Canning Bridge Pavilion 4 The Esplanade, Mount Pleasant WA
Application for a tavern restricted licence
Section 38 Submissions Public Interest Assessment
January 2021
COPYRIGHT © Canford Hospitality Consultants Pty Ltd 2020 Copyright in this document is the property of Canford Hospitality Consultants Pty Ltd. This document may not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the specific prior written consent of Canford Hospitality Consultants Pty Ltd. Canford Hospitality Consultants Pty Ltd may seek both injunctive relief restraining the unauthorised use of this document (or any part thereof) and an accounting for profits action against any person or entity who so copies or reproduces this document (or any part thereof) without said prior written consent.
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 3
2. The Locality ...... 7
3. Demographics of the locality ...... 14
4. Outlet Density Information ...... 18
5. Proposed Style of Operation ...... 21
6. Local Government Authority and State Government Consultation ...... 25
7. Background and Experience of the applicant ...... 26
8. Risk Assessment with respect to the Harm and Ill Health ...... 29
9. A report on the Tourism Impact of the Proposed Premises ...... 34
10. A report on the amenity of the locality ...... 35
11. Offence, Annoyance, Disturbance or Inconvenience - Section 38(4)(c) ...... 37
12. Section 5(1)(a) of the Liquor Control Act (1998) ...... 39
13. Section 5(1)(b) of the Liquor Control Act (1998) ...... 40
14. Section 5(1)(c) of the Liquor Control Act (1988) ...... 43
15. Objective Witness Support ...... 45
16. Conclusion ...... 47
Attachments ...... 48
Page 2 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
1. Introduction
1.1. GPRWA Pty Ltd will be applying to the licensing authority for the grant of a tavern restricted licence for premises located at 4 The Esplanade, Mount Pleasant. 1.2. The proposed name of the premises is Canning Bridge Pavilion. 1.3. The proposed site is where Rowing WA (the State’s rowing association) has its offices, and is directly next to the Swan River Rowing Club. 1.4. These submissions are designed to address the public interest requirements as set out in Section 38 of the Liquor Control Act 1988. 1.5. These submissions have been drafted by Canford Hospitality Consultants Pty Ltd in consultation with Evan Hewitt and Nicolas Strachan, directors of the applicant company, and references to the applicant or the applicant’s opinion relate to Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Strachan. 1.6. Section 38(2) of the Act sets out the matters to be taken into account by the Licensing Authority in deciding whether or not to grant a liquor licence. Specifically, it states: 1.6.1. “An applicant who makes an application to which this subsection applies must satisfy the licensing authority that granting the application is in the public interest” 1.7. Further Section 38(4) sets out the matters to which the Licensing Authority may have regard, as follows; 1.7.1. “The harm or ill health that might be caused to people, or any group of people, due to the use of liquor; and 1.7.2. The impact on the amenity of the locality in which the licensed premises, or proposed licensed premises are, or are to be, situated; and
Page 3 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
1.7.3. Whether offence, annoyance, disturbance or inconvenience might be caused to people who reside or work in the vicinity of the licensed premises or proposed licensed premises; and 1.7.4. Any other prescribed matter”. 1.8. The objects of the Act are expressed at s.5 of the Act, which states that the primary objects of the Act are – 1.8.1. “To regulate the sale, supply and consumption of liquor; and 1.8.2. To minimise harm or ill-health caused to people, or any group of people, due to the use of liquor, and 1.8.3. To cater for the requirements of consumers for liquor and related services, with regard to the proper development of the liquor industry, the tourism industry and other hospitality industries in the State.” 1.9. The objects of the Act are contained in section 5, which states the primary objects of the Act are (section 5(1)) – 1.9.1. “to regulate the sale, supply and consumption of liquor; and 1.9.2. to minimise harm or ill-health caused to people, or any group of people, due to the use of liquor, and 1.9.3. to cater for the requirements of consumers for liquor and related services, with regard to the proper development of the liquor industry, the tourism industry and other hospitality industries in the State”. 1.10. Section 5(2) of the Act also includes the following Secondary Objects; 1.10.1. “To facilitate the use and development of licensed facilities, including their use and development for the performance of live original music, reflecting the diversity of the requirements of consumers in the State; and 1.10.2. To provide adequate controls over, and over the persons directly or indirectly involved in, the sale, disposal and consumption of liquor; and 1.10.3. To provide a flexible system, with as little formality or technicality as may be practicable, for the administration of this Act, and 1.10.4. To encourage responsible attitudes and practices towards the promotion, sale, supply, service and consumption of liquor that are consistent with the interests of the community.” 1.11. Further Section 5(3) states “If, in carrying out any function under this Act, the licensing authority considers that there is any inconsistency between the primary objects referred to in subsection (1) and the secondary objects referred to in subsection (2), the primary objects take precedence”. 1.12. In the Aldi South Fremantle decision (refusing an application for a conditional grant of a liquor store licence), dated 22nd March 2019, at paragraph 26, the Director said (attachment CBP01); Page 4 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
1.12.1. “None of the primary objects of the Act take precedence over each other, however, where conflict arises in promoting the objects of the Act, the licensing authority must weigh and balance the competing interests in each case11 and it is a matter for the licensing authority to decide what weight to give to the competing interests and other relevant considerations”.12 1.13. The footnote references at 11 and 12 from the above decision relate to the following; 1.13.1. Footnote 11 - Executive Director of Health v Lily Creek International Pty Ltd & Ors [2000] WASCA 258 (attachment CBP02). 1.13.2. Footnote 12 - Hermal Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing [2001] WASC 356 (attachment CBP03). 1.14. The Director General provides advice to applicants for a liquor licence on the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor website ((https://www.rgl.wa.gov.au/liquor/liquor-news/liquor-news- archive/note-from-director-general). The advice note is called ‘A note from the Director General on Applying for a Liquor Licence’ and in it the Director made the following comments; 1.14.1. “The public interest, as ascertained from the scope of purpose of the Act, involves catering for the requirements of consumers of liquor and to have liquor outlets consistent with good order and proprietary in relation to the distribution and consumption of liquor.” 1.14.2. “The proliferation of liquor outlets is not in the public interest. To increase the number of licensed premises without any real and demonstrable consumer requirement, would represent proliferation without justification.” 1.14.3. “The licensing authority must also weigh and balance the requirements of consumers against the object of minimising harm or ill-health caused to people, or any group of people due to the use of liquor.” 1.14.4. “For an applicant to discharge its onus under section 38(2), it must address both positive and negative impacts that the grant of the application will have on the local community.” 1.14.5. “This means applicants must adduce sufficient evidence to demonstrate the positive aspects of their application, including that the proposed licence will cater for the requirements for consumers for liquor and related services. The Liquor Commission has determined that failing to do this means “...the granting of licences under the Act would become arbitrary and not in accordance with the objects of the Act.” (LC 32/2010:Element WA Pty Ltd)”.
