I went to a community meeting at the Waterfront Restaurant earlier this week. The meeting was the result of a little Facebook ‘shirtfronting’ incident a couple of weeks ago, when Brian Stockwell invited the community to join him for a chat over a cup of coffee on the Noosa Community Board.
Brendon ‘for mayor’ Weatherill and Patrick Lloyd jumped at the opportunity. A coffee morning was arranged at the Waterfront Restaurant and I thought Brian Stockwell showed courage when he agreed.
I arrived at the Waterfront and was surprised to find that the public meeting had turned to a small and tightly regulated closed affair. I was told Councillor Brian Stockwell had set conditions: no media, no more than eight people, no minutes, no photos and an approved attendee list. Democracy in full precious flight.
Anyway, I’ve written a short piece on the community context of the Waterfront situation. What effect this heavily truncated meeting will have on the fate of “the small patch of grass” is, at this point, unknown…..
‘Highrises are coming’ Hyperbole
I am not going into the Gothamesque details of why a thriving local restaurant has been stopped from using it’s adjoining towel-sized strip of grass for post-wedding canopies and champagne.
Instead, I want to talk about a certain Noosa narrative in which a common-sense proposal suddenly escalates in the minds of some people to become a dangerous precedent just one small step away from high rises to be built on Main Beach.
Such apparent hyperbole from organisations like the Noosa Shire Residents and Ratepayers Association and the Noosa Parks Association needs to be debunked. Hyperbole and straw men do not good decisions make.
Another more appropriate narrative is that Noosa Council set a positive example of using a rational and proportionate approach in interpreting residents’ wishes to retain the character of the Shire whilst supporting small business and a vibrant economy.
This is not only possible but ultimately in the interest of the environment and our community – bar perhaps some special interest groups with narrow and, I have come to believe outdated ideologies.
A dangerous precedent of a different kind
In the context of the Waterfront Restaurant we see a situation where rules and regulations are ‘flexibly interpreted’ for some businesses and applied to others with belligerent inflexibility and by citing them as ‘dangerous precedent’. Is this biased behaviour in itself not a dangerous precedent?
The Noosa town plan is a guiding document, not a blunt instrument. An important duty of elected councillors is to make intelligent, community-focused decisions after a balanced assessment of their impact on people, business and environment.
The Local Government Act is clear:
‘The fundamental role of councillors is to serve and represent the interests of their community (i.e. local government area) as a whole, rather than those of any particular section or interest group.’
Council to work for all, not for an ideology
In the case of Waterfront Restaurant, most people would concede that the strip of grass in question is not much if at all used by the public. It is a small patch of lawn that the restaurant wishes to use occasionally to serve champagne and canapes to newly married couples, a purpose which most Councillors (but not all) seem to find reprehensible.
The restaurant’s use of this little lawn goes back many years and has no negative impact on other foreshore users. It is canal side, not even foreshore.
God’s waiting room
We need to ask ourselves, what kind of place do we want to live in? What is sustainable? Do we really want to live in a joyless retirement village? It takes openness, foresight and inclusiveness to help Noosa reinvent itself from a place where ‘to make a million you need to arrive with two’.
We need to adjust the dead-end course of Noosa as a place where moneyed up retirees come to die to the thriving, genuinely sustainable and innovative society living in harmony with our outstanding natural environment.
I strongly believe that supporting diverse communities and providing them with acceptable ways to generate an income are foundations for a better and happier place for all ages, including retirees.
Let common sense prevail.
Please feel free to comment if you agree, disagree or have anything to add.
You assume your own view is the view of the ‘community’; that the community will be best served by a decision that matches your own interests. Clearly there are other points of view, evidenced by the number of signatories to petitions and submissions to Council against this use of public land. To dismiss these with disdain as ‘inappropriate’ shows a narrow minded approach that refuses to countenance that there could be rational and genuine reasons for alternate views. Noosa Council must consider all views about this particular piece of land, as well as the community’s expressed desire to retain all public land in the vicinity for community use.
