THE Beach 162 restaurant in Frankston is celebrating a win this week, after Frankston councillors voted to increase its patron cap at a public meeting on 13 August.
The restaurant will now be able to host 120 patrons on Fridays and weekends, an increase from the previous 74 allowed before the amendment.
The initial proposal was to raise the cap to 100 patrons before this was amended to accommodate 120.
Beach 162 co-owner Mariam Jamil told council her restaurant would not “be able to survive” if their limit was only raised to 100.
“In this matter, we are at the mercy of the financial pressures of running a small business in the restaurant industry. Unfortunately for us, we do not own the property that we operate, and we pay rent. The landlord expects an appropriate commercial return on his property,” she said.
“Under the current cap we have of 74 patrons, we have no opportunity to meet those demands.”
Cr Steve Toms said that the changes should be made because “it is a duty of council to support thriving small business in our municipality”.
Cr Glenn Aitken said he had “not had one complaint from any resident in the city at all. I tend to measure the conduct of businesses and practices on feedback. With this particular application, I have heard nothing but good spoken everywhere”.
Only one councillor voted against amending Beach 162’s expanded licence.
Mayor Cr Colin Hampton voted against the increase, citing car parking as his reason for not voting in favour of the changes.
“I am really concerned about the parking issues around this venue. It’s a great venue and we’d love small business to thrive, but we also have a community to look after,” he said.
“I know for a fact that residents are finding it awkward sometimes. Because there is a deficit of 18 car parking spaces, even though the business is a great business and thriving, I’m afraid I’m going to have to oppose it.”
Four individual community members spoke to council in support of the move, including former mayor James Dooley, who said “the only just cause for the office’s recommendation is that there is insufficient car parking to accommodate a patronage of 120 persons. To my way of thinking, we as a community cannot encourage drink driving. I would have thought that making an allowance for car parking is contrary to the general sentiment that our community has toward drink driving.”
Dozens of supporters of the restaurants attended the meeting and applauded the eventual decision to increase the maximum number of patrons.
“I feel it’s a win, not just for us, it’s a win for the community. It’s a win for employment, for entertainment, for good food, and for good environments,” Beach 162 co-owner Mariam Jamil said.
“We were always hopeful we were going to win, and we always had faith, and we did. We had the support of the community, and we’ve always done the right thing.”
The venue applied for the increase to their patron cap in 2015 but was almost unanimously voted down at the time.
As part of the proposal, a management plan will be devised to help deal with any parking squeeze that arises from increased patronage.
