One of the ongoing challenges for licensed venues is posed by what development is proposed or underway around them.
As Brisbane grows, encroachment comes with it. Pubs that may once have sat more comfortably within their surrounds are now increasingly being pressed up against residential development. Land use patterns are changing, amenity expectations are changing with them, and the result is predictable, complaints about noise, trading hours and patron behaviour. That tension, referred to as reverse amenity, is becoming a real planning problem.
The point is a simple one. Even where a venue has not changed at all, the planning environment around it may have, and that can place real pressure on the continued operation of the use.
Reverse amenity is, at its core, a land use conflict. It arises where a lawful, established use, such as a hotel, is impacted by a more sensitive use introduced nearby, usually residential. The issue is not that the hotel has intensified or changed its operation. The issue is that expectations around amenity shift once residential development moves in close proximity.
From a planning perspective, this is exactly the kind of conflict the planning scheme is intended to manage. Through zoning, assessment benchmarks and conditions of approval, planning schemes are supposed to regulate compatibility between uses and anticipate where tension is likely to arise. In theory, a hotel operating in an appropriate zone should be able to continue to operate without unreasonable constraint. In the same way, new residential development proposed near an existing hotel should be assessed and designed with that existing use firmly in mind.
That is the theory. In practice, it can be much messier.
Once complaints start, attention tends to move quickly away from the broader planning intent and onto the detail of the venue’s approval. Councils will usually look closely at the development permit, the conditions attached to it, and whether there is strict compliance with matters such as noise limits, trading hours, entertainment restrictions and patron management obligations. That is where pressure often comes on. The issue is rarely whether the hotel is lawfully established. More often, it is whether it can demonstrate that it is operating squarely within the terms of its approval.
That is why operators need to understand their planning position. It is surprising how often the development approval has not been looked at for years. If a complaint is made, it is the approval and its conditions, along with the liquor licence, that will usually be the starting point.
It is also important to be able to demonstrate compliance in a practical way. If there are acoustic limits, there should be the ability to show that the limits can be complied with. If there are operational requirements built into the approval, they need to be reflected in how the venue actually runs. A lawful use is always in a stronger position where there is clear evidence that it is operating consistently with its approval.
A further issue is keeping an eye on what is being approved nearby. Reverse amenity problems often start well before the first complaint is made. They start when sensitive development is applied for without adequate thought being given to the existing operation of the hotel. From a planning perspective, that is often the point at which the most effective protective measures can be secured, whether through acoustic attenuation, building design, layout or other mitigation measures.
Reverse amenity is not going away. As urban areas continue to intensify, these conflicts will only become more common. The venues best placed to manage that risk will be those that treat it for what it is, not just an operational annoyance, but a planning issue that needs to be understood and managed early.
This article was co-authored by Mullins Partner, Anthony O’Dwyer and Associate, Gus Haseler.