You dismiss the concept of ‘precedent’ as hyperbole, but precedent has and is used extensively to guide future decisions, in local government, in law, and in general, so deciding to allow one business access to public land can weaken the case for future decisions to withhold such access. In Noosa there is a tradition of ignoring the rules, establishing a business or an activity that doesn’t fit, and then seeking approval on the grounds that it has been in existence for some time and crying foul if such approval is not forthcoming. Whilst you might think freedom from all rules is desirable to me it is a recipe for chaos and discontent, and while I agree that providing ways to generate income is important if this is done with no regard for the accepted rules then I can’t support it.
Finally I take exception to your own straw man statement ‘God’s Waiting Room’. It is ageist and insulting. You say you want to live in a ‘diverse’ community but dismiss older people with insults. You insinuate that it is older people who are lacking foresight, joyless, and holding Noosa back. Retirees are probably around 33% of our population and contribute significantly to all aspects of this community.
What kind of place do I want to live in? I want to live in a place where all people and opposing views are treated with respect, not disdain.
Hi Judy, Thanks for your comment. I think you are right in questioning what constitutes the view of ‘the community’ and yes, this was my opinion on the matter and clearly there are other views and Council has to consider issues on balance. I will make that clearer in the future.
The petition in support of the Waterfront Restaurant currently has 2,961 signatories, the counter petition by the NSRRA against ‘Waterfront Grab’ has 1,138. I understand that petition numbers are only one indicator for community views.
Next let’s look at the directly affected community. The meeting was attended by neighbours and adjacent businesses who strongly supported the restaurant and cited good neighbourly relationships and flow-on benefits for their own businesses. To my understanding in twenty years of holding weddings on the grass strip there has never been any complaints apart form recent ones by one person who plays his part for this storm in a teacup. My ‘God’s waiting room’ line was not meant as an insult to older people in general but referring in part to this complainant and to a certain baby boomer attitude of entitlement. I believe it is in everybody’s interest to help small, low impact businesses to survive and employ people.
With regards to me being ageist, I AM old (ask my kids) but I love the company of diverse people of all ages and backgrounds, especially when they challenge my thinking as you do and are up for discussing matters. And I believe even the ‘moneyed up retirees’ are ultimately better off in a more equal and culturally thriving society where people have a fair go. Many older people find an elitist mindset is not helpful and don’t subscribe to it. It’s not an age thing. It’s a mindset I was referring to.
Running a business is hard. Creating and maintaining employment is hard and it pains me to see hard working operators frustrated and exhausted by red tape and from their perspective nebulous bureaucratic process.
Not sure where you get me advocating for doing away with rules entirely and preferring living in chaos from. But you are right as far as I believe rules and regulations should serve people and not the other way around.
Always interesting. Always a pleasure talking with you.
Bettina
Great discussion, ladies! I think we should have rules and regulations but maybe the layers of bureaucracy and the planning processes are up for review. I’ve been reading some of the Council plans – it’s great bedtime reading 🙂
While the work that goes into producing these plans are meaningful and helpful to a degree, I think the slow pace at which change can be generated if following due process gets in the way of good stuff happening. There are roadblocks everywhere – and people get directed from pillar to post in order to get approval for anything. Empty buildings sit for years while lots of finger-pointing goes on but nothing happens. If we want to keep pace with disruptive technologies like AirBNB, for example, we need more agile governance.
There is a tradition of whinging about things in Noosa. Whinging about the traffic congestion, roundabout etiquette, noisy neighbours, dogs off leashes, and unplanned roadworks, to name a few things that raise the ire of locals. But, at the top of the list are gripes about planning laws and the regulations spun off from decisions that council staff and councillors have over the years decided to apply to the various aspects of living and working in the Shire.