1.15. In a media release by the Premier’s office “Cheers to WA: Everyone’s a winner under State’s new liquor laws” dated 14th August 2018, Minister
Page 5 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
Paul Papalia pertaining to the Liquor Control Act Amendment Bill 2018, stated; 1.15.1. “The passing of this legislation represents the most significant liquor reforms for the State in over a decade and delivers on our Government's plan for jobs by supporting opportunities for business growth and driving visitation to our wonderful State”. 1.15.2. “By cutting red tape we are supporting exciting local businesses, creating more jobs and moving towards a tourism-friendly hospitality industry”. 1.16. The licensing authority regulates the sale, and supply of alcohol. It seeks to strike a balance between catering for the requirements for liquor and liquor related services whilst minimising the potential for harm and ill- health to the community through the abuse of alcohol. So, the framework exists for the granting of new liquor licences in appropriate circumstances. 1.17. Through these submissions, the applicant will demonstrate how this proposed tavern restricted licence will properly and responsibly cater to the diverse consumer requirements for alcohol and related services for the regular visitors and locals expected to visit the new Canning Bridge Pavilion.
Page 6 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
2. The Locality 2.1. This section will consider; 2.1.1. The physical location of the subject premises, 2.1.2. The presence of natural or human made boundaries that define the locality 2.1.3. The perception of the local community and/or key advisers relevant to that community. 2.1.4. The appropriate locality definition for the demographic study, and 2.1.5. The appropriate locality definition for the outlet density study. 2.2. In defining the “locality” affected by the application, guidance has been provided by the Director’s policy “Public Interest Assessment”. The policy states; 2.2.1. “As part of a PIA submission, applicants are required to provide details regarding the community in the vicinity of the proposed licensed premises and any amenity issues in the locality. 2.2.2. The term “locality” in this instance refers to the area surrounding the proposed licensed premises. This locality will be the area most likely to be affected by the granting of an application in relation to amenity issues. 2.2.3. However, in terms of potential harm or ill-health impacts on the community an applicant may need to consider a wider geographical area depending on the intended nature of the business”. 2.3. With the knowledge of the above information, this section will then consider the following with regard to the locality; 2.3.1. The physical location of the subject premises, 2.3.2. The presence of natural or human made boundaries that define the locality 2.3.3. The perception of the local community and/or key advisers relevant to that community. 2.3.4. The appropriate locality definition for the demographic study, and 2.3.5. The appropriate locality definition for the outlet density study.
Page 7 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
2.4. The physical situation of the subject premises; 2.4.1. As stated in paragraph 1.1 above, the proposed tavern is located at 4 The Esplanade in Mount Pleasant. The premises is currently occupied by Rowing WA (RWA). 2.4.2. It is currently run as a boatshed, RWA offices and a function room. The building has three floors. 2.4.2.1. The ground floor has boatsheds that are occupied by John XXIII, Perth Rowing Club and Murdoch Uni Boat Club. 2.4.2.2. The first floor is a function room which has been open for general hire for a period of 5+ years. This is where the subject premises will be located. 2.4.2.3. The second floor houses the Rowing WA offices. 2.4.3. According to the Halls for Hire Function and Events page (https://www.hallsforhire.com.au/halls/swan-river-rowing-club); 2.4.3.1. “Steeped in history and originally built as the headquarters of rowing for the 1962 British & Empire Commonwealth Games, the building situated at 4 The Esplanade, Mt Pleasant is now home to Rowing WA, the governing body of rowing for Western Australia.
Page 8 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
2.4.3.2. Located on the foreshore of the picturesque Canning River with unsurpassed views, the function room on the first floor can accommodate a variety of events…”
Subject Premises
2.4.4. Shown above is a satellite photo sourced from www.maps.au.nearmap.com. This photo shows the location of the proposed Canning Bridge Pavilion on The Esplanade. 2.4.5. Below is a roadmap image of nearby public transport options.
Bus Stop
Subject Premises
Bus Stop
Train Stop Bus Stop Bus Stop
Bus Stop Bus Stop
Page 9 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
2.4.6. In can be seen from the image above, that the proposed venue is in close proximity to 6 bus stops and the main Canning Bridge train station. 2.4.7. The majority of public transport available within short walking distance for patrons of the proposed venue will take them to a central location, like Elizabeth Quay bus station/ Perth bus port, our out to Fremantle bus/train station. 2.5. The presence of natural or human made boundaries that define the locality; 2.5.1. The subject premises are housed within the RWA building on the banks of the river. The building itself forms a natural barrier to anything on the shore side of it, as all openings face over the river towards the Kwinana Freeway. 2.5.2. With access right off The Esplanade, and a parking lot directly next to the venue, the proposed Canning Bridge Pavilion is very accessible. 2.5.3. Canning River takes up a decent proportion of the locality needing to be considered for this application, and it cuts the number of residents needing to be considered immediately surrounding the premises roughly in half. 2.6. The perception of the local community and/or key advisers relevant to that community. 2.6.1. The subject premises is located in an area of interest for the City of Melville. There has been substantial growth in the local population, with several apartment towers opening in recent times. 2.6.2. The Council also recognises the attraction of the river to the local population. 2.6.3. This has lead to Council support for this proposal. 2.7. As further and better described in the Objective Evidence Section later in these submissions, the applicant took the time to distribute an Intended Manner of Trade document and a questionnaire to a representative selection of customers who live, work and / or visit the locality (See attachments CBP04 & CBP05). The completed questionnaires are attached to these submissions (See attachment CBP08). 2.8. The applicant will now consider the appropriate locality for the demographic study. 2.9. In this document, the locality definition for Mount Pleasant, the suburb in which the proposed venue will be, is set as 2km radius from the subject premises. 2.10. Shown below is a satellite photo sourced from www.maps.au.nearmap.com. This photo shows the location of the proposed Canning Bridge Pavilion on The Esplanade in Mount Pleasant. A blue circle has been added to indicate a 2km radius of the subject premises.
Page 10 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
Subject Premises
2.11. The Director’s public interest assessment policy states that applicants will need to provide “outlet density information that includes : - if the applicant intends to sell packaged liquor, the location of all existing licensed premises within the locality; - if the applicant does not intend to sell packaged liquor, the location of all existing licensed premises within 500 metres - nature of services provided by the other licensed premises; and - the level of access to, and diversity of the services.” 2.12. The applicant estimates that all or some parts of the following suburbs fall within the 2km locality; 2.12.1. Como 2.12.2. Salter Point 2.12.3. Ardross 2.12.4. Manning 2.12.5. Mount Pleasant 2.12.6. Applecross
Page 11 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
2.13. For the purposes of the demographic study, the applicant will not include data from Manning and Salter Point. Therefore the following suburbs will be used as a representation of the locality for the purposes of the demographic study in these submission; 2.13.1. Como; 2.13.2. Ardross; 2.13.3. Mount Pleasant; and 2.13.4. Applecross 2.14. The following map, as taken from the Nearmaps website (https://www.nearmap.com/au/en), shows each suburbs coverage, as well as the amount that each suburb exists within our locality;
Como
Applecross Manning
Salter Point Mount Pleasant
Ardross
2.15. Section 3 of these submissions will consider the demographics of the locality in more definitive detail. 2.16. The applicant will now consider the appropriate locality for the outlet density study.
Page 12 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
2.17. As required by the Director’s policy on Public Interest Assessments, last amended on 11th January 2017, for the purposes of the outlet density study in these submissions the applicant will consider the location of all existing licensed premises within 500 metres. The policy states: 2.17.1. “Applicants will also need to provide: outlet density information that includes: If the applicant does not intend to sell packaged liquor, the location of all existing licensed premises within 500 metres”. 2.18. Section 4 of these submissions will address the outlet density in more detail.
