Unsettling outcome for Wharf St bar

The owner of a Wharf Street bar in downtown Tauranga has been told their business isn't good enough to be part of the street's new dining precinct as it is 'not part of a dining experience”.

Settlers Bar owner Chris Wade says they were not even consulted about the decision, which she says is very disappointing.


Settlers Bar, on Wharf Street, is being excluded from the new dining precinct concept. Photo: Tracy Hardy.

'After we put in our application it went on for several months,” says Chris. 'I thought ‘why is it taking such a long time?'

'It's not as if it was a whole new licence application. It's an alteration to our existing licensed area.”

She eventually received an email from the liquor licencing department at Tauranga City Council stating that Settlers Bar's application to extend its licence to occupy area was declined by all three bodies – police, liquor licencing and health – based on the fact that they're 'not part of a dining experience”.

'We supply enough food to comply with our liquor licencing,” insists Chris.

'We are really disappointed because it was a group thing that was only really going to work with big involvement from the street. We were quite prepared to do more food.”

Settlers currently does pub food, including sausage rolls, pies and pizzas explains Chris.

'It's not set up as a restaurant, but we comply with the amount of food we sell,” she adds.

'You need to have three hot options for food and we probably have about five or six, but they decided we are not an eatery so we could not be involved.”

She received one email asking if Settlers was going to change its menu, but Chris insists no one from the authorities told her it would be reconsidered if she increased her food options.

'We've got the option to buy in from any of the restaurants in the area,” she adds.

'We have all their menus on hand. Anyone of them will bring in a full meal.

'But no, it's a case of ‘you're are not a part of it – see you later'. It's not in the spirit of the thing is it? We are very disappointed. We feel it's going to impinge on the whole concept.

There are quite a few other businesses in the street are not going to be a part of it because they already have big, outside areas. These days you have got to be very careful what you spend and I can understand why they don't want to be part of it.”

Settlers is out, as is MoMo Teppan Yaki next door because their style, to cook at table, is not going to work because of the outdoor tables. The Thai restaurant on the other side of Settlers is also not taking part in the concept.

'So they said you can go for a public hearing and fight it, or you can just accept it,” says Chris.

'I'm done fighting with the council. You may as well beat your head up against a brick wall. So we just said we will accept it. We are right in the middle of it anyway, and a hearing would cost thousands.

'We had actually paid the fee we pay through Mainstreet. We had paid two months of the fee that covers the furniture. It's a contribution to what's happening in the street.”

Mainstreet was sympathetic and gave the fees – two lots of $400 plus GST – back.

However, that tavern was encouraged to apply for the extended on licence for a further $800, and council have flatly refused a refund despite rejecting the application.

Chris says: 'When I asked the council for our fees back they said no, because they have gone to the bother of putting the application before the three different authorities. So tough bikkies.

'The whole concept was for the street to be like a food hall. If the kids want sushi, mum and dad want Japanese and grandma wants Thai, you could all bring your meal to one table and dine together.

'How is that going to work when everybody is working off a different liquor licence?”

Tauranga City Council's team leader environmental health and housing, Darrienne Daubney, says Settlers application to extend its on-licence attracted objections from all reporting agencies.

'Settlers were advised of these objections and they withdrew their application,” says Darrienne.

'Availability of food is considered as part of all liquor applications. Settlers is operated as a tavern, not a restaurant, so they don't have kitchen facilities that would allow them to match food with an expanded area for serving alcohol.

'Their track record and recent suspension of their liquor licence would have also been considered.”

Chris says the liquor licensing authority suspended the tavern's licence for one day because, in a reference for a staff member, she said the employee had worked longer than she actually had.

The incident, however, was not related to the running of the tavern.

You may also like....

46 comments

Not surprised

Posted on 06-08-2015 12:24 | By penguin

With their history it


cool story....

Posted on 06-08-2015 12:25 | By sambo's back

rather arrogant of our Council and others to differentiate between styles of establishment, why was this not sorted before the work started?, as it was sold as a "precinct" how can you have one of those when an establishment in the middle, does not comply, so now what?, a court case against Council/ratepayers $$$$$$$, how stupid!!!!!!, and go Chris they deserve to be "royally scr**ed.


It's not what you know BUT ... Nothing Changes!

Posted on 06-08-2015 12:34 | By Murray.Guy

It's not what you know BUT ... Nothing Changes! Appalling. If they comply in regards food and beverage, they comply. End of! The Strand businesses who utilise the public space (footpath) pay a lease to the City Council. Does this apply to Wharf Street users?


And..

