrelevance to the question at hand.
7. Mr McDonald also opined, in his first report, about matters that are outside the expertise of a town planner; for example, he provides an opinion on whether the proposed liquor outlet will operate in an established market or create a new market of different customers. Mr McDonald is not qualified as an economist, and I do not give his opinion significance on this subject. No expert evidence from an economist specialising in retail liquor was given to the Tribunal at either the first instance hearing or on the remitter.
8. In his second report, Mr McDonald responds to matters raised in Mr Coady's report. Mr McDonald prepared a land use survey of Queen Street between the intersection with Victoria Avenue to the west and Ocean Street to the east, as well as cross-streets intersecting Queen Street in that area, including Moncur, Spicer, Holdsworth and Alton Streets, and Dorhouer Lane. This area includes the area zoned as a mixed-use zone B4 by Woollahra Council's Local Environmental Plan 2014, in which the Premises are located, as well as the Woollahra Hotel and Moncur Cellars, but not Jim's Cellars. From his survey, Mr McDonald concluded that the area within those bounds was a neighbourhood centre which included a wide variety of retail shops selling fresh and takeaway food, restaurants and cafes, homewares, as well as services such as a pharmacy, doctors, hairdresser, a Pilates studio and dry-cleaners. Mr McDonald, responding to Mr Coady's report then states his opinion that the proposed liquor outlet will not lead to the clustering of packaged liquor stores and instead, these outlets are both spatially and visually separated.
9. Mr McDonald's second report also addressed Mr Coady's opinion concerning the exposure of children to the sale of alcohol. I accept and prefer Mr McDonald's conclusions over Mr Coady's report in this regard. I do so because there is simply no basis to allege that school-aged children who walk past a properly managed liquor shop - or a properly managed hotel, for that matter - are placed in harm's way. The proposed store site is near a cooked chicken shop and a store that sells treats or toys of the kind that children typically look for. It is a universal observation that school-aged children (and younger) are more likely to be interested in toys, hot chips and ice creams than the products typically sold in a liquor shop. That focus was apparent from the posture of the children depicted in Mr Coady's photographs. From the observations provided by Mr Purcell, Mr McDonald, and Mr Coady, it is also apparent that most younger children walk past all sorts of shops in this particular neighbourhood while accompanied by a responsible adult who supervises them and might even provide appropriate framing of their experience.
10. Mr McDonald's second report also considers the use of Peaker Lane for deliveries. In a similar vein to Mr Reisch, Mr McDonald opined that:

The existing shop and all 9 shops that rely on Peaker Lane, are in the same situation. Uses such as the butcher, fishmonger and food premises would have daily deliveries and regular waste collections. Any retail use of the site would be reliant upon and maintain the current arrangements. The proposal to use the site as a bottle shop doesn't change this and does not introduce new or unacceptable circumstances, which are shown to be acceptable to the Council.

If one were to strictly apply the approach taken ... in the Coady Report, then where would never be acceptable circumstances for any use on the site, or for that matter any of the 9 uses relying on the lane. As I have indicated above, the circumstances relating to the site and Peaker Lane currently exist and the proposed bottle shop will not unacceptably change things, as accepted by the Council in their assessment report.

1. Mr McDonald also comments and provides his opinion on the question of parking. His opinion, that there will not be increased traffic or parking congestion in the area because of the change of use of the site to a bottle shop, is consistent with Mr Reisch's findings and is based on the traffic study performed by Austraffic. I accept Mr McDonald's opinion expressed in his second report that:

... the Council has already considered this issue of parking and found that use to be satisfactory in this regard. The Austraffic traffic study confirmed the high availability and turnover of kerbside parking spaces in proximity to the site. Based on my experience, I have found parking to be readily available in the location.

1. Mr McDonald's opinions concerning the use of Peaker Lane for deliveries are based on his observations of the site and on his experience as a planner. I accept those opinions and respectfully agree with them. Mr Reisch's observations are equally supported and cogent. Accordingly, I find that on the question of amenity and particular the issue of delivery to Peaker Lane and traffic congestion, the proposed licence would not reduce or diminish the amenity of the area.

1. Ms Stancombe read an affidavit that attached a report she had prepared of qualitative market research undertaken using focus groups drawn from a sample of people living in the Woollahra local government area who purchase liquor and are regular visitors to Queen Street Woollahra. Counsel also cross-examined her for the Second and Third Respondents. No part of her evidence was the subject of relevant findings in Narraport AP. I have adopted the following passages almost entirely from Ice Box 2024.
2. Ms Stancombe's report concluded that neither of the Existing Bottle Shops was particularly convenient and that the retail precinct of Queen Street was a nice, upmarket area. Those findings do not advance the matter very far. It is obvious that a bottle shop placed immediately next to food and other stores, where the new store is proposed to be located, is convenient, and that this must be a valuable attribute to the community. It is also without doubt, having regard to the socioeconomic statistics of the area, that the neighbourhood shopping precinct is likely to be an appealing area to visit.
3. The Second and Third Respondents are strident in their criticisms of Ms Stancombe's report. They submit that the report is "a pseudo-scientific attempt to dress up a series of uniformed subjective opinions as objective evidence about community expectations". Further, as the Second and Third Respondents point out, the research conducted by Ms Stancombe involved responses from only 23 people, and the manner in which those people were selected further reduced the chance of a representative sample.
4. Ms Stancombe's academic qualifications, which comprise an incomplete bachelor's degree in behavioural science, an advanced diploma in Gestalt therapy, and she is also a qualified professional researcher - an accreditation awarded by The Research Society, Australia, did not assure the Tribunal that she is an expert in a recognised field of specialist knowledge. While Ms Stancombe has 20 years of experience as a market researcher, it is not apparent that market research, or as the Applicant in closing submissions called it, "qualitative research", is really a field of specialised knowledge. Ms Stancombe presented as a reasonable and thoughtful witness, and I can readily comprehend that her work may well be of great value commercially. Still, it is of little utility in proceedings such as this.
5. For the reasons given above, I do not give Ms Stancombe's opinions arising from the focus group any weight, and I am not assisted by the observations she provides arising from her focus group work.

Evidence tendered by the Second and Third Respondents

1. Through an affidavit from Mr Schwartz, the solicitor for the Second and Third Respondents, the Tribunal was provided, at the first instance hearing, with correspondence between Mr Schwartz's firm and the Coles Group concerning the Vintage Cellar's Licence.
2. On 4 December 2020, Mr Engelbrecht from Coles Group sent an email to Mr Schwartz in which he stated:

...Coles Liquor would want to land a store in this specific area and would keep the licence in this area.

1. On 20 July 2021, and responding to Mr Englebrecht's December 2020 email, Mr Schwartz sent an email to Mr Englebrecht and Mr Gunning of Coles Group informing them that the Applicant was relying on a complying development certification for the Premises and inquiring whether the Coles Group position had changed regarding the Vintage Cellars Licence. Mr Gunning responded that day to say there was "no change in position on this dormant licence".
2. On 28 November 2022, Mr Schwartz sent a further email as part of a separate chain, in which he sought an update on the intentions of the Coles Group with respect to the Vintage Cellars Licence, stated in part:

There was quite a bit of "comment" by the applicant in their material that was put before the ILGA (which we now have been provided with) no real surprises. As expected they place great emphasis on the fact that the licence has been dormant for several years on the site that you were going to occupy to operate Vintage Cellars licence, which as you are probably aware, is now an office space and no longer has consent for a liquor store.

As you may recall, in the past your organisation has indicated its commitment to finding something in the local area.

The issue really is what weight should be given to the fact that you have a dormant licence and its ability to be "reactivated" in the future and relevantly where.

I was wondering whether you would be kind enough to let me have an update of your company situation in relation to this proposed business at your earliest convenience.

In particular is it likely that you may be moving the Licence to some nearby premises possibly in the near future? Or otherwise?

1. Mr Schartz then received the following replies from representatives of the Coles Group:

(1) On 28 November 2022, Ms Stewart, the Retail Leasing Manager, Liquor for Coles Group, advised:

This licence will be used for a future Coles development in Woollahra where we intend to have a liquor co located with our Supermarket.

(2) On 2 December 2022, Mr O'Meara, Legal Counsel, Head of Licensing, Risk and Compliance at Coles Group, also responded and wrote:

As Michelle [Ms Stewart] has indicated, we intend to continue to hold this dormant licence.

(3) It appears that Mr Schwartz later provided to the solicitors for Coles Group, who are not a party to the proceedings, with a copy of the entire s 58 Bundle. On 10 February 2023, Mr Martin, solicitor for Coles Group, then stated:

... I am instructed my client's position has not changed since those emails [being the emails dated December 2021 and July 2022 that were included in the s 58 Bundle and which are described at paragraphs 102 and 103 above]

1. While the Coles Group appears to intend to 'deploy' the Vintage Cellars Licence sometime 'soon'; it was also apparent that the development application for the construction of an appropriate building at the location had lapsed, and instead, premises described as offices for six full-time staff, that would preclude the operation of a packaged liquor outlet, at that location had been constructed and a final occupation certificate issued in May 2019. There was no evidence, either at first instance or on remitter, concerning the time scale or whether the Coles Group would need to make any further application to the Authority to use the licence granted to it in respect of a now-unavailable site, nearly a decade ago.
2. The evidence also showed that Woollahra Council had given development consent to the Coles Group and that the NSW Police Force had made no objection to the development of a 215 sqm bottle shop owned and operated by a large retail chain. As the Applicant points out, the development consent for the Vintage Cellars outlet was three and a half times the size of the bottle shop proposed to be operated by the Applicant.

1. A letter from Dr Marianne Gale, the Director of Population and Community Health with the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District (SESLHD) was also annexed to Mr Schartz's affidavit and included in my consideration in Ice Box 2024. In that letter, Dr Gale refers to the Authority's statistics concerning the LGA (but not, as Professor Ryan sets out, the statistics for the SESLHD) and then states:

Whilst it is difficult to attribute health outcomes to any one venue, it is likely that additional outlets will further contribute to negative alcohol related health and well-being outcomes in the local community.

1. Dr Gale's opinion is sincerely stated, but most properly her comments are also generally stated and can be taken as a general observation about the potential risk of opening additional outlets. Dr Gale refers, for example, to outlets generally when commenting on possible negative impacts and expressly notes that it would be difficult to attribute such outcomes to any particular venue. Accordingly, Dr Gale's letter only goes to support a general concern, held initially by the Authority's board but not the Authority's staff, about the potential for harm with the increasing number of outlets. Dr Gale's letter is therefore limited in assisting the Tribunal's consideration of whether the granting of this particular licence will have an overall negative social impact on the community.

1. In the first hearing, and relied upon on the remitter, the Second and Third Respondents read two affidavits of Giles Edmonds, the president of a group called the Queen Street and West Woollahra Association (QSWWA), which was described by counsel for the Second and Third Respondents as a "local residents and business group". The QSWWA has over 200 members, including the second respondent. While the third respondent was not a member of the QSWWA, Mr Edmonds informed the Tribunal in cross-examination that both it and the second respondent had supported various community events hosted by the QSWWA, for example, by providing alcohol served at carols each year, as the third respondent had in years past.
2. Mr Edmonds's major concern, expressed on behalf of the QSWWA, is the potential for increased anti-social activity, which would negatively impact local residents. This anti-social activity appears to include eating on public benches and consuming alcohol with that food, as well as anti-social behaviour from intoxicated persons who, it must be imagined, have purchased liquor in Queen Street, Woollahra and immediately consumed the liquor and have then become drunk in public. In that regard, I note it was Ms Elsing's evidence that she had not observed people buying alcohol and sitting on the street while availing themselves of a meal from one of the many food outlets in Queen Street.
3. In his oral evidence in 2024, Mr Edmonds told the Tribunal that QSWWA had retained a neutral position when the Applicant first submitted its development application in 2021 to the Council and that his association did not wish to play a role in curating what businesses operated in Queen Street. However, the most recent application caused Mr Edmonds to send an email to the QSWWA members inviting them to write in opposition or support of the proposed new bottle shop. It is fair to say that those who responded to Mr Giles, all of whom had their names and identifying details redacted, tended strongly in opposition to the Applicant's licence, though there were some supporters and others who were neutral or non-responsive. In most cases of opposition, the reasoning for the opposition (or support) was brief and unilluminating. The evidence assists the Tribunal in understanding that there is community opposition to the proposal by several members of the QSWWA. However, the responses do not represent the majority or even a truly substantial proportion of that group, let alone the community. Further, I consider that it is possible that, having regard to the lengthy relationship and, in the second respondent's case, membership of the QSWWA, the opposition from members of that association is somewhat influenced in favour of the Second and Third Respondents' positions.