500m Radius
Page 13 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
3. Demographics of the locality 3.1. The Director’s policy document on Public Interest Assessments, last amended 31st August 2015 states “In regard to ‘at risk’ groups and sub- communities, these have been identified under the Drug and Alcohol Interagency Framework for Western Australia 2011-2015 and may include: 3.2. The potential impact of this proposed licence on the community within the specified locality is something that any applicant must consider and is considered here by this applicant. 3.3. In “The Western Australian Alcohol and Drug Interagency Strategy 2018- 2022” the priority groups of concern are as follows; 3.3.1. Aboriginal people and communities. 3.3.2. Children and young people. 3.3.3. People with co-occurring problems 3.3.4. People in rural and remote areas including fly-in, fly-out and drive-in, drive-out workers; 3.3.5. Families, including alcohol and other drug using parents and significant others; 3.3.6. Those interacting with the justice and corrections systems. 3.3.7. Other target groups of concern include: 3.3.7.1. Older adults: 3.3.7.2. Culturally and linguistically diverse communities, 3.3.7.3. People identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex; and 3.3.7.4. Homeless people. 3.4. The applicant will consider all ten groups above for which data is readily available. The following groups were unable to be considered however, as data is not available for them; 3.4.1. people with co-occurring problems; 3.4.2. People in rural and remote areas including fly-in, fly-out and drive-in, drive-out workers; 3.4.3. Families, including alcohol and other drug using parents and significant others (see paragraphs 3.5 & 3.6 below); 3.4.4. Those interacting with the justice and corrections systems; 3.4.5. Culturally and linguistically diverse communities, people identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex; and 3.4.6. Homeless people. 3.5. Clarification has previously been sought from the Drug and Alcohol Office regarding the definition of the term “family”. 3.6. The Drug and Alcohol Office replied that “a specific definition of family is not provided in the Strategy document. There are a number of reasons for this, including: Page 14 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
3.6.1. “Recognition of the cultural diversity in Western Australia and that the definition of family can be different for different cultures. 3.6.2. Recognition that the impact of an individual’s drug and alcohol use is not always confined to a household or what has in the past been defined as the ‘immediate family’ – it can impact more broadly on family members who are external to a household. For example, Grandparents, Aunts and Uncles are commonly reported to be impacted upon. 3.6.3. Recognition that not all families are biologically related but can still be impacted on by a person’s drug or alcohol use – for example step children/guardians.” 3.7. With such a broad definition, it is impossible for the applicant to identify or quantify this priority population group in the locality. 3.8. For the purpose of this demographic study, the applicant has selected relevant Census topics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) website (www.abs.gov.au) to provide an indication of the prevalence of each of the priority population groups within the locality and compared them with the same information for the State (Western Australia). 3.9. For the purposes of the demographic study, the applicant will be considering the 2016 census data relating to the above-mentioned suburbs specified in paragraph 2.13, creating a ‘Locality average’. 3.10. The selected ABS 2016 Census data is shown in the table below. ABS Census 2016 Locality Western average Australia Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People 0.5% 3.1% Age Median age 41 36 Age
Persons aged 15-19 years 6.1% 6.1% Country of birth
Australia 57.7% 60.3% Language
English only spoken at home 73.5% 75.2% Labour force
Unemployed 6.4% 7.8% Occupation Professionals and Managers 51.7% 32.5% Occupation
Page 15 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
Technicians, Labourers and Machinery Operators and 15.5% 39.7% Drivers Occupation 5.6% 6.2% Mining Median weekly incomes Family $2,519 $1,910 Family composition
Couple family without children 41.8% 38.5%
Couple family with children 43.7% 45.3%
One parent family 11.8% 14.5% Tenure type
Owned outright 39.3% 30.2%
Rented 28.3% 20.9% Tenure type
State housing 1.0% 3.5% Household income More than $3000 gross weekly income 32.4% 19.2% Rent weekly payments
Median rent $436 $347 Rent weekly payments Households where rent payments are less than 30% of household income 90.9% 90.3% Mortgage monthly repayments
Households were mortgage repayments are less than 30% of household income 93.7% 91.4% 3.11. The purpose of considering the demographic data for the locality is to establish whether the priority population groups identified in paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 above are over or underrepresented in the locality. 3.12. Aboriginal people and communities;
Page 16 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
3.13. The table above indicates that in 2016 the average percentage of aboriginal people in the locality was much lower at 0.5%, compared with the figure for the State at 3.1%; 3.13.1. Conclusion – This priority group is underrepresented in the locality. 3.14. Children and young people; 3.14.1. The average figure for persons aged between 15 and 19 years in the locality was similar to the State figure at 6.1%. 3.14.2. Conclusion – This group is underrepresented in the locality. 3.15. People from rural and remote communities; 3.15.1. The locality is not in a regional, rural or remote area. 3.16. When comparing the socio-economic data in the 2016 Census for the locality to the figures for WA as a whole; 3.16.1. Unemployment is lower. 3.16.2. Family income is much higher. 3.16.3. There are low levels of rent stress in the locality. 3.16.4. There was below average data for mortgage stress. 3.16.5. The average percentage of professionals and managers in the locality was much higher at 51.7%, compared to the WA figure of 32.5%. The technicians, labourers and machinery operators’ average figure in the locality was much lower at 15.5% than the State figure at 33.4%. 3.16.6. There are fewer people in rented accommodation. 3.16.7. The average number of people in State housing is very low. 3.16.8. Rental rates were much higher than the State figure. 3.16.9. The high proportion of families with no children; 3.16.10. The ‘One Parent family’ average figure in the locality was much lower than the State figure. 3.17. Conclusion – The socio-economic environment in the locality is very strong, and the population appears to be relatively affluent and stable. 3.18. This is a stable locality with a below average representation of the priority groups identified in paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 above.
Page 17 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
4. Outlet Density Information 4.1. According to the policy document “Public Interest Assessment”, the applicant is required to consider licensed premises, which may trade in a manner similar to what is proposed, within 500 metres of the planned premises. 4.2. In September 2020, the applicant searched the website of the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor, for existing liquor licences within 500m of the proposed premises. 4.3. The applicant then; 4.3.1. Considered all the relevant suburbs outlined in paragraph 2.12; 4.3.2. Restricted their search to premises within 500m of the subject premises; and 4.3.3. Eliminated any premises which may not trade in a manner similar to a tavern. 4.4. This resulted in the following list of premises which may trade in a manner similar to a tavern which are situated within 500m.