Posted on 06-08-2015 13:10 | By Groj

So the hairdresser and Jewellers are denied a licence to operate as well. They do not fit with "Eat Street"? A great idea and concept but looking to be poorly executed. Would the Strand have been a better place for this? Hope Momo Teppanyaki get to stay. The food is great!


AND...

Posted on 06-08-2015 13:13 | By Groj

Thought for Momo Teppanyaki, build a portable cooking top and table that can be wheeled out into the street area. What a great experience in "street-food" that could be!


The Police opposed it

Posted on 06-08-2015 14:03 | By Annalist

If you read the story carefully you will see that all three bodies "Police, liquor licencing and health" so it wasn't just everyones favourite badguys, Council.


Council interferance

Posted on 06-08-2015 15:05 | By The Master

Like the CBD has no parking available, now the officials are deciding on who can and cant be there and how to run the businesses that can survive. What a shocking state of affairs. Looks to me that Tauranga Council is moving into full domination and control of the CBD, that sadly will be the final nail in the coffin.


Im looking forward to seeing the Account

Posted on 06-08-2015 15:32 | By Dazed and Confused

I cant wait to see what this has cost the Rate payer. Imported lights.A job that was thought to take a few days is now into the second week. Tuskany will be laughing all the way to the bank on this one....They will tell us what it cost eh?


@ Penguin

Posted on 06-08-2015 15:42 | By Colleen Spiro

What is their history....I have never felt uncomfortable walking past that bar, in fact quite the opposite, nice and friendly.....What a disgrace...the Council picks a street that at least 3 establishments are not not taking part and excludes one...BLOODY SNOBS...


Worry street

Posted on 06-08-2015 17:16 | By Mallyg

Great idea but sorry it's the worry street the only one to make one way is the strand there's 15 restaurants to pick from only 3 or 4 in wharf if that what waste of time & money on the worry street


@Annalist

Posted on 06-08-2015 17:40 | By sambo's back

the point is..... no matter who opposed what, it should have been sorted out before any makeover commenced, and now to tell the owners that their food does not "cut the mustard" is both arrogant and stupid, I would have thought before praising a re-vamped street as the redeemer of the C.B.D by Council management, this sort of issue would have been sorted.


WHAT A RATZ ARTZ SYSTEM

Posted on 06-08-2015 18:02 | By ROCCO

A crazy decision to make Wharf Street a cafe/dining precinct to start with- it's at best a secondary location.This nonsense will cost megabucks and when the Council of Clowns can pick and chose who it wants to be in on the game then you have a formula for disaster.


Overit

Posted on 06-08-2015 18:43 | By overit

I am appalled at the Council. Eat St in Rotorua has bars among the restaurants. Dictorial rubbish.


Decisions

Posted on 06-08-2015 19:32 | By Murray.Guy

Annalist, "Police, liquor licencing and health", they would oppose a wine at a funeral to toast the departed given the chance. Decisions should be 'evidenced based' and where Council chooses to change a criteria for acceptance it is surely reasonable that potential applicants are advised BEFORE they incur cost and inconvenience. This initiative is beginning to be surrounded by 'all to typical suspect dealings' that frequently accompanies this Council and the CBD Mainstreet. What is the cost to the Ratepayer? Are street use charges being applied as per the Strand? Who is collecting the money, Mainstreet or Council? Has the ratepayer gone 'banker'? Will these details be forever shrouded in mystery or full disclosure?


That's TDC for you

Posted on 06-08-2015 19:33 | By missusmck

I have lived in Rotorua for the past 12 years and am Tga born and bred. We have a terrific Eat Streat here with both restaurants and bar's included in it with a wonderful atmosphere. Our council are not narrow minded like Tauranga - where it seems to be all about image.


remove

Posted on 06-08-2015 20:37 | By Capt_Kaveman

all pokies from this area as well


YOU WOULD THINK........

Posted on 06-08-2015 20:41 | By kellbell

ON the face of it these people have every right to be very peeved with TCC. It sticks out like the proverbial dogs***s that any thing relating to business initiatives that TCC become involved in quickly turns to custard.


@kiaora2u

Posted on 06-08-2015 21:20 | By penguin

Suggest you read the third to last paragraph of the report above, carefully.


Pies and sausage rolls

Posted on 07-08-2015 07:41 | By Bop man

Hardly the fine dining that the area is looking for, kiaora2u you must be looking the other way when you walk past as I have only ever seen unsavourily people just drinking here nothing friendly about them.go across to the dry dock if you want friendly nice coffe and awesome food.