1. The Second and Third Respondents also read an affidavit from Luise Elsing. Ms Elsing has been a resident of the local area since at least 2004 and has been a councillor of Woollahra Municipal Council since 2012. Ms Elsing gave evidence that "this proposal will cause increased excessive noise, especially at night". While excessive noise is undoubtedly troublesome, it is not clear that that is an inevitable consequence of another packaged liquor outlet. Ms Elsing also described her personal experience of having people urinating in her driveway, making excessive noise while drunk, leaving rubbish in the street and in Peaker Lane, as well as the vexing and disturbing matter of police activity connected with the anti-social behaviours she describes. The account given by Ms Elsing is deeply unfortunate, and, understandably, she would wish to avoid these negative impacts. However, many of the problems Ms Elsing gave evidence about appear to relate principally to late-night anti-social behaviour, which is more likely related, according to the police evidence and the research, to the density of hotel licences rather than packaged liquor outlets and would be unlikely to occur with regard to a packaged liquor outlet with the trading hours proposed by the Applicant in this case which will require the Premises to close by 9:00 PM Monday to Saturday and by 8:00 PM on Sundays.
2. Ms Elsing also deposed that Queen Street was not an alcohol-free zone, and in cross-examination, she stated it would be a "disaster" if it were to be zoned in that manner as such zoning connotes known social problems. Yet, Ms Elsing's evidence, consistent with other residents, was that she experienced anti-social behaviour and property damage in the area which the introduction of such zoning might have assisted.
3. In Ice Box 2024, I found Ms Elsing's oral evidence unsatisfactory. On reviewing the transcript of her oral evidence, I do not resile from that assessment. Ms Elsing was a councillor for the municipal ward in which the Applicant sought to operate at the time the development connected with the Vintage Cellars Licence was approved. Despite that role, when she was asked questions in cross-examination concerning her role as a councillor in approving the development application for the Vintage Cellars site, she refused to answer questions in any detail. Her response, in global terms, was that each decision was considered on a case-by-case basis on its merits. In Ice Box 2024, I assessed Ms Elsing's evidence on that topic as being glib and unhelpful to the Tribunal. I maintain that assessment; had there been an adequate explanation for the different approaches adopted by Council between the Applicant's proposal and that of the Coles Group for a store located almost directly across from the site now proposed for a store, then the Tribunal would have been greatly assisted to have known what that was - particularly having regard to the grounds of objection voiced by the Council to the Authority to the present application. The Appeal Panel in Narraport AP at [207] noted that those concerns were not unwarranted. The following exchange best illustrates the unhelpfulness of her oral evidence:

Q: There's a different and inconsistent approach being taken by Council in relation to my client's application more or less directly or somewhat diagonally across the road from this earlier application approved in 2014? You'd agree with that?

A: Look, I wouldn't agree with that because I'm not here to talk about Council's decisions as made by whatever mechanism Council makes decisions on the day. I'm not here to comment about that. I'm not authorised to comment on that. I am not capable of commenting on that. I'm here talking about my role as a resident and as a councillor, a representative of local residents. I'm not here to comment at all about Council's administrative functions, however they're executed. That's not something I am here to comment on.

1. On remitter, and in reviewing her evidence for that purpose, Ms Elsing's evidence does assist the Tribunal on other topics in the following ways:

(1) that she, as a councillor, both personally and in a representative capacity, opposed the opening of another packaged liquor outlet in her suburb.

(2) that Ms Elsing's principal concern was the growing rate of anti-social behaviour she had witnessed since she took up residence in the area in about 2004. Ms Elsing had principally observed such anti-social behaviour as emanating from the premises operated by the third respondent. While I accept that Ms Elsing and the people she represents genuinely hold that view, it is not supported by the BOSCAR data, nor the Harm Minimisation Reports in evidence before me.

(3) That the niceties or specifics of whether anti-social behaviour arose from the operation of a hotel licence or a packaged liquor licence was not something residents were concerned by; instead, it was the impact of anti-social behaviour on the local amenity of the suburb that was critical. Specifically, Ms Elsing told the Tribunal that:

A: Well, in my time living in the street, which has been since 2004, I have had a lot to say about this type of behaviour that has grown not so much from Jim's Cellars but I would say the Woollahra Hotel that is constantly being managed by the hotel and so if your question is have I seen this sort of behaviour, that's why I am here today. Yeah. I have seen it.

Q: So, to be precise, the answer you gave and the reference to a source of anti-social behaviour, that is specifically the Woollahra Hotel, not Moncur Cellars, that's correct, isn't it?

A: No. It's not. It's not correct. It's absolutely not correct. I just know from my experience, from what I've seen. I haven't really been focused on Jim's Cellars, so when you put them all together, I'm more focused on the Woollahra Hotel and what I see comes out of there - and the bottle shop.

Q: But [...] the response you gave me when I first asked you that question, you gave a specific response referring to the Woollahra Hotel. Do you recall that?

A: Yes. I did, and I take the Woollahra Hotel to include Moncur Cellars. It might be colloquial use, but in the minds of locals, they don't necessarily separate the two.

(4) It was a genuine concern for residents that the holders of liquor licences needed to, in fact, manage the risk of anti-social behaviour by proper enforcement of plans of management, as opposed to having well-worded plans of management that were not enforced.

1. Ms Elsing's evidence on those matters is relevant to my consideration of the community's views.

1. In addition to Mr Edmonds and Ms Elsing, five other residents also gave evidence on affidavit but were not required for cross-examination in the first hearing or on remitter. Each gave evidence that they considered there was already more than enough alcohol available in the community, and most also expressed concerns about traffic and parking congestion. These witnesses were:

(1) Mr Goulburn, who lives a three-minute walk from the proposed site, gave evidence of his experience of being disturbed by anti-social behaviour related to alcohol misuse in the area. He stated he often found this nuisance behaviour to exist in his community and expressed his concern that the proposed shop would increase the risk due to increased access to alcohol.

(2) Ms Grieve, who is a local resident and also a Councillor, visits the shopping area she refers to as Woollahra Village regularly. Ms Grieve states she is concerned the proposed outlet will increase anti-social behaviour, property damage, littering, and driving offences, including drunk driving, motor vehicle accidents and alcohol-related violence. While I am certain these concerns are sincerely held, it is unclear the mechanism by which these negative impacts are said to arise from the proposed liquor shop. I note further that Ms Grieve's perceptions of crime and anti-social behaviour are not reflected in the crime statistics tendered by the Authority, as noted above in paragraph 0 above.

(3) Mr Haigh, who resides near the proposed site. It was his evidence that he was concerned about property damage, noise disturbances and anti-social behaviour, which he believed would increase if the proposed bottle shop were approved. It appears from his evidence that Mr Haigh already suffers the effects of these antisocial behaviours, which is extremely unfortunate. However, I am not satisfied that with the opening of a proposed store, those negative impacts will increase or intensify.

(4) Ms Jonathan, who is a local resident and the President of the Woollahra Public School P&C, gave evidence of her concerns that a bottle shop at the proposed site, next to the chargrill chicken shop, would encourage people to sit on the street benches and consume food and liquor there. Ms Jonathan was also concerned about the potential to encourage more social problems, crime and anti-social behaviour. Ms Jonathan's concerns were reasonably and rationally stated, however, from a practical perspective, the busy street with heavy foot traffic and people queuing for takeaway meals, the apparent "high-end character of the street", and the bare benches do not lend themselves readily or comfortably to the consumption of food and alcohol together. The concern over crime and anti-social behaviour was also reasonable, and I have considered it in the context of the expert evidence and literature. Ms Jonathan's concerns regarding the proximity of the proposed site to a toy store and an ice cream shop are not persuasive for reasons expressed elsewhere concerning those venues.

(5) Ms Officer, who is a long-term resident of Woollahra, gave evidence in a similar vein to Ms Elsing's affidavit evidence in which she reported experiencing being woken at night, particularly on weekends, "by young people drinking on the street, screaming, fighting, etc" and that she frequently has to see the aftermath of the evening anti-social behaviour, observing vomit on the footpaths and bottles and cans dropped in the street". Once again, it would appear that Ms Officer's very unfortunate experiences arise from conduct that takes place long after the closing time of the proposed bottle shop, and as such, I have concluded that it would be unlikely to exacerbate that already undesirable situation.

1. The Second and Third Respondents refer, in their written submissions, to Mr Cooney as a local resident. In fact, Mr Cooney is the licensee and owner of the Phoenix Hotel, and he resides quite a distance from both the suburb and the LGA of Woollahra. Mr Cooney gives his views on the issue of footpath and traffic congestion and outlet density. His views are naturally influenced by his own commercial considerations in the same manner as the accounts of Mr Campbell and Mr Georgas. His evidence, as far as it is relevant, is referred to in these reasons elsewhere.

1. A statutory declaration from Alister Campbell, who is the executive director for the second respondent. Mr Campbell was cross-examined on the third day of the first-instance hearing. Mr Campbell's statutory declaration is principally concerned with the canvassers or marketers engaged by the Applicant to obtain names on its petition. His concern is that petitioners providing their names to the Applicant's marketers were given false information. I do not accept that evidence, I regard it as a mere assertion from a competitor of the Applicant. Mr Campbell also expressed concern about children who walk past the proposed site and the concentration of children in public seating near it. I discuss the exposure of children to harm elsewhere. In summary, though I have no doubt that Mr Campbell was sincere in having such a concern, I do not consider this to be a "serious concern" of the magnitude he expressed.

1. Two affidavits from Theodoras Georgas, a director of the third respondent and the manager of the Jim's Cellars store in Woollahra. In his first affidavit, Mr Georgas gives largely self-serving evidence concerning the harm minimisation measures taken by Jim's Cellars - including the range offered at that store; and he attacks various aspects of the Applicant's existing business (including fit-out, range and pricing) and the stance the Applicant has taken in opposing packaged liquor licence applications in respect of its other sites. He concludes that he considers the location of the Premises "totally inappropriate", and it would be detrimental to the well-being of the local and broader community. In Ice Box 2024, I concluded that none of that material is particularly edifying or helpful to the consideration at hand and must be seen through the lens of Mr Georgas' position as a direct competitor of the Applicant's proposed business. I remain of that view.
2. By his second affidavit, Mr Georgas attempted to introduce a supplemented petition. In Ice Box 2024, I declined to admit that material on the basis of fairness. No application was made to rely on that material on remitter.

1. A report by John Coady, a traffic engineer and town planner. Mr Coady gave oral evidence concurrently with Mr McDonald, the town planner qualified by the Applicant.
2. In his report, Mr Coady opined on licence density and social and amenity impacts of the proposed outlet and responded to asserted facts in the Applicant's evidence on those matters also. Mr Coady said that, in his opinion, none of the benefits asserted by the Applicant arise.
3. With regard to likely disbenefits of the Application, Mr Coady, in addition to summarising other material such as the petitions, police objection and Woollahra Council's refusal, says that:

(1) With regard to licence density, there are already three packaged liquor outlets in the local community, including the Vintage Cellars Licence and an increase in such outlets, if the Applicant were granted a licence, would create a "density dilemma" for the local community.

(2) With regard to social impact:

(a) Young children will be exposed to experiencing "prolonged exposure to the sale of alcohol" because of benches and seating proximate to the Premises, and that this represents a "serious social impact potential" of the application; and

(b) If granted, the new licence would increase the potential for people to consume alcohol outside the shops on Queens Street. This would occur by combining a bottle shop at the Premises, fixed seating, and takeaway food outlets.

(3) With regard to impacts on the amenity of the local community, Mr Coady considers that:

(a) There is inadequate space in Peaker Lane to allow it to be used for customer pick-ups;

(b) The inadequate space in Peaker Lane will mean that deliveries to the Premises will block the entire lane for the duration of each delivery;

(c) There will be increased on-street parking congestion in Queen Street; and

(d) There will be increased congestion on the footpath on that part of Queen Street near the Premises, which, in Mr Coady's opinion, is already the most intensively used part of that street.

1. Mr Coady was highly critical of the fact that the Applicant sought a complying development approval after being refused development consent. He states this is a loophole, though he acknowledged that this was an entirely legal and available course for the Applicant to take. His point, it would seem, is that by not being involved in a development application requiring council consent, the assessment of suitability for a range of matters, including parking and the use of Peaker Lane, has been removed from the process and left, effectively, to consideration by the Authority. To some extent, that is true, in particular with regard to consideration of the social impacts of the proposed outlet, though the consideration ought to be by reference to the objects of the Liquor Act only.
2. In Ice Box 2024, I did not accept Mr Coady's conclusions regarding parking and deliveries in Peaker Lane. That was based upon a finding that his report did not sufficiently take account of the fact that Peaker Lane was established as part of an early subdivision of the area and has serviced the delivery requirements not only of the Premises as they are currently used and the other eight retailers who have access to that lane, as well as the residences opposite the shops. Mr Coady attempts to suggest that the delivery of liquor is in some way more onerous than the delivery of fresh fruit, vegetables and flowers; those items are perishable, and their delivery is time-critical. Deliveries of perishable items such as fruit, vegetables and flowers are also likely to coincide with the daily delivery of meat, fish and other perishable items. As Mr McDonald states, those outlets also have a need to have waste collection undertaken regularly. The most that can be said about alcoholic beverage delivery is that it may be bulky and fragile, and that there will be non-putrescible container waste to be removed. If anything, I found that the proposed use of the Premises would likely allow for more staged and staggered deliveries, and the delivery cycle may also be less frequent.
3. I rejected Mr Coady's conclusion concerning excessive parking congestion, and I preferred Mr Reisch's assessment since he took into account the fact that allowance should be made for parking needs arising from the Premises in their current form, and his views are more squarely based on the traffic surveys data.
4. I note too that with regard to the Applicant's development application, which was refused by Woollahra Council, the council, in fact, found the question of parking and deliveries to be satisfactory.
5. I agree with Mr Coady's opinion concerning customer collections taking place in Peaker Lane. There are obvious hazards that could arise from customers being able to collect their purchases in Peaker Lane, and the presence of drivers who are not professional delivery drivers in that lane is undesirable. In cross-examination, Mr Coady conceded that if customer parking were not permitted in Peaker Lane, then his concerns over that matter would be assuaged. The Applicant, in closing oral submissions in the first hearing, agreed that it would submit to a condition that customer pick-ups would not be allowed to occur in Peaker Lane. I accept that submission and, as below, I have made orders accordingly.
6. For reasons stated elsewhere, I reject the contention that children will be placed in harm's way because of the operation of a packaged liquor outlet at the Premises.
7. On the question of outlet density, Mr Coady opined that even if the Vintage Cellars Licence were excluded (which I have not done), then the Tribunal should consider packaged liquor licences at locations such as Double Bay, Edgecliff, Bondi Junction and Paddington, as these were shopping areas where members of the local community were likely to shop weekly. That evidence does not take the matter very far; it is apparent that the current situation is that alcohol can be sourced from a range of physical and online outlets; the question to be determined here is whether an additional outlet will cause detriment to the well-being of the local or broader community. I did not consider, in Ice Box 2024, that Mr Coady's evidence assisted me in determining the relevant question on this point.
8. I also rejected, in Ice Box 2024, Mr Coady's assessment that people will be further induced to consume alcohol while eating takeaway food on the public benches in Queen Street. The community culture and nature of the area, the fact that it is a busy thoroughfare and the use of benches rather than chairs and tables mitigate against lengthy or elaborate consumption of food and drink. There was no evidence about the likely order in which customers intending to purchase alcohol and takeaway food in the area would do this, but it would seem more likely that alcohol would be purchased ahead of hot food and then be taken elsewhere, for example, to a home, for consumption. Moreover, currently and at the time of publishing Ice Box 2024, alcohol could be purchased, albeit at a distance from the Existing Bottle Shops, brought to Queen Street and consumed with food purchased there. There was no evidence of this occurring, and the absence of appropriate zoning suggests there is currently no issue. As I have noted elsewhere, Ms Elsing gave evidence that she had not observed people buy alcohol and sit on the street while availing themselves of a meal from one of the food outlets in Queen Street. It is not clear how the introduction of a packaged liquor outlet at the Premises would change the current situation, other than, as all parties have submitted, making it more convenient for customers who intend to purchase liquor to do so.
9. In reconsidering the material on remitter, my conclusions and findings with regard to Mr Coady's evidence have not changed.