Map Rgl Licence No. Licence Premises Premises no. Type Name Address 1 6020002188 Liquor - Raffles Kintail Road, Tavern Hotel Applecross 2 638209307016 Liquor – The Tenancy G4 & Tavern Mount G5, “The Restricted Bar & Precinct – Bistro Mount Pleasant”, 893 Canning Highway, Mount Pleasant
3 6020016840 Liquor – Clancy’s 903 Canning Tavern Fish Pub Highway, – Canning Bridge Canning Applecross Bridge
Page 18 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
Subject Premises
4.5. As part of these submissions, the applicant created a witness questionnaire (attachment CBP05) to gather objective evidence to assist the Director. 4.6. An intended manner of trade document (attachment CBP04) was made available to potential witnesses and the survey was then advertised online via Survey Monkey. 4.7. Please note – the trading name on the Witness Questionnaire has since changed. The advertised trading name on the questionnaire is ‘The Rowing Pavilion’, however the updated trading name being put forward in this application is ‘Canning Bridge Pavilion’. 4.8. When witnesses were asked what they say about the licensed premises currently available in Mount Pleasant, the following responses were received; 4.8.1. Lee Sprunt of Booragoon said, “Nothing on the river apart from Dome which is a café and not open at night”; Page 19 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
4.8.2. Kristy Craker of Attadale said, “OK - this is a great location”; 4.8.3. Sue Mason of Applecross said, “The two available are pubs. Would be nice to have something different”. 4.8.4. Rob Firth said, “Really good but not enough choices”; 4.8.5. Nat Sherlock of Mount Pleasant said, “All good, but more choice will get me out more often”;
Page 20 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
5. Proposed Style of Operation 5.1. Should this tavern restricted licence be approved by the licensing authority, it will authorise the applicant to sell and supply liquor for consumption on the premises only. 5.2. The applicant aims to target a wide variety of clientele, including local families, rowers, professional people and visitors to Canning Bridge and the river. 5.3. The site is currently hired out for functions and events by RWA. The venue will undergo a substantial renovation and upgrade at a cost around $1,500,000, inclusive of;
5.3.1. A large purpose-built hospitality premises; 5.3.2. Kitchen equipment; 5.3.3. Grease trap; and 5.3.4. Exhaust hood. 5.4. The décor and the fit out of the already existing General Public food venues in both Inglewood and Scarborough have been designed with a modern wooden and industrial inspired look, providing outdoor dining options and a ‘hole-in-the-wall’ coffee spot, which has become very popular with customers in those two existing locations.
5.5. The subject premises which will house Canning Bridge Pavilion will undergo extensive refurbishment. Below are images of the other General Public Food Co. venues run by the applicant. These images evidence the quality and style of the fit out that can be expected at Canning Bridge Pavilion. Attachment CBP10 gives a visual representation of the planned refurbishments.
General Public Scarborough
Page 21 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
General Public Inglewood
5.6. The applicant envisages that entertainment will be in the form of low-key, pre-recorded music played through a central sound system, with occasional live bands for special occasions only.
5.7. If this application is approved, what will be created is a single venue promoting responsible drinking practices, food and friendly atmosphere.
Page 22 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
5.8. The applicant intends to open the premises for the following hours;
5.8.1. Monday 6am till 10pm
5.8.2. Tuesday 6am till 10pm
5.8.3. Wednesday 6am till 10pm
5.8.4. Thursday 6am till 10:30pm
5.8.5. Friday 6am till 12am
5.8.6. Saturday 6am till 12am
5.8.7. Sunday 6am till 10pm
5.9. The standard trading hours for a tavern as laid out in Section 98 of the Act are nonetheless being applied for here, to allow for flexibility of operation.
5.10. The size of the venue is 485m2 approximately, which will be divided into the following:
5.10.1. Front of House restaurant area (165m2 approximately);
5.10.2. Restaurant - Terrace area (225m2 approximately); and
5.10.3. Back of House Kitchen (95m2 approximately);
5.11. The balance of the floor area is occupied by store rooms and toilets.
Page 23 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
5.12. As required by the Liquor Control Act, Canning Bridge Pavilion will have at least one approved manager on duty at all times the premises are open for trade and all staff will all be trained in the responsible service of alcohol.
Page 24 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
6. Local Government Authority and State Government Consultation
6.1. The applicant has met with and consulted with several Government agencies including;
6.1.1. The City of Melville
6.1.2. The Rivers and Estuaries Branch of the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions
6.2. Appropriate change of use applications and planning applications have been lodged, and, at the time of writing these submissions a draft approval has been issued, and the final approval is awaiting Minister sign off.
6.3. Some of the issues dealt with in detail include;
6.3.1. Planning goals for the site and the locality more broadly,
6.3.2. Traffic,
6.3.3. Car parking,
6.3.4. Public transport options.
Page 25 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
7. Background and Experience of the applicant
7.1. Evan Hewitt, Nic Strachan and Mark Pearn are the directors of the applicant company for this project. Below is some information relating to each of them individually, as well as the work they’ve done under the General Public banner.
7.2. Evan Hewitt;
7.2.1. Evan has been in the food and beverage industry for over 16 years. Most recently Evan was the franchisee of three (3) Grill’d restaurants for the last 8 years.
7.2.2. His first Grill’d restaurant was Grill’d Mt Lawley, being the inaugural restaurant in WA.
7.2.3. He has successfully managed the three restaurants with a turnover of more than $8m a year and over a hundred staff.
7.2.4. Evan will be responsible for the day to day operations of Canning Bridge Pavilion, and will be hands on in rostering, cleaning, customer service, recruitment, training and development of the management team and team members.
7.2.5. He will also be responsible for all financial requirements for Canning Bridge Pavilion, including wages, monthly P&L reporting, BAS and tax requirements.
7.3. Nic Strachan;
7.3.1. Nick spent several years in management throughout some of Melbourne’s dining hot spots before moving to Perth.
7.3.2. He was a successful franchisee with Grill’d – opening the Fremantle restaurant and owning it for 5 years.
7.3.3. He came on as a partner at General Public in Nov. 2019.
7.4. Mark Pearn;
7.4.1. Marks experience within the hospitality industry spans 15 years, from Area manager roles, to daily operations and financial management positions.
7.4.2. Mark is currently working as an Area Manager for Grill’d – managing a 600-member team across twenty restaurants.
7.4.3. To add to his profile, he has also spent time in charge of the hospitality operations at Little Creatures in Fremantle, being responsible for business outcomes and safety of people and staff.
7.4.4. Mark is also a group operations manager for Lion Hospitality global, one of the most recognisable food and beverage groups throughout Page 26 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
Australasia. His position there was given after a year within their ranks in Lion Perth and Little Creatures.
7.5. The General Public brand;
7.5.1. The General Public brand was conceived in January 2018 and the concept for the Rowing WA redevelopment will be derived from this brand direction.
7.5.2. From the growing demands in the local community hospitality industry, we saw an opportunity. We really want to help support, grow and be a part the industry.
7.5.3. Perth’s continued appreciation for quality dining experiences with a consciousness of the source and quality of ingredients was the key driver in launching this brand.
7.5.4. Having young families that embrace local community involvement, including local school and sporting organisations, we are very excited about bringing quality and experience to the suburbs that this Mt Pleasant site presents.
7.5.5. The General Public concept will deliver a new age dining experience that will showcase modern design, artisan sourdough pizzas and craft beverages to the local community. It will combine quality, value and convenience.
7.5.6. General Public’s aim is to position itself as a friendly non- discriminatory community venue that caters for families, teenagers, couples and grand parents alike. The menu, atmosphere and offerings will cater for everyone and totally immerse itself in the local community.
Page 27 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
7.6. If this application is approved, this will become the third venue to be run by the applicant under the General Public Food Co. brand. General Public have been operating for just under 4 years now.
7.7. In this time, the applicant has acquired a small bar licence for the Scarborough venue, and a restaurant licence for the Inglewood venue. Underneath the General Public banner, the applicant has, over time, continued to be responsible licensees, with the opening of the Inglewood store this year proving their capabilities in successfully managing and running multiple licensed venues.
