Kim Macdonald: Waikiki Tavern’s win over two complaints proves that WA is still the Wait Awhile State

The Waikiki Tavern saga sums up WA in all its frustrating glory, highlighting many of the good and bad features of our fair State. It explains why we joke that WA is an acronym for Wait Awhile, and points to our nanny state bureaucracy, our sense of civic duty and the public resistance to new developments. It also exposes the hypocrisy of our system — that two complaints risked killing a planned pub but thousands won’t stop the Burswood street circuit — and highlights the public backlash when you come between a West Aussie and a beer. No wonder one online reader wryly commented: “Aaah Perth, you’ve still got it.” For those not familiar with the saga, it goes like this: A publican and developer won planning approval to build a $12 million mixed-use development on Safety Bay Rd at the site of the former Waikiki Hotel, which has been a dustbowl since the early to mid 2000s. The local council had expressly asked for a pub on site, to replace the one that had operated for more than five decades. In January this year the publican got a conditional liquor licence, which was set to go live once construction was complete. But the licence was put on ice the following month when two people who lived 175 metres away complained it was not in the public interest. The publican then threatened to pull out of the project rather than risk building a pub with no beer. Most of this saga involves people exercising their rights. The only problem here is with the Liquor Commission’s tardy decision-making. The commission claims it did not revoke the licence, but had only put it under review to consider whether it should be allowed. But legal experts confirm that it is highly unlikely — though technically feasible — that a venue can serve alcohol when a liquor licence is under review anyway. Regardless of the semantics, the developer and publican were fearful the final decision would go against them, so they put building trades on hold and lawyered up, all while continuing to pay holding costs for the site. Having read the Liquor Commission’s decision, and the factors that were considered, it defies belief that it took nine months to make the decision. After all, they were not waiting on a complex report into the environmental impact of the project. It’s not as if they had to wait for spring to assess the impact on local flora. It’s not like they were beholden to the laggards of the public service — Western Power — to hook the site up to the mains before they being able to undertake their duty. And they did not have to juggle the many, varied and competing interests of multiple stakeholders. No, they had a clear cut case whereby two residents among 24,500 people in the locality made a complaint that the tavern was not in the public interest. The key grounds for complaint were that it would saturate what they deemed to be a low socio-economic area with alcohol and affect the good order of the neighbourhood, especially given the tavern, restaurant and function centre has a 1000 person capacity. The commission concluded this week that the conditional liquor licence should proceed, claiming the tavern would not cause public harm, and was in a mixed socio-economic community rather than a vulnerable one. It stressed the plans were for an upmarket family-friendly venue with an onsite playground and that the closest tavern was 2km away. It also noted the council had expressly called for a pub at the location, given the site’s history. For some readers, the most West Australian part of this story is that the mixed-use project involved putting a tavern and childcare centre alongside each other. But the commission said this was not an issue because there were not complaints from childcare providers, nor from any schools, churches or community groups. I must stress that the two residents who complained — who I’ve chosen not to name — had every right to do so. As frustrating as it is to see opposition to good progress, we’ve ultimately got to rejoice in having a system where residents have the right to be heard. Having read their concerns, I believe the two complainants were motivated by civic duty rather their personal circumstances. It is the Liquor Commission — which is not subject to any deadlines — which must take the blame on this one, given their tardy decision-making. Kim Macdonald is the property editor