Expert Social Planning Evidence and Published Research

1. The Tribunal was assisted both at first instance and on the remitter by expert social planning evidence and published research.
2. Sarah George was the expert social planner qualified by the Applicant, while Professor Roberta Ryan was the expert social planner qualified by the Second and Third Respondents.
3. Both social planning experts referred to the research literature in their reports, and that material was made available to the Tribunal in addition to the expert reports. On remitter, the parties provided the Tribunal with a further 21 research articles published since Ice Box 2024. However, unlike the first hearing, the parties did not seek to make particular submissions on those new research papers.

1. Ms George holds a Bachelor of Arts majoring in psychology and sociology, and TAFE qualifications in teaching, workplace training, and assessment. She has relevant professional experience, having drafted approval policies for local government on alcohol-free zones and prepared numerous social impact assessments and statements for various government agencies and licence applicants. Ms George has also worked for several years in a town planning consultancy.
2. At the first hearing and on remitter, Ms George provided an expert report and gave concurrent expert evidence with Professor Ryan, a social planning expert qualified to give evidence by the Second and Third Respondents. On remitter, Ms George provided a further report dated March 2025 in which she provided her opinion on some matters raised by Professor Ryan's March 2025 report.
3. At the first hearing and on remitter, Professor Ryan and Ms George agreed that the literature provided an adequate basis to inform the Tribunal's decision. However, they disagreed as to how the literature should be applied to the assessment of the proposed liquor licence. Specifically, while she did not dispute the evidence and research relied upon and referenced by Professor Ryan, Ms George differed in her interpretation of that material.
4. That difference led to her conclusion that the proposed liquor outlet would not result in unreasonable detriment to the local or broader community. Ms George's reasons for this were, as set out in her report:

● The populations of the local and broader communities display socio-economic and demographic characteristics that are robust and that are likely to be protective against alcohol-related harm including a well-educated population, employed and in high paying occupations.

● The local and broader communities do not have strong representations of groups typically considered to be at heightened risk of alcohol-related harms including people who identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, the unemployed, and people in low paying occupations.

● The proposal relates to a small, packaged liquor outlet located within a local shopping strip where no alcohol is to be consumed on the premises, trading within standard house of trade.

● The subject site is located within an area that records low rates and densities of crime, including alcohol-related crime despite the existing outlet density calculations being above the rate referred to in the ... research. As such, it is reasonable to assume that the grant of the subject application is similarly unlikely to result in any adverse impacts in respect of alcohol-related crime.

1. Ms George's conclusion in her March 2025 report is much the same as her previous overall opinion. I quote her conclusion from her March 2025 report in full as follows:

Due to the specific and robust socio-economic characteristics of the population of Woollahra, and the lack of groups potentially considered to be at heightened risk of alcohol-related harms, declining rates of domestic violence and alcohol-related violence in the suburb, the proposed premises is unlikely to result in significant social harms and the conclusions drawn in [Ms George's] original report are supportable in light of the more recent research.

1. In her review of the relevant literature, Ms George, in her evidence for the first hearing, summarised the following state of the research contained in the published literature as follows:

(1) Assessing the potential impact of social harm requires consideration of the interrelationships between various socio-economic factors;

(2) Incidents of alcohol-related crime and violence are more likely to occur between 9 PM and 3 AM on weekends and are more likely in places where licenced premises close at the same time. This accords strongly with the evidence of Ms Elsing and other local residents about anti-social behaviour that occurs in and around residences in Woollahra. Accordingly, this is not a relevant consideration for packaged liquor outlets. Indeed, packaged liquor outlets are not commonly associated with criminal incidents when compared with on-licence premises.

(3) Alcohol consumption, particularly binge or long-term high-risk drinking is linked to health concerns and disease

(4) The evidence concerning the relationship between alcohol consumption and domestic violence is not clear; alcohol misuse is often a trigger for offending but incidents of domestic violence also occur in the absence of alcohol.

(5) Management of licenced premises, including implementing harm minimisation and responsible service of alcohol practices, plays a significant role in minimising harms associated with alcohol use.

1. In her evidence at first instance, Ms George also addressed the question of whether, when assessing the density of liquor outlets, the Vintage Cellars Licence should be included. Professor Ryan considers that dormant licences should be included on the basis of the possibility that dormancy may end. Ms George opined that it is not necessary to include the Vintage Cellars Licence since, at that time, alcohol is not being offered from that outlet. The inclusion of the Vintage Cellars Licence does not materially increase the density of liquor outlets in the area in absolute terms. But in relative terms, as the Authority noted in its submission to the Board, if that licence is excluded then the density of packaged liquor outlets in the suburb drops below the average for both Major Cities in NSW and the State average. Though it is unclear when, or indeed if, the Coles Group will seek to make use of its liquor licence, the evidence was that it intended to do so sometime in the future. The Tribunal's first-instance decision in Auld considered a situation in which the premises to which a licence was attached had closed down, and there was no evidence that it would be re-enlivened (other than by transfer to a new site). Here, the Vintage Cellars licence, having been granted, has never been used, and the site in respect of which it was granted has been converted to a different use. This, in my respectful opinion, is a relevant consideration on the ultimate issue but not a relevant question on the issue of outlet density.
2. Accordingly, on balance, I preferred at first instance and continue to prefer to adopt Professor Ryan's approach on this topic and have included the Vintage Cellars Licence when considering density. Further, I note that while the Authority's submission at first instance that the outlet density statistics maintained by it include dormant liquor licences and, therefore, to omit the Vintage Cellars Licence may mean that a meaningful comparison of outlet density would be obscured if the Tribunal were to calculate density on a different basis from the Authority's data, the Authority's submission to the Board actually leaves the question open to whether or not to exclude the Vintage Cellar's licence from consideration.
3. There is also an online packaged liquor retailer, based in the Woollahra LGA, known as Frootbat, that does not have a physical store presence in the suburb or the LGA; instead, as I understand the evidence, customers order alcohol online for delivery from that retailer. There was no evidence before the Tribunal at first instance or on remitter concerning the scale of that business or the extent to which their customer base was located in the suburb or the LGA. Professor Ryan noted that other online stores also delivered to the area, including BWS.
4. To a layperson, the harms that online outlets could cause might seem different from those of physical stores, in that Frootbat or BWS (or indeed, other online liquor retailers and delivery services) are not physically present to offer takeaway liquor or walk-in liquor sales. As such, those retailers are irrelevant to my consideration of matters such as street amenity, retail balance and development. However, as set out elsewhere in these reasons, the research indicates that it is the volume of sales, rather than the density of outlets, that is a significant predictor of rates of violence in a community. Accordingly, I have considered these outlets with regard to licence density, and I also consider them marginally relevant to the question of industry development.
5. As I note elsewhere, no evidence, save for the raw numbers in the Harm Minimisation Reports, was provided to me on remitter about the three further packaged liquor licences granted in the LGA since the first hearing. It would have been of great assistance to me to understand from the Authority the reasons for and the locations of those licences. As it is, however, I have included those licences in consideration of density and, relatedly, my consideration of the harms of the present application.
6. In their first instance reports, both Professor Ryan and Ms George refer to the research undertaken by Briscoe & Donnelly in 2001, though this was not included in the bundle of research papers provided to the Tribunal for consideration, since it was uncontroversial that that research found that most alcohol-related crime occurs on licenced hotel premises. I accept that evidence; however, the harms that are the subject of Professor Ryan's report concern domestic violence offences in particular, as well as high-risk drinking outside of a hotel environment.
7. In her March 2025 report, Ms George emphasises that the research presented in Jiang et al (as discussed in paragraph 188 below) found a stronger association between lower socio-economic status at the LGA level and the rate of those types of offences when compared with higher socio-economic LGAs. Ms George also pointed out that hours of operation were relevant to the level of non-domestic offences attributable to alcohol and that the hours the Applicant proposes to operate the Premises are not extended hours. Ms George further notes that, contrary to the expected increase in offences attributable to alcohol with increased density of outlets, the February 2025 Harm Minimisation Report in fact shows a significant increase in outlet density in the LGA (by another three outlets) and yet declining rates of domestic violence, non-domestic related assaults and alcohol related assaults. That analysis is entirely correct and, as it is drawn from the community, which is the subject of these proceedings, I consider that evidence - the increase in outlet density and reduction in offences - as being the evidence that most assists me in assessing that aspect of the potential harms of the Applicant's application for a licence.
8. In her March 2025 report, Ms George reviewed the studies referred to in Professor Ryan's report and correctly pointed out that most of that research failed to establish a positive causal association between outlet density (let alone packaged off-premises density) and alcohol-attributable harms. In most studies, a prominent finding was that low socio-economic status was also readily associated with increased vulnerability to alcohol-related harms.
9. Ms George, in her March 2025 report, also addresses Professor Ryan's opinion that the introduction of a further packaged liquor licence in Woollahra would increase the special availability of packaged liquor, increase convenience and may result in increased competition. Ms George opines that it is not unusual for packaged liquor outlets to be located in local shopping strips, and that smaller, more convenient outlets often charge higher prices for that convenience. I agree with that opinion, particularly in light of Mr Owen's evidence that even the Applicant's "member only" special prices are higher than the advertised prices available from the Third Respondent's store.
10. It is also Ms George's opinion, expressed in her March 2025 report, that it is unlikely a small, packaged liquor outlet in the site of the Premises is going to result in a significant increase in the volume of alcohol being consumed in the community. I agree with that opinion, having regard to the evidence before me. I consider it more likely than not, having regard to the saturation of outlets, the pricing structure and the location of the Premises, that customers for the Applicant will be drawn from the existing customer bases of the other outlets in the LGA rather than customers being generated from within the community who would otherwise not purchase liquor or who would otherwise not purchase as much liquor.
11. In terms of the question of alcohol-related harms and health impacts, Ms George, in her March 2025 report, considers the further Harm Minimisation Reports and Professor Ryan's opinions and provides the following opinions:

(1) Despite the increase in the available volume of alcohol in Australia, the number of people consuming alcohol in a manner that puts their health at risk continues to decline over the long term, as does the number of people consuming more than 10 standard drinks of alcohol per week or more than four standard drinks daily; and

(2) While there has been an increase in the volume of alcohol available for sale and consumption, that increase has not resulted in increased consumption at risky levels;

(3) Risky drinking by older persons in Australia has remained stable, with no significant increase since 2019;

(4) People in regional and remote areas are more likely to exceed the guidelines for risky drinking than residents in major cities

(5) While alcohol may be a contributory factor in many instances of domestic violence, such crime frequently occurs in the absence of alcohol;

(6) The declining rates of alcohol-related domestic assault in the LGA have occurred despite an increase in four off-premises licences since 2023;

(7) Alcohol-related hospitalisations have declined since 2021-2022, and alcohol-attributable deaths remain lower in the Woollahra LGA compared with the whole of NSW.

(8) Citing a study by the Centre for Epidemiology and Evidence, NSW Ministry of Health, NSW Population Survey, Ms George opines that "fir alcohol drinking frequency for adults aged 65-75 indicates that more adults in this cohort drink less than weekly, and a small but increasing number never drink. There was also a decrease in the number of adults aged 65+ who reported drinking daily." This is significant given the age profile of the relevant community.

1. At first instance, the Second and Third Respondents tendered two reports from Professor Roberta Ryan, an experienced social and strategic planner and an academic currently at the University of Newcastle. She is a qualified social worker and social policy and planning researcher. Professor Ryan's first report is dated 16 February 2023; her second report, which included updated opinions in light of new BOSCAR data, was dated 23 March 2023.
2. On remitter, the Tribunal was provided with a further report from Professor Ryan. While I have no difficulty accepting Professor Ryan's opinions as contained in her further report as fresh evidence, as her further opinion was not available any time before the last set of hearings, but her consideration of material extends beyond fresh research to include that which "became available after March 2023" when she finalised and prepared her second report. I have nonetheless accepted that material also given that the Applicant has not been taken by surprise and Ms George, whom the Applicant has qualified, has been able to respond to Professor Ryan's report and the research on which she has relied.
3. As I noted in Ice Box 2024, Professor Ryan's academic and specialist expertise is broad; including expert advice on the social impact of changed land and development in settings as disparate as mines, affordable housing, schools, large-format retail centres, as well as licenced clubs, on-premises and packaged liquor licences. I remain satisfied that, having regard to her breadth of experience, Professor Ryan's expertise does not overshadow that of Ms George, who, I still consider, has more targeted experience in liquor licensing and inner-city development from the social planning perspective. On remitter, as on the first occasion, there was, in any event, significant agreement between Professor Ryan and Ms George; while their conclusions differed, they were on the same spectrum**.**
4. The following paragraphs surveying Professor Ryan's first and second reports are directly extracted from my reasons in Ice Box 2024, they do not require amendment.
5. In her first report, Professor Ryan was based, among other things, on statistical evidence for the area and academic research and made the following observations, findings and conclusions:

(1) In reviewing the health data for the Woollahra LGA and SESLHD, Professor Ryan noted that the rate of alcohol problems and presentations to emergency departments in the SESLHD was higher than the NSW average and that the rates of short and long-term risks of drinking alcohol were higher throughout the SESLHD compared to all local health districts.

