An application for a liquor licence for Long Sports Bar in Oakdene has been refused by the Western Cape Liquor Licensing Tribunal (LLT). It remains to be seen whether the applicant will appeal the decision.
Residents, religious institutions, and community groups objected to the consumption-on-premises liquor licence application for the proposed sports bar at 2 Laurence Dale Road, near the Kuils River mosque and within the same building used by churches.
Based on these objections, Subcouncil 14 also recommended in October last year that the application should not be approved, stating it would not serve the public interest.
Concerns raised in numerous objections during the public participation process included potential increases in crime, noise, drunk driving, and antisocial behaviour.
In addition to the proximity to religious sites, objectors also pointed out that the location lies on a busy pedestrian route linking the railway station and CBD to Sarepta and Kalkfontein.
TygerBurger reported on the issue following the initial tribunal hearing on Monday 7 July (“Decision pending on Oakdene sports bar”, 9 July).
Crime
The Oakdene Residents Association, civic organisation Highbury Foundation, Ward 11 councillor Wouter de Vos, and Sgt Tshepang Hoffman, Kuils River police sector 2 commander, were among the objectors who made oral submissions at the hearing.
Highbury Foundation argued that the interests of affected communities extend beyond Oakdene to include Sarepta, Des Hampden, Voëlvlei, Kalkfontein, Danarand, Highbury, Highbury Park, and other areas.
“The core legal test is whether the licence serves the public interest and not merely private commercial interest,” said Winston Middleton of the Highbury Foundation.
Their submission referenced a report by the Kuils River Police’s Liquor Officer (dated 16 October 2024), which flagged drug trafficking, substance abuse, and related crimes in the vicinity of the proposed bar.
They also highlighted the potential impact on local religious organisations, residential flats, and school learners.
At the initial tribunal hearing, the applicant requested that crime statistics be submitted to assist the tribunal in making an informed decision.
Although Sgt Hoffman spoke about crime trends in Kuils River and the specific area in question, this was viewed as speculative without supporting data.
Speculation
At the resumed tribunal hearing on Tuesday 22 July, two additional oral submissions were made — one by the Designated Liquor Licensing Officer and another by a crime statistics official.
“Both clearly explained their opposition to the proposed liquor bar,” Middleton stated.
In his closing argument, the applicant’s advocate maintained that his client had a proven track record of running a successful sports bar in Mowbray, a pending application for another venue in Wynberg, and the appropriate business zoning.
He (the applicant’s advocate) argued that the applicant should not be penalised for crime in the surrounding area, which was a policing issue.
He further stressed that the establishment would not be a club, would have security both inside and outside the building, and that access to the bar would be controlled.
“In essence, he stated that the tribunal should not be swayed by the speculations of the objectors,” Middleton shared.
Collaborative effort
The community’s submission to the tribunal demonstrated a collaborative effort with input from the residents’ associations of Oakdene and Des Hampden, the Highbury Foundation, councillors Sawant and De Vos, the Kuils River Islamic Society Trust, the Des Hampden Neighbourhood Watch, and others.
De Vos remarked that the surrounding public clearly indicated their disapproval of the application. “As ward councillor, I therefore had sufficient reasons and grounds not to approve the application.”
Review
According to a document from the Western Cape Liquor Authority (WCLA), dated 18 August, the tribunal ruled that the applicant failed to demonstrate that granting the licence would be in the public interest, as required by the Western Cape Provincial Liquor Act.
The applicant may request detailed reasons for the decision and must do so in accordance with liquor regulations. The LLT is then required to provide these reasons within 21 days.
Once received, the applicant has 20 days to lodge an appeal or apply for a review with the WCLA using the prescribed form. Copies of any appeal or review must also be served on all affected parties, with proof submitted to the Authority.
De Vos said in reaction: “It is comforting to note that the WCLA respects the wishes and interests of surrounding communities, and that this institution indeed takes the public interest seriously, as was demonstrated by the outcome that affirmed the decision taken at subcouncil level.
“If anything, this case serves to demonstrate the importance of community members taking part in civic processes.”
Ward 11 Councillor Wouter de Vos
You must be logged in to post a comment.