@ missusmck

Posted on 07-08-2015 08:20 | By The Master

Clearly the Rotorua Council is keeping its sticky beak out of the streets, businesses, and mix of shops, retailing and so on in the CBD. That is in stark contrast to Tauranga where somehow the official thoughts are somewhere down the other end of the trail. Regrettably the long suffering tenants in the CBD get the rough end of the stick yet again and all wonder why the CBD here has trouble being vibrant and so on. The real deal here is that the people will decide what is the best place to be, the atmosphere and so on based around like customer service and quality of food, facilities and so on. The market will decide, Councils should get right out of out and stay out of it.


Street rebuild

Posted on 07-08-2015 08:21 | By The Master

So sounds like half the street have been excluded for one reason or another, so in end result who is actually footing the bill for all of this street wonder-mints, glorification and whatever?


eat st

Posted on 07-08-2015 08:41 | By dumbkof2

why dont they just close off the whole of cbd and make it all eating places. its hard enough now just walking around the streets with all the tables chairs advertising boards etc blocking off two thirds of the foot path. i hope all these places dont mind me going through their tables when its raining and need to stay under cover


@overit

Posted on 07-08-2015 08:43 | By penguin

To be pedantic, Eat Street in Rotorua is a covered area which, by definition, would not be termed "outdoors." It is more like a food hall/indoor mall model. Therefore, bars would be allowed under that scenario. But maybe different councils have different rules. Other parts of NZ have eating and drinking outdoors. Maybe the problem in Wharf Street is that it is still a public, one-way road and not pedestrian only? Could that be the reason?


@ Penguin

Posted on 07-08-2015 10:55 | By Colleen Spiro

saw the last paragraph, read it, understood it....and THEY said it had nothing to do with it....BELIEVE THEM?


@kiaora2u

Posted on 07-08-2015 11:45 | By penguin

Beginning of third to last paragraph...


@kiaora2u

Posted on 07-08-2015 11:48 | By Annalist

The fact that the police opposed the application says a lot to me. Also the fact that the liquor licencing authority suspended the liquor licence for a time. There have to be reasons for this. I support the police. I'm sure eating street is better than drinking street. Of course the usual suspects immediately beat up on council, but those who actually read the story read that Liquor licencing, police and health all opposed it.


@kiaora2u

Posted on 07-08-2015 12:13 | By sambo's back

yep, I have read it, studied it, am right with you, they where not given a chance to make changes, and it is arrogant of the Council to be saying, nope, do not want your patrons in our flash new area now, when these issues should have been sorted before any money was spent on the so called "dining precinct".


@At Annalist

Posted on 07-08-2015 12:35 | By Colleen Spiro

If you are going to PROFILE A WHOLE BLOODY STREET as a destination point, hang a few lanterns and an entrance, and then EXCLUDE a current tenant that is just BS Settlers said they can order food in from other restaurants. Give them a chance to prove themselves in a better environment. Wonder if they will LOOK for reasons to suspend their licence


@kiaora2u and tonyb

Posted on 07-08-2015 12:53 | By The Master

Looks to me that it is a setup, TCC have sent off the application to the Liquor authority and the NZ Police. How can they all come to the same conclusion without some form of communication or meeting without the applicant, then to say if you don't like it then appeal it. That means many thousands in costs, consultants and lawyers yet again on both sides to get all back on a even and realistic basis for the business owners. Cant see this as anything more than trying to take them out and shut them down without reason.


Wipe out

Posted on 07-08-2015 13:53 | By Crash test dummies

That will most likely mean the end of a few more CBD businesses with the simple but deadly swipe of a pen.


Completely unfair

Posted on 08-08-2015 01:10 | By The Master

The fact is TCC have taken the money, had a in house predetermined decision and then "walk away". There is more to this mischief than mets the eye here.


Council

Posted on 08-08-2015 08:01 | By Kenworthlogger

Since when can council be trusted to do anything?


GO CHECK IT OUT FOLKS

Posted on 08-08-2015 14:52 | By kellbell

A quick inspection this morning shows not a lot of cafes in Wharf St. if you exclude those that have been blackballed.First 25metres at both ends have no cafes so why would you even select this street as a cafe zone it has nothing to commend it and is really quite unsuitable.I won't even start on the signage and seating other than to say it is bloody awful.Whoever dreamed this little mess up should be given the DCM (Don't Come Monday). WOFTAM


@kiaora2u

Posted on 08-08-2015 15:54 | By Annalist

Try to keep calm and not use bad language. You will find that reason and logic are much better than supposition. This is eat street, not drink street. The bar in question will just keep trading as normal but not use so much of the street? You haven't addressed the matter of the police objecting to their extension. I BELIEVE the police and trust their judgement on this.