The best planning decisions made here, in my mind, relate to keeping the built environment to a human scale, and ensuring that infrastructure includes cycleways, public promenades, and open space. It is after visiting other council jurisdictions that reinforces to me the benefits of Noosa’s long-established planning ethos of trying hard to integrate the natural and built environment.
So, when a business decides to expand operations onto public property, it’s reasonable to assume that not everybody thinks it’s a great idea. With particular reference to the Boathouse Restaurant saga, we have a restaurant morphing into a function centre, then using public land to cater for lack of space within the confines of said business. I know, this is the Noosa way, just do what you want and handle the repercussions when, or if, they arise.
Well, they did arise and now the old chestnuts of business bashing, stifling enterprise, most people think it’s a good idea, so let them do it, get dragged out, blown up, and thrown at Council like it’s their fault. No, it’s not their fault, it’s the fault of the business owners for doing what they damn well pleased.
Now, sure things can be fenagled retrospectively, again in classic Noosa style, but just think about the precedents being set. If one business owner gets away with illegally operating a function centre, how can you uphold the planning restrictions placed on other businesses. And if one business is allowed to operate on public land, why can’t other businesses do the same.
It seems to me that people are happy for the joint to suffer the ignominy of death by a thousand cuts as operators with good connections and friends in high places get their wrongdoings lobbied for rectification by the hapless planners trying to enforce planning laws. That’s neither fair to law-abiding businesses, nor is it good public policy, and it has huge ramifications in the precadents it will set.
Hi Rod, thanks for your comment. There is always an element of whinging and council-bashing to be found in public forums. One can not make everybody happy and after all, we are dealing with humans and they can make mistakes or bad calls on either ‘side’. I think that is understood. However, discounting legitimate expressions of people’s real concerns as ‘whinges’ is really not helpful.
Secondly, there are many cases of small pockets of public land being made available to commercial enterprises (café tables on footpaths for example) so it is misleading to argue that Waterfront would be an exception.
With regards to The Waterfront being a function centre: To my understanding, there are multiple restaurants hosting many more weddings per year than the Waterfront does. Are we going to reclass all of these?
As I understand the Waterfront has been sharing this strip of grass with the public for twenty years or so without causing harm. From what I heard the proprietors have cared for it and are paying a licence fee of around $500 a wedding into our coffers. I would put to you that their request to renew a license to serve some refreshments after a wedding constitutes one of a thousand cuts. Quite the opposite.
Well whinging is a subjective term, but I’d have to say that I’ve read a lot of what this term embodies on Facebook concerning the Boathouse public land use issue.
Yes, plenty of footpaths are rented by cafes and the likes. Council controls and collects fees for this. As to other restaurants doing weddings and events, but their legality depends on what they were originally approved for. And it should be rembered that Waterfront used that bit of land without payment for many years. As an aside, the yacht club plain squatted on land for a parking lot, and then put a boom gate on it!
Death by a thousand cuts is Noosa’s future IMO, and Waterfront and others may not like to think this fits them, but it just might.
Well said Rod. The restaurant has done quite a job of presenting itself as the victim on this issue, when in reality they have basically usurped public land. I have had the experience of being strongly discouraged by the restaurant against using that parcel of land for a community purpose. Bettina, you might think the only people against letting this situation continue are baby boomers with entitlement issues or ‘cashed up retirees’ but I think these are your own straw men put forward to mask the reality that many in the community quitebreasonably want public open space preserved for public use, now and into the future. And btw Bettina, 20 years ago (when I was still a retiree) the place was a bar/restaurant owned by Pierre Ott, not the Waterfront. It was a place where locals had a great time drinking and dancing and getting away from the tourists. Families picniced on that lawn, kids played tag, and people slept and relaxed. It has a special place in the hearts of many old Noosans and it would be a shame to lock up this parcel of public land forever just to appease the current business owners.