(2) The number of people who reported consuming alcohol daily in the SESLHD was lower than the average across all local health districts. However, the SESLHD had higher levels of people who had consumed alcohol weekly and fewer non-drinkers or less-than-weekly drinkers than the average across other local health districts. Of course, the SESLHD is a broader area than the LGA or the suburb; however, I do find the statistics relevant for consideration.

(3) That if the proposed liquor licence were granted, this would mean that the number of packaged liquor outlets in the suburb of Woollahra would be twice that of the State average and that, for the local government area of Woollahra, the density would be one and a half times that of the State average. As noted above, I have accepted that Professor Ryan appropriately includes the Vintage Cellars Licence in this analysis. Professor Ryan also emphasised that it was the cumulative impact of an additional outlet was significant in this case.

(4) The rate of alcohol-attributable hospitalisations in the suburb was 768.5 per 100,000 head of population, compared with the rate of 527 per 100,000 in the State. Professor Ryan states that the older population in Woollahra may indicate vulnerability to alcohol-related harm, including being at risk of higher alcohol consumption and, in turn, negative alcohol-related health impacts. In that regard, I note Ms George's evidence that alcohol-related hospitalisations typically occur in older age groups, and the higher than State average rate in Woollahra is more attributable to the older age profile of its residents than high-risk or unrestrained alcohol consumption.

(5) The proposed site of the bottle shop is in a medium-density hot spot for incidents of malicious damage and a hot spot for incidents of domestic assault. In that regard, Professor Ryan opined that "if the existing licence is granted, there is a risk that the liquor sold from the premises would exacerbate [existing levels of crime]. Over time, this could contribute to an increase in alcohol-related crime and other social and amenity issues". Professor Ryan's opinion here is couched in qualified terms; having regard to the tendential nature of the analysis, I consider those qualifying terms entirely appropriate. This is particularly so given the updated Harm Minimisation and Community Impact Report of late July 2023, tendered by the Authority after Professor Ryan had prepared her second report, which showed that the location was no longer a hot spot for any offending.

(6) Relative socio-economic advantage is not as protective as may be intuitively considered, having regard to the fact that high socio-economic communities tend to consume more alcohol.

(7) The area is well served, in terms of liquor supply, not only by physical stores but also by online delivery services, including BWS Liquor.

(8) The present ratio of packaged liquor licences to population is already at 0.8973 per 1000 residents. That level is already "dangerous". The Applicant's licence would increase the ratio to 0.916 per 1000 residents, and though Professor Ryan acknowledges the complexity of causation associated with the rate of domestic violence assault, she opines that this outlet would exacerbate those rates. Professor Ryan nonetheless opines that if the licence were granted to the Applicant, this would give rise to an unreasonable risk of harm to elements of the local and broader community, including the potential for increased domestic violence assault rates.

(9) While there were generally lower rates of reported domestic violence in affluent communities, there was a high level of reported domestic assaults in the Woollahra LGA at all time periods when compared with the rest of the State and the variability of the reported incidents is more likely connected with the notorious underreporting of those offences.

(10) Having regard to the literature, the Woollahra LGA would likely experience an increase in assault hospitalisations and long- and short-term risks of alcohol consumption.

(11) The local and broader community of Woollahra are characterised by a higher vulnerability to alcohol-related harm having regard to the relationship between high socio-economic advantage and hospitalisations; Professor Ryan concludes, therefore, that a single addition packaged liquor outlet "will be a detriment to the local and broader communities" In that it will result in higher rates of alcohol consumption, alcohol-attributable hospitalisations and long-term risk of alcohol consumption.

1. In her third report, Professor Ryan provided the following opinions and comments to assist the Tribunal:

(1) The suburb and LGA have outlet densities for packaged liquor that exceed the NSW State average. The densities exceed the threshold level for potential harms identified in Jiang et al (discussed above);

(2) Just one licence added to an area such as Woollahra has potential consequences for alcohol related harms and health outcomes within the community;

(3) Referring to Sersli and Shareck and the AIHW Geographical study (discussed, respectively, at paragraphs 191 below) Professor Ryan opines that increased spatial availability tends to reduce the effort required to procure alcohol and promote the convenience of purchase. However, Professor Ryan does not address the extent to which those studies fail to account for socio-economic factors and to that extent, I prefer the opinions of Ms George.

(4) Increased proximity to outlets tends to increase environmental queues to purchase alcohol, and the introduction of a new liquor store can influence purchasing and consumption behaviours. Here, I was not assisted by any party with evidence or analysis on whether changes in purchasing habits were likely due to existing customers changing their habits (in other words, customers being drawn away from existing outlets) or whether proximity and convenience tended to create new customers or increase sales volume. I observe that Professor Ryan, in this regard, very properly did not seek to overreach in her area of expertise.

(5) The introduction of another packaged liquor outlet would have the effect of promoting purchasing convenience and increasing casual consumption.

(6) Increased density tends to lead to competition and price discounting, which, even in an affluent area such as Woollahra, may still influence purchasing decisions.

(7) The central location of the Premises might increase spontaneous or impulsive liquor purchases.

(8) Any amount of consumption of alcohol involves a degree of risk. Risky drinking (a defined concept) is nonetheless common in Australia at the rates recorded by the AIHW.

(9) People in their 50s and 60s were more likely to drink at risk levels.

(10) While levels of risky drinking remain stable, the levels of risky drinking remain concerning, and that is relevant to Woollahra since the population profile of Woollahra skews older and older persons may also experience greater negative alcohol-related impacts.

(11) Risky drinking in middle-aged women may not be adequately captured due to the specific tendencies of that cohort, referring to Bownes et al.

(12) In terms of alcohol-related harms, Professor Ryan referred to her earlier report and the BOSCAR research showing a predictive association between the concentration of packaged liquor licences and domestic violence and non-domestic assault rates. Unfortunately, Professor Ryan does not engage with the data in the 2025 Harm Minimisation Reports. I have presumed that is because her report was prepared before the receipt of that material by the parties. The Tribunal would have been greatly assisted to know her opinion on those matters. As it is, I prefer the actual data for the LGA and the suburb that tends directly against the published data.

1. Lastly, Professor Ryan provided some further data and research concerning hospitalisations and alcohol-related treatment. Consistent with the Harm Minimisation Reports, Professor Ryan notes that the rate of alcohol-related hospitalisations in the Woollahra LGA has steadily increased over the last two decades. Professor Ryan also helpfully points out that hospitalisation rates may not capture presentations to emergency departments that are not subsequently admitted to hospital.
2. On remitter, as she did in the first instance, Professor Ryan was not an advocate for the cause of the parties who briefed her to provide an opinion, and her views were given on the basis, squarely, of her opinion and research. As I noted above, in the first instance hearing, Professor Ryan and Ms George agreed on the effect of the published data, save for the question of hospitalisations. On that point, I accept and prefer Ms George's evidence because it is more accurate in identifying the causation of hospitalisations.
3. In giving concurrent evidence, both Professor Ryan and Ms George accepted the proposition that the social determinants of health are compounded or magnified by the presence of a higher density of alcohol outlets.
4. In cross-examination on the remitter, Professor Ryan remained appropriately neutral on whether a causal connection could be interpreted from the data before the Tribunal (and as considered in her reports) that the opening of one further packaged liquor outlet at the Premises would have a statistically significant impact on the outcome of harms in the community or on a national level.
5. Despite her responses in her oral evidence and overall, I appreciate that Professor Ryan's evidence is relatively straightforward; that is, any further outlets in the community (suburb or LGA of Woollahra) would be undesirable, having regard to the published research and Professor Ryan's own specialised expertise. In that regard, however, I prefer Ms George's conclusions, even though I do not necessarily agree with all of her analysis, because her opinion engages more directly with the fact that the high socio-economic profile of the suburb and the LGA of Woollahra and the limited applicability of the published research as a result.

Published research on the harms arising from alcohol use and the increased density of liquor outlets

1. To assist the Tribunal and to provide context for the expert opinions of Professor Ryan and Ms George, the parties provided the Tribunal with a set of relevant academic research articles. The Second and Third Respondents also provided additional written submissions concerning the expert evidence on alcohol-related harm that was provided to the Tribunal on 8 August 2023 and was of great assistance.
2. On remitter, the Second and Third Respondents tendered a further folder of 21 publications, some of which were directly referred to by Professor Ryan in her further report. In reviewing that material, only seven publications post-dated the first hearing (being tabs 12, 13 and 17 - 21). As I have noted above, to the extent that Professor Ryan directly relies on earlier material on which to base her opinion, I have accepted that material. There is no prejudice to the Applicant who took the opportunity to have Ms George review and respond to that material. The earlier material essentially comprises extracted material from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2022-2023, conducted by AIHW and published in February 2024, months before the first hearing, I have considered that material in the sense that it updates information from the same survey taken in 2019 in paragraph 182 below.
3. In Ice Box 2024, I summarised the key points of the research published in those articles as tendered at the first hearing as follows:
4. In N Donnelly, P Menendez and N Mahoney "The effect of liquor licence concentrations in local areas on rates of assault in New South Wales" Crime and Justice Bulletin No 181, December 2014, (Donnelly 2014) the authors drew on a number of relevant data sets concerning both domestic violence and non-domestic violence-related assaults. The authors found, at the local government level, a strong correlation between the number of hotel licences and assault rates and a similar, though weaker, correlation between packaged liquor licences and rates of assault. The upturn of the risk occurs most steeply for packaged liquor licences when the concentration exceeds 0.75 per 1000 population. The correlation data in that research, somewhat unhelpfully, set the socio-economic status of the population at median levels and also set the density of other outlets at median levels. This makes the applicability of the findings limited where, as here, the community is in the highest percentiles of socio-economic advantage, and there is a relatively high number of all types of liquor licences. The authors nonetheless concluded that:

For hotels, the DV assault rate was found to increase sharply once the concentration reached 2.0 per 1000 residents. For packaged liquor, there was a sharp increase in DV assault rates once licence concentrations exceeded 0.75 per 1000 residents. The effect of an increase in concentration levels was much more pronounced for hotels than it was for packaged liquor, with the highest hotel concentration levels predicting much higher DV assault rates than the highest concentration levels of packaged liquor licences.

1. A Melbourne-based researcher undertook a longitudinal review of outlook density correlated with domestic violence rates, considering 186 postcodes in the greater Melbourne area: M Livingston "A longitudinal analysis of alcohol density and domestic violence" (2011) Addiction Vol 106, pp 919-925 (Livingston 2011.1). Contrary to the approach taken by the Tribunal in this case, the author did not include any outlets that were not actually operational. According to the methodology, the domestic violence rates included call-outs by police where the attending officers considered an offence had been committed, irrespective of whether charges were laid. The author notes that police reports are not entirely reliable on at least two fronts: first, there are higher reporting rates in some areas compared to others, and second, other research suggests that only about 36% of female victims of physical domestic violence actually report incidents to the police. That research concluded there was a small but significant positive effect with the overall increase in the density of outlets of all kinds. When each type of outlet was reviewed, the author concluded that:

The most substantial effect was found for packaged liquor outlets, with an increase of one packaged liquor outlet per 1000 [residents] related to an increase of 1.36 in the domestic violence rate. To provide some context, these effect sizes represent 5.9% [general outlet, e.g. hotels], 2.3% [on-premise outlet, e.g. restaurants] and 28.6% [packed liquor, e.g. bottle shops and small grocery stores], respectively, from the overall mean of the domestic violence rate (4.76 of 1000 residents).

When all three outlet categories were entered into the same model, only packaged outlets remained significant with an increase of 0.66 incidents of domestic violence per 1000 residents for each additional packaged outlet.

1. Livingston 2011.1 contradicted the earlier findings of the same researcher that the density of packaged liquor outlets was not associated with rates of domestic violence: M Livingston "The ecology of domestic violence: the role of alcohol outlet density" Geospatial Health 5(1) 2010, pp 139 - 149.
2. In the Evidence Check (as defined at 177 below), the authors (including M Livingston) reveal that at least by 2015, Livingston 2011.1 was the only longitudinal study of its kind from Australia and that two other longitudinal studies from the US as well as other studies using different models to look at the effect of off-premises outlet density on intimate partner violence provided a "mixed view, with some studies identifying off-premise outlets as the most important licence type [as a determinative of domestic violence] while others find that bar density is more important." The authors of the Evidence Check also refer to the limited control of variables in this study as a weakness which requires the results to be approached with some caution.
3. One difficulty acknowledged by the Livingston 2011.1 research was the use of a mean SEIFA score of 1032.55 (with a standard deviation of 78.30, which is significant). Accordingly, while justified as a conservative model, the research is not readily applicable to the present situation where the SEIFA index score is substantially greater at both the suburb and LGA levels.
4. In later research conducted on a similar data set, though with somewhat greater effort to identify all incidents of domestic violence, it was found that the socio-economic disadvantage had a significant and negative effect consistent across the majority of models used in that study : D Scott et al, "Alcohol Accessibility and Family Violence-related Ambulance Attendances" Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2022 Vol 37 (13-14) (Scott 2022). While the authors in Scott 2022 controlled for socio-economic disadvantage, the standard deviation was very broad, meaning that the mean SEIFA index score applied was only 1000. Thus, while the authors controlled for socio-economic disadvantage, they did not account for any protective effects of high levels of socio-economic advantage which Ms George provides evidence about.
5. The authors of Scott 2022 concluded that:

In the context of the present study, increased alcohol outlet density may impact on a community's social disorder, particularly with respect to on-premise and late-night licences where more people are drawn to the neighbourhood to drink alcohol.

