Could we buy the Bottom Pub, together?

The Commercial Hotel is privately owned. As of writing (May 2026), the pub is closed and not operating, and is not publicly listed for sale. There is no public record of an insolvency process, receiver appointment, or mortgagee-in-possession sale of the property.

Huon News reported on 19 September 2024 that the owner — James Goulding, a builder who previously restored Callington Mill in Oatlands — had begun a $250,000 structural restoration, with a target reopening of 1 December 2024. That timetable has clearly drifted; the pub has not reopened. The owner has been quoted as wanting to "bring it back to its former glory just like when it was built in 1885."

What this means for this proposal. The building is not for sale, and the owner appears to have been investing in it. Any community-ownership conversation has to start from that fact, not from a fantasy of an immediate buy-out. The right posture at Stage 1 is to express interest publicly so that if the owner ever does want to sell, a community-buyer is a known option — and to do nothing that pressures or dictates to the current owner.

Both unknown at this stage. A proper independent valuation and a building condition report would be required before any decision — and well before any number is shared publicly.

The Liquor Licensing Act 1990 (Tas) — readable in full at legislation.tas.gov.au — sets six provisions that shape the structure:

• s.22 requires a liquor licensee to be a natural person aged 18 or over who is fit and proper, can exercise effective control, and has done approved RSA training. A co-operative is a body corporate; it cannot hold the licence in its own name.
• s.22(1A) and s.3A extend the fit-and-proper test to associates — anyone with significant influence over the business, which includes every director on the co-op board.
• s.46 requires the licensee to maintain effective control over alcohol service. The board can set strategy; it cannot override the licensee on the bar floor.
• s.24A gives the Commissioner a community-interest test. A community-owned proposal has a credible argument to make on this — but it has to make it on evidence.
• s.27, 28, 29 govern licence transfers. When a licensee leaves, the licence does not pass to the co-op. It has to be transferred to another individual who satisfies s.22 from scratch.

What this means in practice. The lawful structure is a deliberate split: the co-op owns the business and assets; a publican or licensed manager holds the licence in their own name; a written agreement defines the boundary. This is solvable — other community-owned pubs operate this way — but it has to be designed in, not assumed.

Full briefing with all the section quotes: Legal & licensing briefing.

The Co-operatives National Law (CNL) is template legislation Tasmania has adopted via the Co-operatives National Law (Tasmania) Act 2015. Section 4(1) of that Act applies the CNL as set out in the Appendix to the NSW host Act as a law of Tasmania. The CNL itself, as the Appendix, defines two structures in s.18 and s.19:

• Distributing co-operative (s.18) — "a co-operative that is not prohibited from giving returns or distributions on surplus or share capital." May pay limited returns; must have share capital; must comply with the 20% maximum-shareholding rule; and must have a CNL Disclosure Statement approved before any shares can be offered.
• Non-distributing co-operative (s.19) — "a co-operative that is prohibited from giving returns or distributions on surplus or share capital to members." Surplus is locked into the enterprise. Generally bypasses the Disclosure Statement requirement. Forecloses any dividend, payback, or fixed return.

What the original draft got wrong. It promised both — 5% dividends to investors and surplus funnelled into community projects. Those things are legally incompatible. A structure has to be chosen.

What we say now. The choice has not been made. It is the most consequential legal decision the project faces, and it determines what the community is being asked to back. The rework defers no further than this — it makes the choice openly, on evidence, before any fundraising language is permitted.

Full briefings: Legal & licensing · Financial & ASIC.

To be tested. Any figures shared at a future stage would be indicative only, would carry their assumptions in plain view, and would be reviewed by qualified accountants before being offered to the community as a basis for any decision.

That’s exactly what this stage is for. Expressions of interest help us understand whether the idea has enough support to justify the time, care, and money that proper feasibility work would take.

The Commercial Hotel is on the Tasmanian Heritage Register at Place ID 3472. The legal trigger is Part 6 of the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 (Tas), which states, in Heritage Tasmania’s own Works Guidelines: "a person must not carry out any 'works' to a place entered on the Tasmanian Heritage Register … unless those heritage works are approved by the Heritage Council."

Approvals come in two forms: a Minor Works Approval for works with negligible heritage impact, and a Discretionary Permit for everything else. Façade work, window and door changes, internal works that affect significant fabric, kitchen fit-out, and DDA / fire-safety upgrades can all be in scope — not just structural alterations.

Why this matters for any feasibility budget. Reopening a long-closed pub triggers Building Code change-of-use upgrades (fire safety, accessibility, structural) and Food Standard 3.2.3 kitchen requirements (impervious flooring, coving, mechanical ventilation). On a heritage-listed place, those have to be designed not to alter significant fabric — which means a heritage architect, a BCA compliance surveyor, and a sequenced dual approval pathway between the Heritage Council and Huon Valley Council. Standard commercial-pub renovation estimates do not apply.

Full briefing: Heritage & building briefing.