7.8. It would stand to reason then, that the opening of a third venue comes off of the back of a sturdy platform, as it will be operating under the banner of a well-known and successful brand.
Page 28 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
8. Risk Assessment with respect to the Harm and Ill Health 8.1. Section 38(4)(a) of the Liquor Control Act (1988) asks the applicant to consider “the harm or ill-health that might be caused to people, or any group of people, due to the use of liquor”. 8.2. The demographics of the locality have been discussed in some detail in section 3 of these submissions and have shown that the premises is situated in a stable locality with a below average representation of most of the priority groups identified in paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 above. 8.3. However, the applicant has considered the demographics very carefully and has devised harm minimisation strategies to mitigate the potential for harm. 8.4. In order to assess the risk, the applicant will consider the type and style of licensed premises proposed, and the potential impact that it could have on the local population, and others who resort to the locality. 8.5. It will also factor in the conclusions, from the demographic study conducted earlier in these submissions, in respect of the prevalence of the priority population groups. 8.6. Witnesses were asked if there were any people or groups of people in the locality who they believed would be at risk of undue harm as a result of the granting of this liquor licence application. In total, 92% of respondents believe there would be no risk. To add further detail, the following comments were stated by those who completed the survey;
8.6.1. Stewart Dyson of Booragoon said, “Definitely not. This could only enhance the area giving people another opportunity to visit another venue”;
8.6.2. Lee Sprunt of Booragoon said, “No – it is near Canning Highway and shops anyway”;
8.6.3. Royce Surman of Mount Pleasant said, “No I do not. How would people enjoying food and drink and a view lessen anything?”
8.6.4. Jessica Wondolowski of Mount Pleasant said, “Not at all”; 8.7. To further investigate harm and ill health within the locality, the applicant sought to investigate the incidence of alcohol related offences within the City of Canning and other selected suburbs, as recorded by the WA police. 8.8. However, no statistics were available on the WA Police website in relation to alcohol related crime for any suburb in WA. 8.9. The WA Police have made it clear they do not provide applicants with data on alcohol related offenses in any locality. This clearly hampers any assessment of the potential impact a licensed premises will have on the locality where it is situated. 8.10. Consequently, the applicant has considered crime statistics for Mount Pleasant and Applecross, the two suburbs that surround the proposed venue. In 2019, see below. Page 29 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
*YTD 2019-20 *YTD 2019-20 Type of Offence Mount Pleasant Applecross
Homicide - -
Sexual Offences 5 6
Assault (Family) 25 26
Assault (Non-Family) 6 16
Threatening Behaviour (Family) 2 6
Threatening Behaviour (Non-Family) 2 1
Deprivation of Liberty - 1
Robbery - 6
Dwelling Burglary 65 59
Non-Dwelling Burglary 13 15
Stealing of Motor Vehicle 8 13
Stealing 122 143
Property Damage 28 26
Arson - -
Drug Offences 21 45
Graffiti 3 -
Fraud & Related Offences 34 51
Breach of Violence Restraint Order 24 11
Total of Selected Offences 358 425
Page 30 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
8.11. Mount Pleasant 8.11.1. This table indicates a total of 358 recorded offences in Mount Pleasant in 2019/20. The ABS Census 2016, the most recent population statistics indicates a population of 6,684. 8.12. Applecross 8.12.1. The table also indicates a total of 425 recorded offences in Applecross in 2019/20, with a 2016 population 6,887. 8.13. To compare the two localities to the State average, the applicant has used the following formula; 8.13.1. (No. of offences / suburb population) x 1000 = no. of offences per thousand people 8.13.2. So, for Mount Pleasant; 8.13.2.1. (358/6,684) x 1000 = 54 offences per thousand people 8.13.3. For Applecross; 8.13.3.1. (425/6,687) x 1000 = 64 offences per thousand people 8.14. By way of comparison; 8.14.1. The Perth metropolitan area in 2019 had 203,527 offences and a 2016 population of 2,085,973. 8.14.2. Western Australia in 2019 had 263,446 offences and a 2016 population of 2,474,410. 8.14.3. (https://profile.id.com.au/perth/about?WebID=230#:~:text=The%202019 %20Estimated%20Resident%20Population,of%203.25%20persons%20p er%20hectare.) 8.14.4. This equates to 98 offences per thousand population in Perth and 106 offences per thousand in WA. 8.15. Looking at the crime statistics from 2019-2020, the applicant concludes that both Mount Pleasant and Applecross show a low rate of offending when compared to Perth and Western Australia as a whole.
Mount Applecross Perth Western Pleasant Metropolitan Australia
Offences per 1,000 54 64 98 100
8.16. As stated in paragraph 3.19 above, in order to minimise the potential for undue harm or ill-health the applicant proposes the following; 8.16.1. Closed Circuit TV (CCTV) will be installed at Canning Bridge Pavilion. The applicant has provided a copy of the floor plan which shows the proposed location of the cameras (Attachment CBP06); 8.16.2. The applicant will have a detailed harm minimisation plan in place (Attachment CBP09), which will help in minimising any potential for undue harm or ill-health in the locality.
Page 31 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
8.16.3. Further, the applicant intends to create a comfortable and friendly food and beverage space, see above.
8.16.4. They intend to accomplish this through means of low-key entertainment, lots of comfortable furniture, and a family- friendly environment, with this kind of feel, see below.
Page 32 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
8.16.5. There will be no upright drinking spaces, with ample seating provided. 8.16.6. Lastly, the applicants, as shown above in section 7, are very experienced operators, having managed busy Grill’d restaurants, and now successfully running their two well-regarded and popular licensed venues. 8.16.7. Their ability to successfully run their Inglewood and Scarborough venues will flow into this new Canning Bridge venue. They will ensure that the same processes from their previous venues will be implemented here, so as to minimise any potential for undue harm or ill-health.
Page 33 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
9. A report on the Tourism Impact of the Proposed Premises 9.1. In the Second Reading Speech relating to the Liquor Control Amendment Bill 2018 the Minister said; 9.1.1. “The bill also establishes a mechanism that will allow the Chief Executive Officer of Tourism Western Australia to introduce evidence or make representations regarding the tourism benefits of an application or other matters relevant to the proper development of the tourism industry. The amendments will give tourism a greater opportunity to be heard during the decision making process.” 9.2. The applicant wrote to Tourism WA and A/Managing Director, Derryn Belford made the following comments in reply (Attachment CBP07) with regard to Canning Bridge Pavilion (referred to as General Pavilion at the time of requested comments); 9.2.1. ‘Visitors are interested in casual dining experiences in uniquely Australian locations… food and beverage experiences should embrace their location by incorporating the atmosphere of the surrounding area, such as a waterfront setting’. 9.2.2. ‘General Pavilion has the potential to achieve this by delivering food and beverage experiences for locals and visitors in a riverside location’ 9.2.3. ‘Tourism WA considers that the proposal for this venue will add to the vibrancy and diversity of food and beverage experiences in the area and could support the Canning Bridge Precinct Vision, complementing existing and planned investment in the area as identified by the Cities of Melville and South Perth in the Canning Bridge Activity Centre plan (CBACP). 9.2.4. ‘This has the potential to attract visitors due to these characteristics and waterfront locality and accordingly, Tourism WA is supportive of the application for a tavern restricted liquor licence for the intended premises, General Pavilion’.
