WATERFRONT HOTEL

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 285, 2 December 1925, Page 8

WATERFRONT HOTEL

APPLICATION FOR LICENSE. REMOVAL FROM THAMES HOTEL. GROWTH OF CITY AN ARGUMENT. An application for the issue of a publican's license for the Thames Hotel, and its removal from the present site at the corner of Queen Street and Custom Street East, to premises formerly occupied by Messrs. Lichtenstein and Arnoldson, in Quay Street, came before the Auckland Licensing Committee at its quarterly meeting to-day. Tlie applicant was William Frederick Thomas Grigsby. Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., (chairman of the committee) presided, and had associated with him as members, Messrs. Jas. Grace, E. Leydon, George H. Lethaby, A. Thompson and J. Trevitbick. Messrs. G. P. Finlay and L. J. Stevens appeared in support of the application, and Mr. R. McVeagh represented 10 memorialists, who objected to the issue of the license, and 44 who objected to its removal. Forty other memorialists, represented by Mr. W. R. Tuck, also objected to the removal of the license. Sub-Inspector S. Rawle appeared as licensing officer. Mr. Finlay stated the case for tho applicant, and claimed that the proposed building was well designed, was conveniently arranged «.nd situated for the public, and that, instead of being detrimental to people passing it, in Quay Street, would have many advantages in the proposed location. "There is not the same congestion of traffic in Quay Street as in Queen Street," submitted Mr. Finlay; "if there were any interference with traffio, and any detriment to people passing there, the detriment is a thousand times greater in Queon Street; all the travellers by the ferry boats and passengers by trains from the suburbs must pass the hotels at the foot of Queen Street at least twice a day. The detriment, instead of ■being against Quay Street, is all in favour of it."

Considering whether a hotel in Quay Street would demoralise it, Mr. Finlay ridiculed the suggestion. It involved tho assumption that some quality of holiness was attached to Quay Street, that did not appertain to any other street in Auckland.

Objection to Removal. Although two applications had been 1 filed, Mr. Finlay said that the principal application was that for removal. The great weight of the objection was to tho •removal. The present premises were practically non-existant. For a very considerable number of years the Thames Hotel had been situated on what was originally the waterfront; but the development of the city had driven it back. The Dilworth Trust Board had decided that the hotel must be a hotel no longer, and would bo replaced by shop and office premises. The lease of the building had now expired, and the intangible asset, known as the license, was offered for public property. It had been purchased by Mr. 'James Gleeson, who was constrained to [get some building to which to remove it. The Dilworth Trust Board had practically approved of the site selected, ' according to their conditions under -which the license was sold.

There had been no higher speculation in the city than that of Mr. Gleeson's. He had expended £23,000 on land and buildings, £10,000 on the alteration of the premises, £5000 was the allocation for furnishings. The license itself had cost £3000, making a total, in anticipation of the committee's finding of £41,000. The applicant asked for no measure of mercy on account of the expenditure, but asked the committee to consider whether the premises bought at the cost named and converted, were not fit and proper premises in which to hold the license which was previously held in the Thames Hotel. At this stage Mr. Finlay submitted a plan of the building.

Description of the Building. He olaimed the hotel would have public facilities that were unequalled, not only in Auckland, but in the rest of the Dominion. There was no communication between the bar and the public entrance in the hotel as planned. The bar would have appointments and equipments most elaborate; it would be a palatial place, a special feature being the tiling.

On the first floor would be the dining room, a lounge room, and outside an extensive lounge, common to every floor. On the three top floors was the accommodation for the boarders and guests. It was on a scale that no other kotel in Auckland could boast of, the front bedrooms, three on each floor, opened on to the Waitemata Harbour. Facing on the street at the back there were four bedrooms on each floor, and in between the sets of bedrooms there was a lounge. There would exist in the hotel a combination of comforts that could not be found anywhere else in Auckland.

Continuing, Mr. Finlay said that on tho five floors the dedication for liquor consisted of only half of the bottom floor and all the remainder of the building was wholly dedicated to the comfort and convenience of the travelling public. He claimed that in point of public convenience the hotel, was commodious, well designed, and altogether worthy of the license, having regard to the size that it was possible to make it. There was also room for future extension if business warranted it; but it was unreasonable and absurd to ask Mr. Gleeson to throw in any more money before he knew where he stood.

Not a "Beer House." With regard to the conduct of tho hotel, Mr. Finlay submitted that it was improper and unfair , to assume to-day what that conduct would be. If the license was refused on the ground of conduct it was refused without one tittle of foundation. The hotel would be under tho immediate control of the wharf police. That would constitute the com* pulsory control. If the intention of the licensee were to run there what was defined as a "beer shop," why had he made such provision for guests and allocated so much money for alterations which would bring the accommodation of the house to a high standard? Mr. Finlay claimed that there was an urgent need for a hotel right on the waterfront, at the "point of departure and arrival of overseas steamers. In every town and importance in the. world there existed' at least one hotel, in a situation such as this. If Auckland continued to advance by reclamation the need of an hotel situated on the waterfront would eventually arise. Concluding, Mr. Finlay made a comparison between tbe old Thames Hotel and the proposed hotel, and claimed that the advantages of the new building wero superior in every way. There would not be one tittle more intemperance if there were four hotels on the waterfront than

there was to-day, and a man could be more readily dealt with in Quay Street than in Queen Street. He submitted that the objections to the granting of a license had been supported in the local Press by a newspaper campaign that proceeded from vested interests. He described it as contempt for the ruling of the Licensing Committee. William Frederick Thomas Grigsby, the applicant for tho renewal of the license, said that ne Tia-.T complied with the usual requirements by advertising in tho Press. Since 1893 he had been connected with various hotels. Mr. McVeagh": We don't want any autobiography. There is no objection as far as Mr. Grigsby is personally coniccrned.