[referring to Livingston 2011] ... Our study not only confirmed the role of off-premises alcohol outlets but also demonstrated the importance of on-premises licences. ...

The evidence suggests that the role of access to alcohol outlets in family violence is complex and may involve a combination of several factors.

Although the available evidence about the strength of association between type of alcohol outlet and violence is not consistent [...], this study revealed that access to on-premises outlets had the strongest association with family violence.

1. In a 2011 cross-section study of liquor outlets in Perth, the researchers found that a relevant distinction was between large off-site packaged liquor stores and name neighbourhood bottle shops: W Liang and T Chikritzhs "Revealing the link between licenced outlets and violence: Counting venues versus measuring alcohol availability" Drug and Alcohol Review (September 2011) Vol 30, pp 524 - 535 (Liang & Chikritzhs 2011). It was Professor Ryan's evidence that this finding had been superseded by later research, though it is unclear what research has superseded this finding. The Liang & Chikritzhs 2011 study also suggested that the volume of sales, and not the number of outlets, is more likely to be the cause of additional harm. The authors of the Evidence Check (as defined at 177 below) also noted that that finding was supported by a high-quality longitudinal research that demonstrated, again, that the volume of liquor sold and not the density of packaged liquor outlets was more predictive of increased rates of violence.
2. Risky or heavy drinking was considered in M Livingston "Alcohol outlet density and harm: comparing the impacts on violence and chronic harms.", Drug Alcohol Review (September 2011), Vol 30, pp 515 -523 (Livingston 2011.2). Livingston 2011.2 looked at hospitalisations over a 14-year period and outlet density at a postcode level and concluded that the density of alcohol consumption at venues where the main activity was drinking (meaning pubs and hotels) was positively associated with rates of hospitalisations for injuries arising from assaults. With regard to packaged liquor outlets, Livingston 2011.2 concluded that the density of off-premises licences was related to the rate of alcohol use disorders - or chronic alcohol-related harms. The study found that a 10% increase in packaged liquor licences would result in an increase in assault-related hospitalisations of 0.6%. A similar increase in the number of packaged liquor licences in a suburb would have the effect of increasing chronic alcohol-related hospitalisations by 1.9%. The author identified several major limitations of the study, including the inability of the model to take into account the varying size, turnover and trading hours of packaged liquor outlets and the inability to assess changes in demographic profiles. Accordingly, the author stated that the results "provide only a broad picture of the relationship between alcohol outlets, violence and chronic disease. Further, as with Livingston 2011.1, the median SEIFA index applied was well below that of the suburb or local government area of Woollahra.
3. Risky or heavy drinking was also considered, among other matters, in M Livingston, C Wilkinson and R Room, Community impact of liquor licences; an Evidence Check rapid review brokered by the Sax Institute for the NSW Ministry of Health_,_ 2015 (Evidence Check). That report was prepared for the NSW Ministry of Health. Both Professor Ryan and Ms George agree with the finding in that review that the cross-sectional research concerning the effect of outlet density and high-risk drinking behaviours was inconsistent and of low quality.
4. The other conclusions in the Evidence Check, to the extent that they are not mentioned elsewhere, were that:

(1) There is good evidence that the alcohol density is associated with violence, but that this is more strongly associated with on-site premises, whereas

(2) The effects from packaged liquor outlets can be "mediated entirely" by the volume of alcohol sold through packaged liquor outlets. Three identified high-quality Australian studies (both cross-sectional and longitudinal) have shown a stronger association between large chain packaged liquor outlets and rates of violence, including domestic violence, when compared with smaller bottle shops.

(3) Changes (presumably increases) in the density of liquor outlets are associated with both acute and longer-term health problems.

(4) Research on the effect of density on traffic incidents and youth drinking has produced mixed findings.

(5) The research on the effect of the increased density of liquor outlets generally on child maltreatment, sexual health, and self-harm is suggestive but not conclusive.

1. In S Callinan and M Livingston "Drinking trends by age and over time baby boomers and older drinkers" Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education Centre Canberra, 2018 (Callinan & Livingston), the authors, undertaking a longitudinal study, comment on the phenomenon that drinking in the overall population is accounted for by younger people drinking substantially less but older people (particularly those born between 1946 and 1964) were increasing their consumption or rather failing to decrease their consumption of alcohol. Callinan & Livingston found little evidence that older people were failing to decrease their consumption at the same rate as other age cohorts, and that evidence of risky drinking in older cohorts was limited to one data source, and the authors expected consumption in that age cohort to decline. The authors did find that there was significant harm experienced from alcohol consumption in that age cohort, that most older drinkers consume alcohol at home, and that price increases may be protective of the risks facing that group.
2. In M Livingston "A longitudinal analysis of alcohol outlet density and assault" Alcohol Clinical and Experimental Research, Vol 32, No 6 (2008) pp 17074 - 1079, (Livingston 2008), clustering of packaged liquor outlets in a suburban community was associated with an increase in the amount of violence. The effect of each increase in additional liquor outlets on the number of assaults was small, but the sharp increase in the number of outlets overall, however, gave rise to a substantial increase in the number of assaults. The author notes a major shortcoming of this study was the lack of longitudinal control data, including socio-demographic characteristics of the areas under study.
3. The National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2019 showed that single-occasion risk (monthly) drinking for people aged 60-69 was increasing; from 12.8% in 2001 to 17.4% in 2019. By contrast, the risk for people aged 18-24 remained substantially greater, decreasing from 57% in 2001 to 41% in 2019. This survey also suggested that the proportion of people exceeding the lifetime risk guidelines remained stable in older age groups over time, but declined in younger age groups. Consistent with that survey, risky drinking in younger age cohorts was shown to continue to decline in the National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2022-2023 (tendered on the remitter) and reported that risky drinking across almost all age groups remained stable in the period of that survey, in fact the rate had declined from 32% to 31% and that this slight decline in risky drinking was in line with a gradual decline evident since 2004.
4. On remitter, the following research was made available to the Tribunal and considered by Professor Ryan and Ms George:
5. AIHW web report "Geographical variation in alcohol access, risk and harms in selected Australian states" December 2024. That report showed that outlet density was highest in the central business districts of capital cities. The report also concluded that people living within 250 m of an alcohol outlet were more likely to have experienced alcohol-related risks and harms compared with people living in capital city areas but further away from such outlets. Those risks and harms included high-risk or dangerous drinking or being subjected to abuse or criminal incidents that involved alcohol. In the present context, that information does not greatly assist, since there is no doubt that people in the suburb and the LGA are already within 250 m of an alcohol outlet; my task is to determine whether one more outlet is harmful. In her report, Ms George points out that this study did not differentiate between the different types of licenced premises, and the authors of the study acknowledged that there were limitations associated with not controlling for age, socio-economic status and remoteness.
6. In S Bownes et al "Alcohol consumption in early middle-aged Australian women and access to primary healthcare services" Australian Journal of General Practice Vol 53, No 11 Supplement, November 2024, the authors concluded that women in early middle age who engage in risky drinking behaviours may not be readily detectable because of their pattern of attendance in primary care. That research goes to the fact that women in early middle age are a high-risk group for alcohol consumption and the likelihood that the harms of alcohol consumption may be understated for that part of the population. I accept those conclusions and findings; however, as Ms George notes in her March 2025 report, the number of women in the age cohort considered by the study represents just 4.2% of the suburb's population and 3.9% of the LGA's population. Therefore, the ramifications of this study's conclusions and findings have limited application to my assessment of harm in these proceedings.
7. In Myran et al "The association between alcohol retail access and health care visits attributable to alcohol for individuals with and without a history of alcohol-related health-care use" Addiction 2024; 119(9):1554-63, the authors concluded that their research showed a positive association between alcohol availability and increased health-care visits attributable to alcohol and that this finding was consistent with the widely observed association between increased harms and outlet density. The authors properly concede that the causal nature of the relationship between density and harms "remains uncertain"; that, is it is not known whether heavy drinking causes more outlets or vice versa. The authors also observed that the findings consistent with one other study, suggested that, collectively:

"... individuals without disordered drinking patterns may be more likely to be harmed by increases in local alcohol availability. One reason for this this finding could be that, due to motivations such as craving and withdrawal avoidance, individuals with current disordered patterns of drinking may have alcohol purchase patterns that are less influenced by retail availability (e.g. stockpiling, greater willingness to travel to obtain alcohol). In contrast, individuals without disordered drinking patterns may display a greater susceptibility to alcohol availability through cues to purchase and reduced barriers to obtaining alcohol.

1. I accept those postulations as being rational and logical. However, the question to be determined here is whether one more packaged liquor outlet may be harmful; the understandable limitations of the study do not assist in assessing whether, in the case of Woollahra, where there is already a significant density of outlets, the risks of impulsive purchases and greater susceptibility to harms will be increased or not.
2. In Jiang, H et al Association of liquor outlet density with domestic and non-domestic assaults in New South Wales, NSW Government Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority, 2023, which is research noted in the Harm Minimisation Report but which was not tendered until the remitter. The research looks at data between November 2015 and November 2019. The authors conducted a study based on all types of liquor licences to determine outlet density per 100,000 head of population and then considered the populations by reference to SEIFA scores and also urban versus rural location. The authors found small- to medium-level positive correlations between outlet density and domestic and non-domestic assaults. The authors found that the presence of one additional liquor outlet (all types) increased alcohol-related domestic and non-domestic assault rates by 2.19% and 1.73% respectively, on a State-wide basis. When looking at on-premises sales and off-premises sales, the authors do not discuss packaged liquor at all, instead finding a positive association for non-domestic assault with hotel density, and a positive association with other on-premises density (such as nightclubs, cafes, vessels). The authors also found, when looking at the association between outlet density and domestic and non-domestic alcohol-related assaults, that there was a further "strong" association between lower socio-economic status at the LGA level and the rate of those types of offences when compared with higher socio-economic LGAs. This point was emphasised by Ms George in her 2025 report. Then, after conducting a linear and non-linear analysis of the data validated using a method called cubic polynomial regression, the authors found that a likely threshold level for outlets per 100,000 head of population was 551, "above which each new licence results in a marked increase in the expected number of domestic and non-domestic assaults". What this suggests is that there is likely an overall threshold at which harms are statistically increased. Professor Ryan notes that the density of packaged liquor licences exceeds the average for NSW and I accept that observation. However, the data used by this study is now six years out of date, and the statistics for NSW as a whole, the LGA, and the suburb have shown a decline in incidents from that period to the most recently collected data, despite an increase in the density of outlets. Further, the study does not explicitly comment on packaged liquor outlets; in fact, the data it presents show greater harm from on-premises sales. Therefore, this study is of limited utility for the present proceedings.
3. The research presented in A Torney et al "Where do high-risk drinking occasions occur more often? A cross-sectional, cross-country study" Drug Alcohol Review 2024:43(5):1172-7, makes the rather obvious point that the majority of drinking occasions by high-risk drinkers occur at off-premises locations. That finding underscores the importance of considering the manner in which a store adds to the availability of alcohol, but does not advance the risk assessment much further.
4. In their reports tendered on the remitter, both Professor Ryan and Ms George discuss the findings in S Forbes et al "The association between off- and on-premises alcohol outlet density and 100% alcohol attributable emergency department visits by neighbourhood-level socio-economic status in Ontario, Canada" Health & Place 89 (2024) 103284. Like the data set in Jiang et al, the authors in this study were looking at data up to 2019 only. In that study, the authors found that each additional off-premise alcohol outlet increases presentations to emergency departments for alcohol-attributable reasons and that the increase in presentations of that kind was intensified as a positive and disproportionate association with lower socio-economic areas. As with Jiang et al, the authors of this study note that the cross-sectional design limits the ability to draw causal inferences. The authors drew the following conclusion:

"Our study adds to the existing evidence of the associations across physical alcohol availability, SES [socio-economic status], and alcohol attributable harm. We observed a disproportionately greater association with alcohol-attributable ED [emergency department] visits with increased outlet density in low compared to high SES neighbourhoods in Ontario, which has not been previously shown in Canada. Positive associations between increased outlet density and alcohol-attributable ED visits were also observed, although associations were stronger with off- than on-premise outlets. Our findings indicate that addressing inequities in exposure to physical alcohol availability may assist in reducing alcohol-attributable harm. ..."

1. Both Professor Ryan and Ms George also discussed the findings in S Sersli and M Shareck, "Is alcohol outlet availability associated with binge drinking in Canadian young adults? Findings from British Columbia and Quebec." Canadian Journal of Public Health (2024) 115:567-576. Again, the results of the study were unsurprising; younger consumers are likely to be price-sensitive, having alcohol on sale in grocery stores increases the visibility of alcohol and normalises drinking behaviours, and a higher density of outlets may increase spontaneous purchases. The authors conclude that restricting the spatial availability of alcohol remains an important public health strategy. In this case, however, where there is already a saturation of outlets, the study does not assist in understanding whether a further outlet will increase harms. Ms George notes that this study found contradictory results for different areas and it acknowledged that two further studies from the United States identified no association between heavy episodic drinking and either off- or on-site availability of alcohol and that the US studies are consistent with other studies drawing on data from the US, New Zealand and Denmark.
2. The Second and Third Respondents also tendered a copy of the AIHW Australia's Health In Brief 2024, which reports the trend in decreasing risky drinking by Australians on a nationwide basis for the period between 2022-23 and 2024.

1. In Narraport AP at [51]-[52], the Appeal Panel stated:

The statutory question - whether the social impact of the licence will not be detrimental to the well-being of the community - requires an overall assessment of the social impact of the licence. This, first, requires the Tribunal to determine various "benefits and disbenefits" (borrowing the words of Kirby J in Ballesty & Anor v Director of Liquor & Gaming & Ors [2002] NSWSC 1102 at [130], concerning gaming machines). Put another way, the positive and negative effects of the licence on the local and broader community.

