Canning Bridge Pavilion - 4 The Esplanade, Mount Pleasant WA - Application for a tavern restricted licence Section 38 Submissions Public Interest ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
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 22 nd 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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
51.7% 32.5%
Professionals and Managers
Occupation
Page 15 of 50The 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
$2,519 $1,910
Family
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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50The 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 50You can also read