Hi Judy, I’m hearing you with regards to my ‘cashed up retirees’ swipe. I will do better and be less provocative in the future. It’s no good getting people offside. And I am sorry to hear you personally weren’t allowed to use this piece of land for a community purpose. Was this for an art installation? And was this under the current operators? Could this have been handled more amicably in the interest of all? The fun that was had when Pierre Ott put on live music was mentioned in the meeting. But the current operators are not to blame, that you can’t get away from tourists at this location anymore. And I doubt that the current complainant would not arc up if the Waterfront would put up similar events now. And to my knowledge noise complaints are usually not driven by younger generations (come to my house). I wish I had some data on this 🙂
Thanks Bettina, It however still appears people think we want an exclusive commercial lease over public land. This is simply not true and not what we are asking for. How can they get this so wrong?
Here are some facts:
• We have never wanted “exclusive” use of a small patch of land which is used occasionally for two or three hour for a canapé and a glass of champagne after wedding. The public have access to this grassed area 365 days a year. Our proposed use does not limit recreational use of the land except for a maximum of a few hours a week on no more than three occasions. – We have never or will ever ask anyone to move or Discourage anyone from using the isolated patch of grass
• The restaurant has always paid for permits from the Council to use this land – it’s not free. – after a mistake was Identified within our Liquor licence – that we paid for an extension incorporating an outdoor area, we pay a large public Liability insurance fee on the “grass” area and all staff hold appropriate Responsible service of Alcohol. We then were issued with event permits at the cost of over $500 direct to council to use the area under the conditions we are asking for, we have never disputed or questioned the payments , we have never stepped over the line and complied to all council requirements and requests.
• We note that the Noosaville Foreshore Draft Land Use Master Plan released on 12 December 2017 included a misleading account of our submission making it appear complex and confusing. Since then, media statements and petitions authorized by Noosa Residents and Ratepayers Association and Noosa Parks Association have also included misleading statements that reflect wrongly and adversely on our proposal. Our Submission was prepared by a consultant and we had to include every possible outcome and option – If you read past the first option “Lease” even within that option you would read that we are only seeking to gain a lawful permit to use a small portion of parkland that fronts the restaurant primarily for weddings. Utilisation of this land would be for a few hours on no more than three occasions each week (max -subject to wedding seasons) beyond which the land would be available for use by the general public.
• We are not “expanding” our business – are a seeking approval to enhance our guest experience and enjoy what Noosa has to offer. If guest enjoy a glass of champagne in our licensed area or on the grass our monetary gain is the same, however other small business involved – wedding stylist, florist, photographer ect all benefit.
• The restaurant is not a big business. We are a husband-and-wife enterprise that took a major risk in providing Noosaville with a first class Italian restaurant, we are not only a Leading Restaurant in Noosa but recognised Nationally and Intentionally . We believe the Council, as a significant part of the community, should get behind enterprises like this and not turn its back on small business.
• It is within the power of the Council, as trustee for the land, to seek State Government consent for the restaurant to occasionally use it.
• Similar businesses in the Shire have been granted access to public areas – including footpaths and parks – to enhance services to clients. We believe we should be treated the same.
The commercial use of State land designated for recreation was previously approved in Quamby Place for a number of restaurants. The use of this land goes far beyond what the Waterfront Restaurant is seeking.
• A Current petition of over 3000 Signatures shows significant support for the use we are seeking approval for.
The land we are seeking to use is well located for wedding events which are of significant economic benefit to the Noosa community. It is a parcel of land not much used by the community due to its small size and limited access to a canal – not foreshore location!
A legislative framework is available to manage a reasonable outcome in this matter.
We are not seeking permanent infrastructure, furniture, daily access for functions nor exclusive access.
We care for Noosa and strongly believe that the river foreshore area must be conserved environmentally and made available for appropriate leisure pursuits. We also want to see Noosa progress and prosper by the Council adopting a positive approach to businesses like ours that provide the backbone of the local economy.