Next, the Tribunal must evaluate or weigh up all the positive and negative factors, in order to reach a conclusion (if possible) on whether, overall, there will be a negative social impact from the licence. For there to be a favourable result for the licence applicant, the Tribunal must arrive at a positive satisfaction that there will be no detrimental social impact. As noted in Ballesty & Anor v Director of Liquor & Gaming & Ors [2002] NSWSC 1102 (at [130]) where there was a similar process, this would be regarded as a matter of evaluation and a question of fact. See too, _Smith v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authorit_y [2018] NSWCATAD 224 at [20].

This process does not involve the exercise of a discretion; it is not a case where there may be more than one legally correct answer. The statutory question attracts the "correctness standard": GLJ v The Trustees [2023] HCA 32 at [15]-[16].

1. That is the approach I have undertaken in considering the evidence before me on the remitter.

1. As I noted in Ice Box 2024, the task of obtaining the views of the local or broader community is a difficult task, and recourse to petitions can be a fraught and unreliable exercise: see, for example, the Tribunal's observations in Adamson at [30]-[35] and North Coast Property Holdings Pty Limited v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2024] NSWCATAD 98 at [35]- [36]. Unsurprisingly, in this case, the various and conflicting petitions and other community evidence point in different and often opposite directions.
2. On remitter, the Second and Third Respondents urged the Tribunal to consider, in preference to the conflicting petitions, the views of elected officials and institutions as the views of the community. To some extent, that submission is correct and I have given greater weight to those views to the extent the evidence permitted it.

1. The Applicant did not have the advantage of already being in operation at the Premises, and therefore it did not have sufficient support from customers in the local and broader community of Woollahra; it risks ultimately failing in its venture. But that is a matter which cannot be established at this time.
2. The Applicant resorted to obtaining a petition using paid marketing staff and also obtained a report from Ms Stancombe using focus group interviews of 23 people. For the reasons set out above, I accept, as far as it goes, that on the particular days that the markers were in attendance, at least 208 people were visiting Queen Street who were in favour of the proposed bottle shop. Also, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 96 to 100 above Ms Stancombe's evidence does not assist the Tribunal. Additionally, the local fishmonger, who operates on the same block as the proposed liquor store, has provided a written letter in support of the application.
3. The Second and Third Respondents prepared petitions from customers attending their stores. The Existing Bottle Shops' petitions garnered 110 signatures (noting a later petition was not admitted into evidence). They also had some support from local residents, the licensee of the Phoenix Hotel and the QSWWA, though some of its members supported the Second and Third Respondents' cause with some angst - one described the group's cooperation with the Second and Third Respondents as a Faustian bargain. The evidence provided of opposition from members of the QSWWA and other residents is set out above.
4. The Second and Third Respondents also provide maps and charts setting out the locations, by suburb, of supporters and objectors to the Applicant's proposed licence. That material suggested the majority of the 199 supporters were found to have come from the suburb of Woollahra and other suburbs comprising the vicinity of the Eastern Suburbs. The material also suggested the objectors came from roughly the same places, though with a greater proportion being found within the suburb. I regard the source of the support and objection as relatively neutral in this case.
5. On remitter, the Second and Third Respondents urged the Tribunal not to treat the evidence of community views as a neutral factor, but rather "place significant weight upon it as militating against the grant of a licence". Implicitly, that submission seeks that I take into account the only evidence from the community that opposes the licence, rather than the totality of the evidence which points in both directions. In any event, overall, I remain of the view that the evidence of community support and the evidence of opposition are not particularly persuasive or reflective of community views.
6. The evidence on community views, as I found in Ice Box 2024, only captures the views of some members of the community, but by no means all or even a majority. Accordingly, I remain unable to make any finding with respect to the views of consumers and members of the community, though I do not consider that this has a negative impact on the Applicant's position; rather, the position is neutral.

Community Views Captured by Institutional Responses and Plans

1. At the first instance hearing, the Second and Third Respondents referred to Ms Elsing's evidence in particular to contend that the institutional opposition to the Applicant's proposed use of the Premises has been largely ignored.
2. On remitter, the Second and Third Respondents submitted that the views of the Council and community groups should actually be given greater weight than, for example, petitions and individual responses because those groups are "designed to speak for the community and advocate for the concerns of the community at a community level rather than merely at an individual level, promoting self-interest". That submission may be correct with regard to the Council; I agree with the submission of the Second and Third Respondents that the Council, as it comprises elected representatives, is a voice reflecting the attitudes of the LGA and the suburb.
3. But the same cannot be said for the QSWWA, which is, as I note above, a group of 200 members comprising both individuals and corporates, including the second respondent. In any event, to the extent it actually reflects the views of a limited part of the community, including the second respondent whose commercial interests are potentially affected by the Application. Even leaving aside the interests of the second respondent, the views of the QSWWA members are mixed, and where there was opposition, the reasons were opaque. To the extent that Mr Edmonds' evidence is representative of the views of QSWWA, the basis of his opposition was primarily to do with the potential for increased anti-social activity arising from another packaged liquor outlet in the area. While I do not doubt that Mr Edmonds genuinely opposed the application for the reasons he stated, the basis - the possibility of increased anti-social behaviour - was not clearly explained and found no support in the expert social planning evidence or the BOSCAR data.
4. I set out the Council's stated reasons for rejecting the Applicant's development application, at 42(3) above. I have also considered Ms Elsing's evidence was that each application for licenced premises was determined on an individual or case-by-case basis. Further, as regards the evidence of Ms Elsing, I accept her evidence as summarised above at paragraphs as reflecting opposition by some local residents to the granting of another packaged liquor licence. As with Mr Edmonds, the primary basis for Ms Elsing's opposition was the perceived increase in anti-social behaviour. However, as highlighted above, when the source of that anti-social behaviour was explored with Ms Elsing in cross-examination, it seemed more likely that her concerns relating to anti-social behaviour arose from the density of hotel and packaged liquor licences together. In particular, Ms Elsing was unable to say that she had observed Jim's Cellars to present an increase in anti-social behaviour. Still, she was definite that the Woollahra Hotel (by which she included Moncur Cellars) - both of which were owned and operated by the second respondent - was a source of anti-social behaviour, which the management of those licences was constantly having to address.
5. There is some circularity with the Council's reasons for rejecting the application at the first instance. It relies principally on the "recommendations of police" who oppose a further outlet. However that opposition, as indicated in my analysis of Senior Constable Franks' evidence, relied on perceptions of an increase in crime arising from greater density; yet the BOSCAR data shows that, now and over time, even with some increased outlet density, there has been a reduction in the incidence of relevant offences (at least as far as they are reported) and no change in alcohol-related deaths and hospitalisations. Therefore, to the extent the Council relied on concerns about an increase in crime, I do not give that reason weight because that concern is not borne out by the fact that the incidence of alcohol-related crime is decreasing in the LGA, even where the density of outlets has increased. The Council then referred to the fact that the Applicant had not "adequately demonstrated that it minimised the impact of licenced premises on the amenity of the nearby residential properties". That reasoning is not equivalent to the statutory task faced by the Tribunal, which is not assessing the adequacy of an application but rather conducting a risk assessment on the basis of the evidence to address a statutory test. The Council's reasoning does not disclose whether it had considered the impact of limited opening hours for the Premises in circumstances where the evidence before me concerning amenity appeared to relate to incidents of misconduct that take place outside the operating hours sought by the Applicant. Ms Elsing's evidence did not enlighten me further on this topic.
6. Another reason noted by the Council in declining the application on the basis of "the existing and likely cumulative social impacts". I have dealt with those matters after considering the recent expert and BOSCAR evidence adduced in the proceedings, which I prefer for reasons of both accuracy and recency. While I give some weight to those reasons, the weight that I may place on the Council's opposition is markedly reduced where there has been a continued downward trend in crime rates and an increase in the density of packaged liquor outlets in the LGA.
7. The Council's final reason (save for police opposition) for declining the proposal was the density of licenced premises in the suburb, which, I agree, is a significant issue. While I give the increase in density significant weight, as a factor against the Application, I am considering here how that issue fits into the consideration of community views; in that regard, it arises only to register that the community, as represented by the Council, is concerned about the number or density of packaged liquor outlets in the suburb. I give that concern some weight, as it tends against the application.
8. Further, in Ice Box 2024, I commented on Professor Ryan's opinion that the Community Strategic Plan Woollahra 2032 is a good indicator of community expectations, needs and aspirations. In that regard, I noted that if that were the case, such a plan would have had to have countenanced the Vintage Cellars Licence as part of the mix. I also observed that Professor Ryan did not account for how the Vintage Cellars Licence, compared to (as found) a smaller-scale operation as proposed by the Applicant, would have met the aspirations or community expectations of the strategic plan. I further observed that it would seem "obvious" that a small store, nestled between existing and complementary retailers, would be in greater conformity with the strategic plan than the Vintage Cellars Licence proposal that had been wholly approved by Woollahra Council some years ago. In Narraport AP at [209]-[223], the Appeal Panel found that my consideration of the Vintage Cellars Licence had encroached on the assessment of community views and that encroachment demonstrated an error.
9. On remitter, I have once again reviewed Professor Ryan's evidence on this point, while putting entirely out of my consideration the existence of the Vintage Cellars Licence. I accept that the Community Strategic Plan Woollahra 2032 is a reasonable indicator of community expectations, needs and aspirations; albeit that there was no evidence before me as to how that plan was prepared or developed, what its inputs were, or what influences were brought to bear upon it. In that regard, each of the respondents, including the Authority, were in the best position to adduce evidence about the development or reasoning in the plan, including evidence from the local council or councillors, and they elected not to do so.
10. Where I fell into error in Ice Box 2024 was treating the fact that the Vintage Cellars Licence, which had been approved and had been dormant for a decade, as relevant to questions of amenity and community expectations for the purposes of considering the present application. While the Appeal Panel in Narraport AP at [207] noted that the concern about the lack of information about the approval of the Vintage Cellars Licence was not unwarranted, I accept that my concern may have erroneously encroached upon the task at hand. I now expressly disregard the Council's decision to approve the Vintage Cellar's Licence from my consideration in relation to the institutional response, which may tend to capture the views of the community.
11. I remain of the view that the nature and location of the Premises and the scale of the Applicant's operation appear to conform with the Community Strategic Plan 2032. Since I do consider that such a plan is a reliable indicator of community expectations, needs and aspirations, then I ascribe the same weight to this matter as I do the Council's opposition to the Applicant's development proposal, though tending in favour of the Application.

Factors in favour of granting the packed liquor licence

1. In the first instance, the Authority submitted that granting the Applicant a packaged liquor licence would have at least some positive social impacts on the well-being of the local and broader communities, being increased consumer convenience and choice and additional local employment opportunities. In their written submissions, the Second and Third Respondents identify these considerations, though say that only increased convenience is a benefit to which "little, if any" weight should be given, that increased choice, increased employment and a decrease in the need for special trips are all neutral considerations; in any event, those respondents submit, none of the neutral considerations should be given no weight whatsoever.
2. In Ice Box 2024, I stated that the fact that there are fewer factors in favour of granting the licence than against (if demonstrated) is a natural consequence of the nature of these types of applications. The factors in favour of granting a licence will, in almost all circumstances, be limited in number. Undoubtedly, I could have expressed myself better. The consequence of that paucity of expression was that, in submissions on the remitter, that statement was mischaracterised to suggest that I had proceeded on the basis that there were very few positive social impacts associated with packaged liquor stores: Second and Third Respondent's Written Submissions, 9 April 2025, at [31]. That the number of factors is few should not be equated with there being few positive social impacts. That mischaracterisation then led to an unfortunate submission that invited the Tribunal to err by applying a test requiring the Applicant to show a clear advantage to obtain a licence. That is not the test, and I intend to apply only the statutory test provided in the Liquor Act.

1. At first instance, increased convenience is the only factor that all parties agree is a benefit of the proposed liquor outlet. It is manifestly true that the central location of the proposed premises relative to the neighbourhood and other retailers and services, as well as relatively convenient, high-turnover access to car parks, make convenience a significant factor in favour of the Applicant's proposal for a packaged liquor licence. It is readily capable of being inferred that consumers who live or work in the local community and who are shopping at the butcher, fishmonger, delicatessen, cooked chicken shop or takeaway restaurant would find being able to make purchases from a bottle shop in the same area convenient and desirable. Accordingly, I afford this factor significant weight.
2. On remitter, the Second and Third Respondents suggested, referring in particular to Professor Ryan's evidence, that increased convenience may also be a factor militating against the grant of a licence. Since convenience may lead to an increase in consumption arising from impulsive or unplanned purchases and therefore an increase in harms, I address that submission under factors against the grant of a licence.

Decreased need for special trips to purchase liquor

1. Related to the question of convenience is the Applicant's contention that the location of the proposed bottle shop will reduce the need for the community to make special trips to purchase liquor from packaged outlets. In Ice Box 2024, having regard to the availability of liquor to purchase in the area generally, I did not consider this to be a significant factor, and I ascribe little weight to it above the other considerations of convenience. I ascribe the same weight to it on the remitter.
2. I note further the Authority's submission that the lack of need to make a specific trip to purchase alcohol may also increase impulsive purchasing, as observed by Senior Constable Franks.

