Plans for second Samford pub near Comiskey’s Samford Hotel stirs up locals

They won a fight to keep Woolies out of town, now locals in a scenic village north of Brisbane are trying to block a second pub. There are 56 reasons why they are so annoyed.

A proposal for a second hotel in semi-rural Samford, with late trading, has angered some locals. File Picture: iStock

They won a fight to keep Woolies out of town, now locals in postcard-perfect Samford northwest of Brisbane are gearing up to fight plans for a second hotel.

More pokies, anti-social behaviour, late trading until 2am, noise, traffic and proximity to an aged care facility, primary school and bus stop — the list of grievances with the “boutique tavern’’ is long.

Council officers sent an even longer list to developer The Cotswolds Project Pty Ltd TTE in a 56-point information request about its latest plans.

But those behind the project say their fears about more pokies is unfounded.

Mary Ring Development Action Group member Howard Nielsen said Samford’s 11,000 population simply wasn’t big enough for a second pub.

“There is limited space for population growth because we are surrounded by dam catchment and state forest,’’ he said.

“When Woolworths tried to set up here they didn’t realise that. We already had a supermarket (now a Drakes) and they eventually dropped their plans.

A 2022 artist’s impression of the Samford Market development. The latest change to the project has angered locals.

“The developer claims there are 110,000 people in the catchment but 100,000 of them live more than 10km away.

“There is no public transport and people won’t want to drive that far if they’ve been drinking.’’

The project was mooted for a former childcare site at 1-5 Mary Ring Drive, a short walk from the Comiskey Group’s Samford Hotel, where clearing and preliminary construction has started.

The Comiskey Group was approached for comment.

Mr Nielsen said after several changes to the first development application (DA) for Samford Marketplace, which morphed into a small bar with food outlets, they were worried about further changes in future.

The 10pm closing time was changed to midnight and then a flyer was dropped in letterboxes which was canvassing support for a 2am closing.

A developer has applied to build a hotel with extended trading hours a short walk from Comiskey Group's Samford Hotel.

The Office of Liquor and Gaming confirmed there were no pending pokies applications for the site.

But Mr Nielsen said if a tavern was approved, which was later on-sold, it was reasonable to expect the new owner might apply for pokies.

“The latest change (submitted to City of Moreton council) includes a (255 sqm) mezzanine space they say is for a storeroom,’’ he said.

“Well, it’s not hard to see how that might be somewhere you could put poker machines.’’

RSA Group Consulting, which organised the letterboxed survey of residents, said “there is no truth in any claims that this project involves current or future gaming licenses’’.

“The building plans are a matter of public record and there is no area suitable for use as a gaming room,” it said.

“A commercial hotel license requires mandatory kitchen, dining, cafe or bistro style facilities and a function room, which are included in this proposal.

“This license type is only required to support sale of takeaway boutique spirits, independent beer and wines as part of a providore style market store, included in the hotel’s plans.

“Trading to 2am is already approved at the existing (Samford) Hotel and initial consultation was completed on that basis.

“In a proactive response to survey consultation with the community, the application was amended to remove all extended trading hours.

“The difference between the surveyed trading hours should be evident to the community on the public signage and the OLGR website that now show ordinary trading hours no later than midnight.”

But the action group wrote to the developer recently asking them to withdraw the application and publicly apologise to the town.

“The DA is clearly not aimed at what is generally seen to be a market style development. It’s straight out a pub,’’ they said.

“It is very clear that the DA is inappropriate to the site and community needs.

“The approach adopted is seen by the community as highly disrespectful and misleading.’’

Locals say major developments such as the tavern proposal belong on Main St (pictured), not a side street. Image: Google Streetview

Mr Nielsen said one of the main objections to the proposal was that it was in a side street, not on Main St as was the expectation for major new businesses.

But town planners Urbis said in the DA documents that the project would “compliment the existing mix of uses within the Samford township centre by providing a boutique local tavern for residents and visitors to enjoy’’.

“The architecture of the building has previously been accepted as reflecting the established township character,’’ Urbis said.

“The proposed building has been designed to reflect the established built form character of Samford Village township.

“It is consistent with the style, proportions and height of other retail buildings nearby, including Samford Central on the opposite side of Mary Ring Drive from the site.

“The proposed change will continue to contribute positively to reinforcing Samford as a rural township.

“In particular, the proposed hotel activities relate to a boutique local tavern that will sell local produce including local food and drinks.

“This is similar to the previously approved bar and food and drink activities at the site.’’

Urbis added that the project would operate in an “almost identical manner’’ to the current approval and had more car spaces than a previous approval.

It would comply with noise standards, would appear “near identical’’ from the street and included a 2.5m-high, landscaped acoustic fence.

A traffic report by consultants TTM said there would be 43 car movements per hour, fewer than the previous approval.

More information at City of Moreton’s online DA Tracker. Enter the year 2024 and application 4146.