Page 34 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
10. A report on the amenity of the locality 10.1. The applicant is required to consider both the positive and the negative potential impacts of these applications on the amenity of the locality. 10.2. In section 4 above it was observed that there are only three licensed venues which fall within 500m radius of Canning Bridge Pavilion (The Mount Bar & Bistro, The Raffles Hotel and Clancy’s Fish Pub) operating in a similar manner. 10.3. The applicant believes that through this proposed tavern restricted licence, Canning Bridge Pavilion will be adding continued value and amenity to the locality. As evidenced in sections 7 and 9 of these submissions;
10.3.1. The applicant aims to bring a family friendly fod and beverage environment to the locality, as its directors have successfully done in Scarborough and Inglewood.
10.3.2. They also intend to be an active part of the community, embracing the new area and displaying a willingness to be involved in local school and sporting organisations.
10.3.3. They will be bringing a new age dining experience to the area – ensuring they have something for everyone.
10.3.4. In section 9 of these submissions, Tourism WA adds further evidence to their potential impact, stating that General Public’s service offering will add to the vibrancy and diversity of food and beverage experiences in the area.
10.3.5. Going on, Tourism WA believes the applicant could support the Canning Bridge Precinct Vision, and that they will complement the existing and planned investment in the area.
10.3.6. With their service offering covering breakfast, lunch and dinner, they will be providing be providing added convenience and choice to patrons of the area. 10.4. In the survey, when asked if this application is approved in what ways they think they may positively/negatively change the locality;
10.4.1. Pamela Mitchell of Mount Pleasant said, “Positive - it will bring more visitors to the area as access can be by bus or train”;
10.4.2. Nat Sherlock of Mount Pleasant said, “Gives the locals another option, and takes the pressure off a crowded Dome”;
10.4.3. Nikki Knight of Mount Pleasant said, “Hopefully this will create a sense of community with more regular interaction amongst residents and other locals”;
10.4.4. Kristy Craker of Attadale said, “Positive by adding a family friendly place”
Page 35 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
10.5. The witness comments, the letter of support from Tourism WA and their intended style of operation, show how the proposed tavern restricted licence is expected to have a positive impact on the amenity of the locality. Witnesses and locals also welcomed the family friendly focus and the convenient location of the premises.
Page 36 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
11. Offence, Annoyance, Disturbance or Inconvenience - Section 38(4)(c) 11.1. Section 38(4)(c) of the Liquor Control Act states the licensing authority may have regard to; 11.1.1. “whether offence, annoyance, disturbance or inconvenience might be caused to people who reside or work in the vicinity of the licensed premises or proposed licensed premises”. 11.2. In the applicant’s opinion, there is very little potential for adverse impacts from this proposed venue because; 11.2.1. The venue is designed in such a way as to take full advantage of the river views and consequently faces away from the nearest sound sensitive premises. 11.2.2. It has been designed with openings facing the river only. 11.2.3. The applicant envisages that entertainment will be in the form of low-key, pre-recorded music played through a central sound system, with occasional live bands for special occasions only; and 11.2.4. The applicants are experienced licensees who take their responsibilities towards the local community very seriously and will provide an open channel for communication with locals to ensure Caning Bridge Pavilion will slip seamlessly into the local community. 11.3. The applicant also proposes the following measures: 11.3.1. Prompt and polite response to any noise complaint in respect of the operations of the venue; 11.3.2. Adherence to responsible service of liquor, and responsible consumption of liquor practices at the venue; 11.3.3. Encouraging patron awareness of the rights of neighbours and others who reside, work, recreate or otherwise resort to the locality, especially when leaving the venue, and 11.3.4. The approved manager will also ensure the last patrons leave safely and quietly. 11.4. When asked whether there is potential for annoyance, offence, disturbance or inconvenience that the granting of this licence may cause to people who live, work or visit the locality, the following comments were made;
11.4.1. Emma O’Neill of Ardross said, “Minimal to none, I have not seen any from other surrounding venues”
11.4.2. George McInerney of Mount Pleasant said, “There are (sic) already a pub nearby and I’ve not seen too much disturbance from that”;
Page 37 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
11.4.3. Nikki Knight of Mount Pleasant said, “I don’t believe by granting approval of this application it will make any difference at all. The Rowing club has held functions for years without any negative impact”;
11.4.4. Sue Mason of Applecros said, “Would be very limited”. 11.5. Further, the change of use from a function centre to a food and beverage venue will not provide any significant increase or change in disturbance to local residents, as the premises has been; 11.5.1. (1) playing host to functions and events well into the evening over the last 5 years; and 11.5.2. (2) has been frequently used by rowing clubs throughout many mornings of the week over countless years as a base of operations for club training sessions and weekend regattas. 11.6. Further, the venue will be facing away from residential properties, as all the windows, as well as the terrace, are on the river side. 11.7. Save for the front door entrance on the ground floor, there are no openings on the road side of the venue – something the applicant has purposely taken into consideration for the benefit of local residents.
Page 38 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
12. Section 5(1)(a) of the Liquor Control Act (1998) 12.1. Section 5(1)(a) states that a primary object of the Act is; 12.1.1. “To regulate the sale, supply and consumption of liquor”; 12.2. Being one of three primary objects means that it is of equal importance to the other two primary objects of the Act. 12.3. To regulate means; 12.3.1. “To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law” or 12.3.2. “To put or maintain in order” 12.4. It does not mean to restrict or to reduce. 12.5. There may be some circumstances where a restriction or a reduction is warranted, but the word “regulate” implies more flexibility than either “restrict” or “reduce”. 12.6. It is possible to “regulate” and to “increase” at the same time. 12.7. Therefore, this primary object should not, of itself, prevent this application from being granted. 12.8. It is possible to properly regulate the sale, supply and consumption of liquor and grant this application. 12.9. The 2013 review of the Liquor Control Act concluded that between 2008/09 and 2012/13 the total number of liquor licenses in WA per capita dropped. At a time of increasing population, it is quite clear that there will be increased demand for liquor and related services. Proper regulation of the industry would allow for growth in licensed premises in a responsible manner, to cater to increased demand. 12.10. If there is not a controlled growth, then more people will try to satisfy their liquor requirements in the same number of venues, leading to overcrowding and queueing, recognised sources of harm in licensed premises.
Page 39 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
13. Section 5(1)(b) of the Liquor Control Act (1998) 13.1. Section 5(1)(b) states that a primary object of the Act is; 13.1.1. “To minimise harm or ill-health caused to people, or any group of people, due to the use of liquor”; 13.2. Being one of three primary objects means that it is of equal importance to the other two primary objects of the Act. 13.3. In its decision granting a liquor store licence to Woolworths Warnbro the Liquor Commission noted; “40. The potential for harm or ill-health is a powerful public interest consideration when determining an application (refer Lily Creek supra). Consequently, it is relevant for the licensing authority to consider the level of alcohol-related harm, due to the use of liquor, which is likely to result from the grant of the application. As Wheeler J stated in Executive Director of Public Health v Lily Creek International & Ors [2001] WASCA 410: “This does not mean that only the increased harm which may result from the specific premises in question is to be considered; rather it seems to me that must necessarily be assessed against any existing harm or ill health so as to assess the overall level which is likely to result if a particular application is granted. Where, as occurs in probably the majority of cases, the existing level of alcohol related harm is no greater than that which appears to be commonly accepted in the community, the distinction is probably not significant.