1. There was much evidence to attempt to modify the equivalency of various outlets in the area. The Applicant says its proposed bottle shop will be a third outlet in direct competition with the Existing Bottle Shops. The Second and Third Respondents have sought to expand the competitive base to include liquor outlets from just outside the local government area, online packaged liquor licences and takeaway alcohol available from the four hotels in the area.
2. I accept Mr Purcell's evidence that takeaway liquor from the four hotels is not practical. I also accept that it is difficult to assess the impact of online delivery retailers on the community.
3. A question of some significance to the Tribunal in Ice Box 2024 and now, on remitter, is whether the proposed liquor outlet was likely to cannibalise the customer base of the existing liquor outlets in the area (or, more kindly, increase the choice available to those consumers) or whether it was more likely to entice people who would not otherwise drink to purchase liquor and those who already drink to purchase even more liquor. Obviously, if the liquor store were to entice more people to drink alcohol or entice current (including problem and vulnerable) drinkers to drink in greater amounts, then that would be a matter that would be considered detrimental to the community. So, too, however, is it relevant to consider whether an additional liquor outlet contributes to an excess of outlets, which necessarily detracts from the amenity of the community and the orderly development of the liquor industry.
4. As I noted above, I do not give weight to Mr McDonald's opinion on this question as I do not consider the matter within his field of expertise.
5. In giving expert evidence from a social planning perspective, Professor Ryan and Ms George do not approach the subject on the basis of new markets or competition; their research and opinions, both at first instance and now on the remitter, concern the bare correlation between the number of outlets in an area and increased harm. I have preferred that evidence as it is less subjective, but it does not assist the Tribunal when considering whether the community would receive a benefit because of increased choice and competition.
6. The Second and Third Respondents submit that this consideration is of no advantage because the evidence suggests the Applicant will be charging more for products already available in the area. This submission is at odds with their original submission to the Authority made in 2021 and contained in the s 58 Bundle, in which they alleged that the Applicant was "focused on high volumes of entry-level wine and spirits" and that younger people would be particularly vulnerable to price discounting. I have found Mr Purcell's survey of the items in each of the Existing Bottle Shops and Mr Owen's evidence, particularly in his third affidavit was more accurate on this topic, and I find that it is more likely than not that the Applicant will provide a range of alcoholic drinks that differs to some extent from that which of offered by either of the Existing Bottle Shops. While there was necessarily insufficient evidence regarding price since the Applicant has not operated the store, Mr Owens' third affidavit shows that it is likely the Applicant's store will sit at a price point below Moncur Cellars and at or above Jim's Cellars. As I noted in Ice Box 2024, though it is not for the Tribunal to speculate on the motives of parties, the fact that the Second and Third Respondents were not content to leave the Authority to justify its decision suggests that they might consider that the new outlet has the potential to draw custom away from the Existing Bottle Shops whether that be because of convenience, product choice or price competition - any competitive threat could have enlivened the interest of the second and third respondent, and justifiably so.
7. The Second and Third Respondents on the remitter submit that considerations of competition and consumer choice are "minor and unimportant and likely entail negative implications". I do not agree with the first proposition and, to the extent that there are negative implications, these are duly considered below.
8. Having regard to the appeal panel's determination in Narraport AP, I have removed from my consideration the existence of the Vintage Cellars Licence when considering whether competition or increased price competition is a factor in favour of granting the Applicant the proposed licence. Given the findings in Narraport AP, I have decided that the appropriate course is also to exclude those other outlets from my consideration in the same manner, as I have with regard to the Vintage Cellars Licence.
9. Having regard to the totality of the evidence concerning increased consumer choice and greater competition, and specifically excluding consideration of the Vintage Cellars Licence and the new packaged liquor licences issued to outlets in the LGA, I nonetheless remain satisfied that this is a factor in favour of granting the Applicant a packaged liquor licence, and I give that factor significant weight, taking into account the needs and aspirations of the community for improved choice, price competition and the statutory aim of the orderly development of the liquor industry.

1. I accept Mr Owens' evidence at first instance that the proposed store would employ about eight to ten staff, including casual employees. As the Applicant submits, one of the objects of the Liquor Act is to support employment and other opportunities. While many of the residents of this area are middle-aged and in highly paid employment, not all are. Many people of all ages now seek part-time employment to supplement other sources of income. That may be particularly so for people who are struggling to remain living in inner-city areas such as Woollahra. Further, as I noted in Ice Box 2024, some young people still live in the area, and they may be assisted in commencing their working lives close to home, particularly if they are working on a part-time or casual basis while pursuing further study.
2. Conversely, this is an area close to the city and other inner suburbs. Hence, employment opportunities are not in short supply as in a rural town or even an outlying suburb. As the Authority pointed out in submissions at first instance, unemployment in the area is significantly below the State average. No update has been provided on employment statistics, so I have proceeded on the basis of that information. Nor would it be possible to say that, aside from about two staff members, there are career opportunities available.
3. The number of employment opportunities created by the proposed store is modest. However, as I did in Ice Box 2024, I give some weight to the creation of employment opportunities as a factor in favour of granting the Applicant a packaged liquor licence.

Factors against granting the packaged liquor licence

1. The Second and Third Respondents say that all the 13 factors they assert as being detrimental should be given "significant" weight. The tenor of that submission, unfortunately, lacks nuance in a manner that does not assist the task at hand; the Tribunal is invited, for example, to attribute significant weight to matters of great importance, such as the asserted increase in rates of domestic violence while it also urged to give identical weight to comparatively more trivial matters such as decreased diversity of shopping outlets on the street.
2. Alcohol-related harm may be experienced either directly, as a result of the risky consumption of alcohol, or indirectly, by people exposed to others who have engaged in the consumption of alcohol, which can be manifested, among other things, in assaults and damage to private property. These matters are considered further below.

1. The Second and Third Respondents identify this factor on the basis that the increased density of liquor outlets will increase the risk of alcohol-related harms. Given the focus of the published research, that is a fair comment, but for the fact that the respondents then identify each of those harms (arising from the increase in density) separately. As noted above, the published research presented by the parties at the hearing and on remitter is not conclusive, and none of the research, including the new research, takes into account sufficiently the protective socio-economic factors associated with the particular community in which the packaged liquor licence is sought. As the submissions also note, the weight to be given to each relevant consideration is a matter for the Tribunal: Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; (1980) 162 CLR 24, 41 per Mason J.
2. It is a given that, if the Applicant were successful, the density of liquor outlets in Woollahra (both the suburb and local government area) would increase. As noted above, I have included the Vintage Cellars Licence, the online retailer Frootbat and the three new packaged outlets in the LGA in considering the question of outlet density. On that basis, the density of packaged liquor outlets already exceeds the overall density in NSW without the addition of the licence sought by the Applicant. It is axiomatic that, if the Applicant were granted a licence, it would further increase the density in the suburb and the LGA of Woollahra by one, thereby further affecting the density of outlets per 100,000 head of population. Having regard to those facts, I do not consider that an increase of one outlet in either the suburb or the LGA is a substantial increase in absolute terms where the number of outlets in the area where liquor can be purchased already exceeds the State average.
3. In Ice Box 2024, I found that the research made clear that the size and scale of the supply of liquor in an area is likely more significant when considering the harms that might arise than the mere number of outlets per se. I found, in Ice Box 2024 that, Applicant's proposed bottle shop was a modest size, it will not be open late at night, and it will not be offering home delivery (unlike at least one of the other Existing Bottle Shops); therefore, I found, it was safe to infer that the scale of its operation is less likely to be harmful than a large bottle shop that operates a significant scale and turnover and is open for business for extended periods into the night. To the extent any of my consideration of the size and scale of the Vintage Cellars Licence entered my thinking in making that finding, I have approached the issue again and reconsidered it. In doing so, I have come to the same conclusion; that is, I do not consider that an operation of the kind to be undertaken by the Applicant at the Premises will be as harmful as if the Applicant were proposing a larger-scale store that was open for extended hours and offered home delivery.
4. Therefore, and as I did in Ice Box 2024, I give little weight to the simple incidence of increased licence density. The data contained in the four harm minimisation reports, the AIHW research, and the expert social planning evidence do provide a proper basis upon which to find that outlet density, in the context of the present application, should be considered a significant factor in the assessment I am required to make under the statutory test.

1. As I noted above, the Applicant requests that the Tribunal issue a summons to NSW Police seeking all COPS records concerning crime associated with the Existing Bottle Shops. Nothing was returned in answer to that summons. No further evidence about crime associated with the Existing Bottle Shops was tendered on the remitter. The absence of any COPS records obtained under the summons does not allow me to infer that an additional liquor outlet in the same area will not cause incidents to occur.
2. I have taken into consideration the observations of residents in the area, including Ms Elsing's evidence of her observations of anti-social behaviour emanating from or near to the Woollahra Hotel. Given the proximity of the Woollahra Hotel and the Existing Bottle Shops, it is understandable that Ms Elsing, like other residents whose evidence concerning what they have had to endure with regard to anti-social behaviour, would see any increase in the number of liquor outlets as being likely to increase anti-social behaviour. However, as I have noted elsewhere, the hours of operation of the Premises and the pricing evidence suggest that a new outlet at the Premises is unlikely to increase or exacerbate anti-social behaviour in the community.
3. I accept the submission of the Second and Third Respondents that I should consider what the impact of a further liquor licence will be on the incidence of crime in the suburb and the LGA. I accept the submission that I should not merely have regard to the fact that, as they concede, the incidence of reported crime in the area is relatively low. Nonetheless, the current crime incidence, which on remitter now shows a decline in crime even where density has increased, is a significant factor relevant to assessing the impact of a further licence, together with consideration of the area's socio-economic profile, the social planning evidence and published research on outlet density.
4. Save for domestic violence assaults, the suburb is an area that is not materially affected by criminal activity. The density of a range of offences and particular offences associated with the misuse of alcohol is low and has been falling since Ice Box 2024. Even taking account of the fact that not all crime is reported, I am satisfied that the location of the Premises is in a low-density area for alcohol-related crimes. As Ms George opines, this demonstrates the protective effect of the high levels of socio-economic advantage in an area already replete with liquor outlets, both on-premises and packaged. That opinion is further buttressed by the data in the February 2025 and April 2025 Harm Minimisation Reports, which show a decrease in reported crime and a further increase in packaged liquor outlet density in the LGA.
5. I accept the Applicant's submissions couched by reference to Mr Purcell's evidence (whose opinion, as noted above, I have rejected on the subject), but which was, in fact, reliant on the BOSCAR statistics that:

(1) In relation to alcohol-related non-domestic assaults, the Woollahra local government area features the suburbs of Paddington and Double Bay, in which several late-night venues attract younger and more high-risk patrons, whereas the suburb of Woollahra has a very low rate of alcohol-related non-domestic assaults; and

(2) The hotspots for vehicle theft surround the transport and commercial hubs of Edgecliff and Bondi Junction and the associated railway stations.

1. I have given this consideration significant weight. Having regard to the totality of the evidence relevant to this subject, I am satisfied that the grant of a packaged liquor licence to the Applicant would not increase the risk of alcohol-related crime in the local or broader community.

1. This is a very serious consideration, having regard to the evidence, based on recognised research, that the incidence of domestic violence is widely under-reported. In summary, the Second and Third Respondents submit that another packaged liquor licence would exacerbate the rate of domestic violence in the community. I agree that this is a risk and that I should give it significant weight.
2. At the first instance hearing, the BOSCAR crime statistics showed that the rate of alcohol-related domestic assaults in the previous 12 months was materially below the rate for the whole of NSW. On remitter, the Tribunal was provided with additional data contained in the February and April 2025 Harm Minimisation Reports, which showed that the rate of alcohol-related domestic assaults for NSW declined and that the rate of decline in the LGA was even greater. The rates for alcohol-related domestic assault between 2021 and 2024 are set out in Table 1 in paragraph 48(3) above.
3. I accept Professor Ryan's opinion concerning possible under-reporting of domestic violence offences, having regard to the fact that domestic violence is manifestly under-reported and may even be more significantly under-reported in communities where the increased socio-economic status of the residents may intensify feelings of shame in some victims arising from having such abuse perpetrated on them.
4. I also accept Ms George's opinion that domestic violence can and is perpetrated in the absence of alcohol. Further, I accept Ms George's opinion evidence that alcohol consumption has been considered by anti-domestic violence advocacy groups as being used as an excuse for perpetrators of these kinds of offences and that there is no clear evidence of any fixed relationship between alcohol use and domestic violence. This would appear to be borne out by the fact that the domestic violence offence rate in the suburb is significantly lower than in the rest of New South Wales, save for 2022, when alcohol-related domestic violence assault was above the State average.
5. I note that there is some high-quality research that suggests a correlation between an increased number of packaged liquor outlets and increased rates of domestic violence, including assaults that are not the subject of criminal charges. Professor Ryan's evidence at first instance, and unchanged in her second report, was that the relationship between increased outlet density and increased rates of domestic violence was very stable and that, once an area had reached a "saturation" of liquor outlets, then that feature was present irrespective of the protective effects of socio-economic status. However, Professor Ryan's opinion on this issue, albeit based on published research, is not supported by the data contained in the various Harm Minimisation Reports and her report on the remitter fails to directly address the data that is drawn from the local and broader community who are directly impacted by the present application.
6. Therefore, having reviewed the published literature and the Harm Minimisation and other crime data, and the opinions of Professor Ryan and Ms George, I have preferred Ms George's opinion evidence on this question as her opinion is manifestly supported by data drawn from the broader and local community, and most of the published research does not adequately account for the protective nature of the community's high socio-economic profile.
7. Accordingly, and giving this consideration significant weight, I am satisfied that the packaged liquor licence, as proposed for the Premises, is unlikely to increase the risk of domestic violence offences in the suburb or the LGA.

1. As I found in Ice Box 2024, there is some evidence, and an abundance of research presented to the Tribunal by the parties (and summarised above), that increased risk of non-domestic violence-related assaults is correlated with hotel licences and not packaged liquor licences.
2. The rates of non-domestic-violence-alcohol-related assaults in the Woollahra LGA are lower than the rest of NSW, and the rate of these types of incidents has remained stable according to the statistics provided by the Authority. There has been no evidence presented on remitter that changes that characterisation.
3. Accordingly, I remain satisfied that there would not be an increased risk of assaults arising from, or attributable to, the grant of a packaged liquor licence to the Applicant to operate a bottle shop on the Premises.

