The minutes of last week’s council meeting, record the following public question and ‘response’ on the Grill’d episode.

“I am asking the question of every councillor and would like to know from each of you individually if you were aware that public seating had been removed before you decided on this lease of public land on Jersey Parade at the last council meeting.” 

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “Your question suggests that public seating in the licence area, that was freehold land and not part of the road reserve, was removed prior to Council considering the matter in the in-camera part of the 13 December 2011 Council Meeting. This is not correct. No public seating had been or has been removed from the area that was under consideration.

To ensure that you are properly informed Council is able to advise you that following on from a Town Planning application in 2011 relating to 86 Koornang Road, for which no objections were received, a footpath trading application was submitted by the applicant that led to a number of old public seats being removed from in front of the address. Newer higher quality public seating has been installed slightly north of the former location that enjoy the amenity provided by the nearby trees. The relocation was carried out under the supervision of a highly qualified Urban Designer.”

COMMENT: This response is both disingenuous and revealing. We assume that the questioner was simply asking whether councillors knew beforehand that public seating had been removed when they made their decision on the lease for Grill’d. The response is technically correct, since the lease was for land in Jersey Parade and not Koornang Rd where Grill’d is situated.

Of greater significance is the admission that the footpath trading application ‘led to a number of old seats being removed’. Hence the application went in and this resulted in the removal of public seating along Koornang Rd. None of this explains why the lease was deemed ‘confidential’, who paid for the removal, and why Grill’d would appear to have been granted some special treatment. For example:

  • below are 3 photographs. The first is of the site where the public benches and tables were removed.
  • The next photo shows the new ‘higher quality’ seating that has been put in. We calculate that 4 benches have been replaced by 2!
  • The third photograph is of Michel’s Pattisserie, also in Koornang Rd but where public seating is smack in the middle of private seating! Now, why should one retailer be granted exclusive rights to what was public space, and another (regardless of whether an application went in) have to arrange his tables around such public seating.

The questions remain –

  • Why was public seating removed AFTER a footpath trading permit went in?
  • Who paid the bills?
  • If this was ‘old seating’, then why hasn’t the rest of the seating in the street also been upgraded? Being steel framed surely the expected lifespan of such seating should be more than 5 years?
  • Why was this entire issue dealt with in camera and unlike countless other leases not out in public?
  • Why does Grill’d appear to have been given special consideration, whilst other retailers having to ‘fit around’ existing street furniture?
  • And surely, the ‘replacement’ seating could in no way be a response to the adverse publicity that has ensued? It would be fascinating to see the internal documents as to when and why such a decision was made!

Finally, we wish to make it absolutely clear that our concerns are with the processes of Council alone and not with Grill’d.