41. Also, as observed by Ipp J (in Lily Creek supra) it is significant that the primary object in section 5(1)(b) is to “minimize” harm or ill-health, not to prevent harm or ill-health absolutely”.
13.4. In paragraph 46 of the Supreme Court decision in respect of the National Hotel, Fremantle, the following conclusion is found; 13.4.1. “It is not sufficient to simply reason that, where there is already a high level of harm in the particular area, even a small increment in potential or actual harm may be determinative, without making specific findings on the evidence about the level of alcohol related harm which is likely to result from the grant of the particular application.” 13.5. Paragraph 62 of the same decision reads; 13.5.1. “The appellant contends that the reasons of the Commission reveal that it considered the application was not in the public interest, but not: (a) the positive aspects of the application that were weighed; (b) how the Commission reached the conclusion there was a likelihood of increased harm and ill-health if the application was granted; or (c) the degree of increased harm or ill-health that was likely to have resulted if the application was granted.”
Page 40 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
13.6. All liquor licences have the potential to cause harm and ill health. It is a question for the licensing authority to assess whether the potential for harm in each specific application is too great, and/or outweighs the positive aspects of the application. 13.7. Therefore, in this application, the applicant is not required to show that no harm whatsoever may occur if this application is granted, only that the applicant will do all that is reasonably possible to minimise harm and ill-health that could potentially occur if this application is granted, that any potential for harm or ill-health is minimised, and is not “undue”, and that the positive aspects of the application outweigh this potential for harm. 13.8. There is a great deal of research which shows that the drinking environment can exert significant influence on patron behaviour. 13.9. Briscoe and Donnelly (2003)1 quoted Graham and West (2001)2 as finding that; 13.9.1. “The drinking setting can exert considerable influence on behaviour through expectations, physical and social characteristics of the environment, levels of intoxication allowed and the characteristics of others in the setting.” 13.10. Additionally, Briscoe and Donnelly had the following to add; 13.10.1. “Given the results of the present analysis, the issue of what factors distinguish the more from the less problematic premises becomes paramount in terms of planning effective interventions and/or enforcement practices to minimise alcohol-related harm.” 13.10.2. “We also found that several licensed premises that were hotels and have 24 hour service or extended trading, did not have repeat assaults on their premises suggesting other additional factors also contribute to the risk of violence on licensed premises” 13.10.3. “Low comfort, high boredom, aggressive bouncers, discounted drinks, poor ventilation, lack of cleanliness, a hostile atmosphere, overcrowding and inadequate numbers of bar staff” have been “associated with alcohol related harm”. Emphasis added. 13.10.4. “These predictive factors which are specific to the drinking venue offer considerable potential to reduce violence on licensed premises because they are under the control of the management and relatively easy to regulate.” 13.11. Further Ross Homel et al found that;
1 ‘Problematic Licensed Premises for Assault in Inner Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong.’ Susan Briscoe and Neil Donnelly (Available at http://anj.sagepub.com/content/36/1/18.abstract) 2 International handbook of alcohol dependence and problems. Graham, K., & West, P. Page 41 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
13.11.1. “The civilising impact of comfort is consistent with the early qualitative research conducted in Sydney... the importance of comfortable seating being available was clear.”3 13.11.2. “The type of venue, the style of drinking and the placing of seats have an impact on behaviour and potential conflicts and may be as worthy of attention as hours of operation.”4
13.12. As stated previously, the proposed premises have been designed to a very high standard and will offer high levels of comfort, and adequate space for the expected number of patrons. The applicant is an experienced operator of hospitality venues. Therefore, the risk of increased and undue harm or ill health is low. 13.12.1. Added to this, the applicant will be installing CCTV cameras all around the venue (attachment CBP06), as well as a well- developed harm minimisation plan (attachment CBP09) that they have refined and perfected from their experience running both their Scarborough and Inglewood venues.
3 ‘Making licensed venues safer for patrons: what environmental factors should be the focus of interventions?’ Ross Homel, Russel Carvolth, Marge Hauritz, Gillian Mcilwain and Rosie Teague (available at https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/82624/making.pdf) 4 ‘A continental ambience: Lessons in Managing Alcohol related Evening and Night - time Entertainment from Four European Capitals.’ Marion Roberts, Chris Turner, Steve Greenfeild and Guy Osborne ( available at http://usj.sagepub.com/content/43/7/1105.short)
Page 42 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
14. Section 5(1)(c) of the Liquor Control Act (1988) 14.1. Section 5(1)(c) states that a primary object of the Act is; 14.1.1. “To cater for the requirements of consumers for liquor and related services, with regard to the proper development of the liquor industry, the tourism industry and other hospitality industries in the State”; 14.2. As stated in the introduction this object was elevated to the status of primary object in the May 2007 changes to the Liquor Control Act (1988) “to place a higher emphasis on the needs of consumers”, as the Minister stated in the Second Reading Speech at the time. 14.3. Being a primary object means that it is of equal importance to the other two primary objects of the Act. 14.4. In other words, it is just as important for the Director to cater for the requirements of consumers as stated above, as it is to minimize the potential for harm or ill-health due to the use of liquor. 14.5. In the end it is a weighing and balancing of these equal objects which will determine whether a liquor licence should be granted or not. 14.6. In his testimony to the Education and Health Standing Committee Mr. Francis Edwards, CEO of the City of Perth had the following to say; 14.6.1. “The fact is that there is a demand in our society for precincts and venues within those precincts for the enjoyment of that adult night time entertainment.” (http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/commit.nsf/(Ev idence+Lookup+by+Com+ID)/9B7B5961960A762048257831003C12 7E/$file/educhealth20100608-LGA-f.pdf ) 14.7. In addition, when witnesses were asked after considering the intended manner of trade, if they were likely to become a customer of the Rowing Pavilion, the following was said;
14.7.1. Georgie McInerney of Mount Pleasant said, “Yes close to home and would be able to walk to – close to public transport so friends could easily meet us too”;
14.7.2. Royce Surman of Mount Pleasant said, “Yes I’m likely to become a customer as it would now be my closest local venue and I look forward to walking the dog around the bridges and stopping at the new venue for lunch”;
14.7.3. Pamela Mitchell of Mount Pleasant said, “Yes. Location is across the road from work and will be well utilised by the companies located in the area”;
14.7.4. Jessica Wondolowski of Mount Pleasant said, “Yes, need a new food option close by”;
14.7.5. Sue Mason of Applecross said, “Yes, it’s a beautiful area to visit and spend some time along the river”; Page 43 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