Anything

Posted on 08-08-2015 16:12 | By Plonker

@ Kenworthlogger. actually the problem is they have self licensed themselves to do "anything" to anyone. Then praise themselves for wonderful customer service even though the rates are unaffordable for most ratepayers now. There is no sign of stopping of this little trail of self gratification, self reward for failure that somehow is great and wonderful.


Yep.....

Posted on 08-08-2015 16:49 | By sambo's back

I went and had a pint and a sausage at Settlers and took in what was happening ?????, irony is a cruel mistress, and when all students arrive they will be looking at bars exactly like settlers for cheap beer and pool, and annalist do not choke on your cravat, but it may yet become a drink street without even trying!!!, what I also find humerous is that Whangarei had finished re vitalising thier CBD and waterfront marina 8 years ago and also have a great multi sports stadium, and we are the ones with a weather spot on national television, what is our problem?, also as am aside when are these city planners going to realise that the Strand is very exposed and loses the sun early, so why would you think an outdoor "eat street" would work....


Annalist, the Police have no Valid objection

Posted on 08-08-2015 18:06 | By Murray.Guy

Annalist, the Police have no valid objection, as if they did the operator would NOT be trading. Equally disturbing is the confession by TCC Darrienne Daubney who admits the indiscretion of a staff member the incident, however, was not related to the running of the tavern, for which a penalty was applied, is now being used as an additional penalty - grossly unjust and inappropriate! Bullying. Every effort should be made to facilitate maximum participation.


Murray Guy

Posted on 10-08-2015 14:23 | By Roadkill

That does seem really strange that a staff incident has been used like that to makes some moves to shut down a business in the CBD, hard to see how this is fair, a good use of ratepayers money and ratepayers paid for staff time in haranguing citizens?


Murray Guy, how do you know?

Posted on 10-08-2015 16:40 | By Annalist

Murray you state that the police have no valid objection, and I wonder on what factual basis you state that? You also need to look carefully at your claim about a confession. I can find no such confession in the story. Please point it out if it exists. The objection from police, health etc seems to be to the extension of the licence, not the existence of the bar as is.


Explanation for Annalist

Posted on 10-08-2015 20:49 | By Murray.Guy

A licence was applied for, to extend an existing licence to serve, consume alcohol. IF the Police had a valid reason to object (other than a knee jerk auto response) then the Settlers Bar would have it's licence revoked. Tauranga City Council staff member (in the article above) specifically states that they took into consideration, when denying the extension, a recent one day penalty for an offence that had NO bearing on the application. In other words, either directly or indirectly, TCC staff penalised the Settlers Bar again. This is/was a Mainstreet initiative and surely it is up to Mainstreet and it's members to determine suitability, NOT TCC staff. Think about it ... what could possibly have been such a public threat that's justifies exclusion yet doesn't put an existing licence at risk? Why is it so difficult for TCC staff to work with folk rather than oppose?


IT

Posted on 10-08-2015 22:55 | By kellbell

Looking at the 'classy' events held at Wharf Street on Saturday it is hard to see how those excluded wouldn't have made the grade.


Sorry Murray, I support the police on this

Posted on 11-08-2015 11:07 | By Annalist

You seem to be relying on the owners version of events? The fact is that the police objected to the extension and unless you are some sort of judge I can't see how you can arbitrarily declare that the police have no valid objection. I'm often critical of council myself but in this case I think you should try and get over the possible hurt of not being on council and look at this situation as objectively as possible. In my opinion the main focus of this street should be outdoor restaurants, not outdoor bars.


Up the creek Annalist

Posted on 11-08-2015 13:52 | By MARAUDING MOUSE

If there was a real problem about the license then the NZ Police would already have raised it and reduced or revoked the license. As it is pat of the Council process and as a result of a change to the license then it is a knee-jerk, impulsive reaction. In fact the evidence of that is easy to spot, Tauranga Council have decided that they are not to be part of the made up street make over so when you are out before you know it you are out.


time waster

Posted on 11-08-2015 14:38 | By rosscoo

Wharf street waste of money corner seats look like made out of used pallets and with most businesses closing down and moving out of CBD what is point of even going there. Why waste ratepayers money on such on something that will only become an eyesore in years to come.


@ rosscoo

Posted on 11-08-2015 20:30 | By Secret Squirrel

The activities of Council in the CBD are the prime mover affecting the businesses and the consequence is continued closures. The more spent and no results only seems to encourage more of the same woefully wasteful stuff going on.


What you now know

Posted on 20-08-2015 12:24 | By Plonker

Is that TCC have a plan to remove and destroy any business that does not conform to its desired plans and ideas. This looks to be some form of dictatorship type concept. Perhaps it is the tip of the iceberg.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.