Increased risk of alcohol-attributable hospitalisation

1. The statistics show that the number of alcohol-attributable hospitalisations in Woollahra LGA is higher than the rate for the whole of NSW. As Professor Ryan notes, data from AIHW surveys and other sources on hospitalisation rates may not capture the whole picture, particularly for emergency presentations that do not result in a full hospital admission.
2. I accept that the risks Professor Ryan and Ms George identify exist, but I do not consider that the risks identified by either social planner expert on this question were unacceptably increased by granting a packaged liquor licence to the Applicant. This is particularly so, having regard to the protective nature of the high socio-economic status of the suburb and the LGA, as well as the limited hours of operation proposed for the Premises.
3. Consequently, while this is a material consideration, I am satisfied that there will not be an increased risk of hospitalisations attributable to alcohol as a result of granting the Applicant a packaged liquor licence in respect of the Premises.

Increased risk of short-term and long-term health impacts

1. As noted above, Professor Ryan states that the rates of short and long-term risks of drinking alcohol were higher throughout the South East Sydney Local Health District compared to all local health districts.
2. As Ms George notes, short-term harms are more likely to be associated with young people engaging in behaviours such as binge drinking. Mr Purcell's observations on this point align with that opinion, as does, to a limited extent, the evidence from residents concerning anti-social behaviour (which, from generally observed experience, can lead to high-risk behaviours).
3. It is apparent that in areas where hotels and nightclubs abound, there is a significant risk of short-term harm. That is not particularly relevant here, given the suburb, the kind of liquor licence being sought, and the proposed trading hours. However, I accept that, in general terms, people of any age can be injured. At the same time, one may become drunk or suffer from alcohol poisoning, or require treatment for injuries sustained while intoxicated, and over time, there may be a cumulative effect leading to longer-term harm.
4. As to the long-term health impacts, Professor Ryan concludes that another licence in the area will be detrimental by increasing those risks since the population is more affluent and older and that areas with those characteristics tend to have populations that exceed the Alcohol Guidelines published by the National Health and Medical Research Council to which Professor Ryan refers in her first report. The long-term health conditions that are set out in the Alcohol Guidelines are unsurprising and include cancer, heart disease, liver damage and mental illness. However, as Ms George points out on the remitter, the number of older Australians who are reducing their consumption and even abstaining entirely from alcohol is increasing.
5. I have expressly removed from my consideration of this risk the fact that the Council was willing to grant the Vintage Cellars Licence. So too have I removed from my consideration the fact that the LGA has experienced an increase of three packaged liquor outlets since the first hearing of this application.
6. As noted above in paragraph 178 above, both Professor Ryan and Ms George agreed that the research on the relationship between outlet density and high-risk drinking behaviours was inconsistent and of low quality. Having regard to the newly published research, I remain of that view. In particular, none of the research adequately addresses the impact of socio-economic factors on the risk of short- and long-term harms, beyond noting that areas of low socio-economic status are particularly vulnerable. The new research was primarily from Canada, where other environmental and cultural factors were at play, and at least one Canadian study noted that other international research had reached opposing conclusions; hence, the reliability of that research is also questionable.
7. I have also had regard to, and prefer, Ms George's opinion that the robust socio-economic characteristics of the suburb and the LGA are protective of the many harms that undoubtedly arise because people are allowed to consume alcohol. The four Harm Minimisation Reports evidence in these proceedings support that opinion. I am satisfied that, though there are risks associated with any level of alcohol consumption, those risks are acceptable and not detrimental to the overall well-being of the local or broader community.
8. The Second and Third Respondents submitted at first instance that this is a significant consideration and that they have established that there will be an increased risk of short-term and long-term health impacts if the packaged liquor licence is granted to the Applicant. The Second and Third Respondents submit that even if the additional licence created a small increase in the chance that someone may die from alcohol poisoning, that is still a significant impact. I agree that this is an important issue, and had I been satisfied that the packaged licence increased the risk of those harms, then I would have given that consideration considerable weight. However, I do not think that a small increase in the chance of death is a significant impact.
9. For the reasons that I have set out above, and having regard to the expert opinions of Professor Ryan and Ms George including their updated opinions and the published research on harms including the newly available research, both short-term and long-term, I am satisfied that the proposed packaged liquor licence would not present an unacceptable increase in the risk of short- and long-term health impacts in the community.

Increased risk of alcohol consumption in public

1. My findings on remitter in relation to this topic are unchanged from Ice Box 2024. As such, the following consideration has been taken largely from my earlier reasons.
2. The evidence concerning the consumption of alcohol in public was divergent. The resident's evidence suggested that this was already occurring in a manner that was uncontrolled. However, it was also apparent that the local council had not considered it necessary to zone the area as an alcohol free zone which suggests that the problem of public consumption of alcohol may not be quite as significant as some residents perceive it.
3. I reject Mr Coady's assessment and that of some other witnesses called by the Second and Third Respondents that people will be further induced to consume alcohol while eating takeaway food on the public benches in Queen Street. The community culture and nature of the area, the fact that it is a busy thoroughfare and the use of benches rather than chairs and tables mitigate against lengthy or elaborate consumption of food and drink.
4. There was no evidence about the likely order in which customers intending to purchase alcohol and takeaway food in the area would do this. Still, it would seem more likely that alcohol would be purchased ahead of hot food and then be taken elsewhere, for example, to a home, for consumption. As noted elsewhere in these reasons, as the situation currently stands, alcohol can be purchased, albeit at a distance, from the Existing Bottle Shops and brought to Queen Street and consumed with food purchased there. There was no evidence of this occurring, and the absence of appropriate zoning suggests there is currently no issue.
5. Further, as I note in paragraph 111 above, there was some divergence of views by Mr Edmonds and Ms Elsing on whether there was likely to be consumption on the sidewalks as a result of the proposed licence. In that regard, I prefer Ms Elsing's evidence that she had not observed people buying alcohol and sitting on the street while availing themselves of a meal from one of the many food outlets in Queen Street over Mr Edmonds' concerns, which were more generalised and expressive of a concern rather than an observed occurrence. It is not clear how the introduction of a bottle shop on the Premises would change the current situation, other than, as all parties have submitted, making it more convenient for customers who intend to purchase liquor to do so. The assertions in the evidence, including the expert evidence, concerning impulsive purchases were not, in my opinion, persuasive.
6. Accordingly, I do not consider that there will be an increased risk of consumption of more alcohol as a result of the grant of a packaged liquor licence to the Applicant with regard to the Premises.

1. In the first instance hearing, the Second and Third Respondents submitted that decreased amenity in the context of these proceedings relates to noise, pollution (of unspecified nature) and disorderly conduct. The evidence concerning noise and disorderly conduct was generalised and appeared mainly to centre on concerns about noise disturbances and anti-social behaviour related to public drinking. I found in Ice Box 2024 that these are problems that typically occur later in the evening.
2. As I found in Ice Box 2024, in circumstances where the proposed liquor outlet is to operate in standard trading hours, including closing no later than 9:00 PM most evenings and earlier on Sundays, I do not consider that there will be any further decrease to the amenity of the suburb or the LGA arising from those matters. Moreover, the convenience to local consumers of the Premises may be regarded as increasing the amenity of the immediate vicinity. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the proposed packaged liquor licence will not materially detract from the amenity of the area.

Decreased diversity of shops in the Woollahra Village

1. In Ice Box 2024, I determined that the proposed change of use of the Premises from a fruit and vegetable shop to a packed liquor outlet will not necessarily reduce the diversity of shops in the area known as Woollahra Village. Fresh and cooked food, restaurants and cafes, some grocery stores, and other stores are all still present. Conversely, the parties accepted that the inclusion of a small-scale packaged liquor outlet increased customer convenience for consumers and the community.
2. On remitter, having reconsidered the totality of the evidence, I have decided to give no weight to the extent, if any, that the proposed packaged liquor licence decreases the diversity of shops in Woollahra Village.

Inconsistent with the character of the Woollahra Village

1. In Ice Box 2024, I found that neither the suburb nor the LGA appeared to be areas that are particularly censorious or abstemious about the purchase or consumption of liquor. Consequently, I did not consider that a packaged liquor outlet of the kind proposed by the Applicant would be inconsistent with the character of the area, with regard to the kind of shops it will be located near - including takeaway and fresh food shops. On the contrary, the inclusion of such a shop on the Premises appeared to me to be entirely consistent with the other businesses and convenient for shoppers. Having reconsidered the evidence on the remitter, I remain of the same view.
2. Mr Campbell and Mr Georgas made comments about the cheap fit-out of the Applicant's other stores. But there was no evidence that the Applicant intends to install an undesirable storefront on the Premises. It would be surprising for an experienced liquor retailer who has undertaken extensive market research of the area, as is the case here, not to appreciate how important presentation may be to entice customers into a store.
3. I do not consider whether the proposal is consistent or inconsistent with the character of Woollahra Village to be a particularly significant question for the purposes of my determination. On remitter, I am not satisfied that the Premises will be inconsistent with the character of that area, and I give this matter no weight.

1. In Ice Box 2024, I noted that it was generally accepted that the footpath near the Premises is a busy area. The fact that it is busy is not necessarily a negative factor; an area filled with customers and residents going about their daily lives creates an appealing picture of community life.
2. The expert evidence relied on by the Second and Third Respondents at first instance did not take into account the fact that the current store must also bring customers by car and foot to it. Moreover, I accept, as a rather obvious conclusion from Mr Reisch's evidence, that the removal of the flower buckets from the pavement outside the Premises will increase the amount of room passers-by will have. The intrusive nature of the flower buckets on the pathway outside the Premises, as depicted in the photographs taken by Mr Coady, was quite marked. Save for the issue of trolleys, I prefer the Applicant's evidence with regard to increased traffic and pedestrian congestion, and I have concluded that, if granted, it would be unlikely that problems with traffic, parking and pedestrian congestion would be significantly or detrimentally exacerbated.
3. I found, in Ice Box 2024, that it was readily understandable that if the Applicant were to have trolleys on the Premises, those trolleys would inevitably make their way onto the street and create unwanted congestion. In closing submissions, the Applicant proposed that, as a condition of any licence granted, it would not have trolleys available to customers in its store. I accept that submission and will require the formulation of appropriate orders to give effect to that concession.
4. Increased congestion on the street is an important matter, however, having regard to the Applicant's concession, I am satisfied that it is unlikely there will be significant negative impacts on the well-being of the local community as it pertains to increased traffic and pedestrian congestion.

1. In Ice Box 2024, I found that there was no doubt that the residents were concerned that parking, already at a premium in the area, would be further strained by a new packaged liquor outlet at the Premises. This was a significant factor in considering the social impact of the proposed licence.
2. On remitter, as at first instance, I accept Mr Reisch's uncontested evidence that the proposed liquor shop would need to attract one-third more customers than the existing shop to generate sufficient demand for one additional car space. There is no evidence that the proposed bottle shop will attract additional customers, but if it did, there would need to be a very substantial increase to have a material impact on parking in the area.
3. On remitter, as at first instance, I accept Mr Purcell and Mr Reisch's observations that the high turnover of parking near the Premises is a positive feature. I also regard the fact that if customers elected to make purchases from the Premises in preference to the Existing Bottle Shops (which do have particularly suitable parking), this would contribute to increased order and safety in the area.
4. Accordingly, having reviewed the evidence again on remitter, I am satisfied that the grant of a packaged liquor licence for the Premises will not negatively impact the amenity of the area.

Inadequate arrangements for deliveries and customer collections

1. At the first instance hearing, the Second and Third Respondents submitted that had the Applicant, by applying for complying development, been able to side-step the development consent requirements, that would have ensured adequate planning was in place for the use of Peaker Lane. They submitted, based on Mr Coady's report, that Peaker Lane will be blocked by vehicles delivering goods to the proposed store and by customer vehicles receiving orders. This, they said, would increase the risk of vehicle accidents and pedestrian/vehicle accidents - an obvious disbenefit. That criticism was further based on the submission that the Plan of Management dated November 2021, submitted by the Applicant to the Authority, which they considered to be inadequate as to how customer collections and deliveries will be managed.
2. Peaker Lane, which was created more than one hundred years ago, is a narrow service lane. It was evident that vehicles entering Peaker Lane, for whatever reason, would block the lane while they are present. I prefer Mr Reisch's evidence concerning the use and the continued use of Peaker Lane by each of the nine store holders whose shops back onto that lane.
3. On remitter, as at first instance, there is, in my view, sufficient evidence to conclude that the site is an inconvenient one, but that situation is unchanged from the original use of the shop as a greengrocer. Consequently, I do not consider that the Applicant has made inadequate arrangements for deliveries with regard to the nature of the stock to be sold at the store (being non-perishable and capable of being containerised or palletised), which will facilitate orderly deliveries in any event.
4. At the conclusion of the first hearing, it remained unclear the extent to which customer collections at the rear of the store would be practical. To that end, the Applicant offered to have imposed on it a condition that customer collections were not to occur in Peaker Lane. This was a sensible condition, and I will require the formulation of appropriate orders to give effect to it. The inclusion of such a condition, in my view, eliminates the potential for negative impacts in that regard.

1. The statutory test requires that I assess the overall social impact of the licence. I have set out above the various benefits and disbenefits, or the positive and negative effects of the licence on the community, based on the evidence before me. Having regard to the evidence set out above and my findings, I am satisfied that the grant of a packaged liquor licence to the Applicant will not, on balance and having regard to the totality of the evidence set out above, be detrimental to the overall well-being of the local or broader community of Woollahra.
2. Accordingly, I make the following orders:

(1) The decision of the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority to decline to grant a packaged liquor licence to Ice Box Liquor Pty Ltd in respect of premises at 136 Queen Street, Woollahra, in New South Wales is set aside.

(2) I remit that matter to the Authority to allow a packaged liquor licence to be issued to Ice Box Liquor Pty Ltd subject to all conditions specified in its application in respect of premises at 136 Queen Street, Woollahra, New South Wales, and subject to the further conditions that customer collections will not be allowed to occur in Peaker Lane and that the Applicant will not make trolleys available for customers in its store.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.