14.7.6. Nat Sherlock of Mount Pleasant said, “Yes, for a casual meal or coffee in the morning”;
14.7.7. Jessica Wondolowski of Mount Pleasant said, “Yes, need a new food option close by”.
Page 44 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
15. Objective Witness Support 15.1. When applying for the proposed tavern restricted licence, the applicant took the time to distribute an Intended Manner of Trade document and the witness questionnaire via SurveyMonkey (attachments CBP04 and CBP05 respectively). 15.2. As a result of the above process, 65 witness questionnaires were collected, which are attached to these submissions (Attachment CBP08). These questionnaires provide the Director with an insight into the opinions of people from the local community and other who resort to the area and may become patrons of the new venue. 15.3. The general sentiment from the answers received was one of overwhelming support, with locals expressing the community’s need for another river location to eat and drink at. 15.4. Further, support for this application came from all parts of Perth, giving rise to the idea that Canning Bridge Pavilion will not just be a local community café/restaurant, but a destination location for people looking for a quality dining option outside of their area. 15.4.1. For example, when asked whether they are likely to become a customer of the Rowing Pavilion; 15.4.1.1. Hilary Bradbury of South Fremantle said, “Yes, I have visited General Public Food Co., and if there was a venue at Mount Pleasant this would be closer to where I live meaning less travel time”; 15.4.1.2. Michael Coldham of South Perth said, “Yes as my girlfriend lives really close to there and I would love to have a meal and drink at this location”; 15.4.1.3. Matthew Hoare of Morley said, “100%, sitting out on that deck overlooking the Swan River would be something I would enjoy on the regular (sic)”; 15.4.1.4. Sean McCann of Scarborough said, “Yes. Absolutely. It’s the perfect venue for us as a family to attend regularly”; 15.4.1.5. Monique Italiano said, “Yes, I have no doubt that this will be a professionally run and managed to a high standard. I know that the clientele that this venue will attract will be an excellent mix of professional and family groups looking for a vibrant, social location that will have the exact vibe I look for in a venue when I venture out with family and friends”; 15.4.1.6. Kyle Kershaw of Morley said, “Yes I will because it will be a good spot right on the water with a great view”; 15.4.1.7. Sarah Bilbrough of Beaconsfield said, “Yes of course! What a beautiful location to catch up with friends for a drink n nibbles of take my son with other families or even for functions like birthdays etc.”;
Page 45 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
15.4.1.8. Lara Martin of Mount Claremont said, “Most definitely. These offerings are exactly the type of dining I prefer. It lends itself perfectly to sharing with friends. Providing early morning coffees for people who use the area to get active is so in need”. 15.5. The above witness evidence, in combination with the witness comments quoted throughout these submissions, it is clear to see that this venue, and this application is well received and desired by both the immediate surrounding community, and people from further afield. It is likely to become a sought after waterfront location. 15.6. When respondents were asked whether, if the application is approved, they think it may change the locality in a positive or negative way – the overwhelming majority of comments regarded the application as likely to have a positive influence on the area – with 63 of 68 respondents having positive things to say. 15.7. Further, with regard for the questions surrounding the impact of this application on amenity, quiet or good order, potential for undue harm, potential for annoyance, offence, disturbance or inconvenience, there is very little concern raised by respondents, and others welcoming the support to the community this venue would bring. 15.8. Lastly, when respondents were asked if they had any other comments regarding this application; 15.8.1. Viv Wilson of Mount Pleasant said, “I don’t think it will attract a young unruly crowd. Older people are crying out for something different in the area.”; 15.8.2. Trish Firth said, “I hope the application is approved as I feel it would be a great addition to Mt Pleasant!”; 15.8.3. Heather Timms of Kardinya said, “I look forward to the application being approved. As I said before, there is (sic) limited restaurants/eating venues along our beautiful fiver for families to enjoy. Maybe also put a small jetty out the front so people can arrive by inflatable ribs for a family day out”; 15.8.4. Stewart Dyson of Booragoon said, “I would certainly love to see another venue to visit with friends.” 15.8.5. Chris of Perth said, “I honestly think it’s a great business idea, I will be bringing my clientele for meetings here on a regular basis as well as my family.”; 15.8.6. Lara of Mount Claremont said, “I back this project 100% and think this is exactly the sort of venue people in this city yearn for”. 15.8.7. Michael Coldham of South Perth said, “To have a place with food and drink in that location would be absolutely awesome”.
Page 46 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
16. Conclusion 16.1. Clearly the evidence presented in, and with, this public interest assessment demonstrates that the applicant is experienced in the management of quality licensed premises in suburban areas of Perth, and can be trusted to manage these proposed premises capably and responsibly. 16.2. It is also clear the success of their venues, here, in Scarborough and in Inglewood, depends very much on a close relationship with the local community. 16.3. The venues provide interesting and varied menus using locally sourced quality ingredients, with a particular emphasis on their pizzas and other breads. Entertainment is not the main focus, creating a relaxed, suburban, riverside atmosphere for families is their focus. 16.4. Canning Bridge Pavilion will be equally comfortable for rowers, young mums with their babies, business executives for coffee or lunch or couples out for dinner. 16.5. It is, therefore, open for the licensing authority to conclude, on balance, the positive aspects of the application far outweigh any potential for negative impacts, thus clearing the way for an approval of this application.
Drafted on behalf of GPRWA Pty Ltd by;
Phil Cockman Canford Hospitality Consultants Pty Ltd Tuesday, 9 February 2021
Page 47 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
Attachments 1. CBP01 Aldi South Fremantle Decision 2. CBP02 ED of Health & Lily Creek Internationap Pty Ltd & Ors [2000] WASCA258 3. CBP03 Hermal Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing [2001] WASC 356 4. CBP04 Intended Manner of Trade 5. CBP05 The Rowing Pavilion survey questionnaire 6. CBP06 CCTV Floor Plan 7. CBP07 Letter of Support Tourism WA 8. CBP08 Witness Questionnaire responses 8.1. Michael Coldham 8.2. Viv Wilson 8.3. Julien mervcich 8.4. Jason Hands 8.5. Bree Liu 8.6. Craig 8.7. Pamela Mitchell 8.8. Lily 8.9. Rob Firth 8.10. Trish Firth 8.11. Sean McCann 8.12. Nat sherlock 8.13. Darren 8.14. Heather Timms 8.15. Mathew hoare 8.16. Ryan Michalczyk 8.17. Royce Surman 8.18. Stewart Dyson 8.19. Karli Budge 8.20. Margaret Martin 8.21. Respondent 21 8.22. Lee sprunt 8.23. Respondent 23 8.24. Kristy Craker 8.25. Nikki Knight 8.26. Loo See Page 48 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
8.27. Hollie 8.28. June 8.29. Georgia 8.30. Renae 8.31. Emma O’Neill 8.32. Giles 8.33. Alison 8.34. Silke peglow 8.35. Tania Lambson 8.36. Donna 8.37. Georgie McInerney 8.38. Sue Mason 8.39. Jessica wondolowski 8.40. John 8.41. Jamie Emmerson 8.42. Isaac Kennedy 8.43. Shane Pietersen 8.44. Hilary Bradbury 8.45. Kyle kershaw 8.46. Mario de boni 8.47. Victoria Heaslop 8.48. Tom 8.49. Jack Clemett 8.50. Cara 8.51. Chris 8.52. Sarah Bilbrough 8.53. Lara 8.54. Alannah Briggs 8.55. Mairi BROOKS 8.56. Scott 8.57. Kate Spencer 8.58. Lynda Armstrong 8.59. Jake Cruz 8.60. Rebecca 8.61. Neville Armstrong 8.62. Aidan Page 49 of 50
The Rowing Pavilion │Public Interest Assessment
8.63. Dan D'Vauz 8.64. Tania 8.65. Daniel Tackenberg (CEO Rowing WA – landlord) 9. CBP09 Canning Bridge Pavilion Harm Minimisation Plan 10. CBP10 Canning Bridge Pavilion workshop presentation
Page 50 of 50