New tavern on Dixon Drive, Pimpama: Owners fight off council plan to limit patrons

Developers of a new tavern have fought off an attempt by Gold Coast council to impose a restriction which would have created an impossible dilemma for staff.

• Gold Coast drug dealers named and shamed
• Drug-driving, racially abusive pub pest faces the music
• WATCH: Man punched, kicked in middle of Gold Coast Maccas

THE Gold Coast City Council has tried to impose a 50 patron limit and restrictive opening hours on a tavern planned for the city’s rapidly growing north.

The attempt came after the council tried to force the planned pub on Dixon Dr to close at midnight every night.

Pimpama Commercial, who are developing the project, took the council to the Planning and Environment Court three times to ensure restrictive conditions were not put in place.

The developers most recently opposed council’s attempt to limit the number of patrons to just 50 people between midnight and 2am.

Earlier this year Pimpama Commercial were given the green light to open until 2am after the council tried to force them to call last drinks at midnight.

The council then tried to argue the 2am opening time should only be allowed on Friday and Saturday nights.

The court ruled the tavern could open until 2am seven days a week.

Last week the court rubbished the council’s request to limit the number of patrons to no more than 50 between midnight and 2am.

“The condition under challenge would place an unreasonable and indeed probably an unwanted imposition on (Pimpama Commercial),” Judge Richard Jones wrote in his judgment.

The council had argued they needed to put a cap on the number of patrons late at night due to concerns about “noise, alcohol and gambling abuse and anti-social conduct that occur as a consequence of the tavern being open past 12am”.

Map showing the location of the proposed new tavern on Dixon Drive in Pimpama.

The council argued that a cap on the number of patrons between those hours would be “simple, uncomplicated and easily enforced”.

The tavern argued it would not be so straightforward.

“The difficulty would be, as (Pimpama Commercial) points out, determining which 50 persons can stay, or more problematically, deciding which of those patrons present must vacate the premises,” the judgement reads.

“One could hardly image a more potentially troublesome situation than a hotel employee, on the stroke of midnight, having to direct some patrons to leave for no other reason than it was them who were arbitrarily chosen to leave while others were permitted to remain.”

Judge Jones also dismissed council’s assertion that the proposed rule was similar to COVID-19 restrictions currently in place.

He described the proposed patron cap as “an entirely different proposition”.

As well as the tavern the development will also include a service station, medical centre, gym and other shops.

A council spokeswoman said the conditions they sought were an attempt to limit anti-social behaviour.

“This was based on the assumptions used by experts in the appeal to assess impacts,” she said.

“The Court rejected Council’s requested limitation on the number of patrons, citing enforcement difficulties.”

Follow @leae