TRUST HOTEL LICENCE FOR HORNBY GRANTED

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28629, 4 July 1958, Page 5

TRUST HOTEL LICENCE FOR HORNBY GRANTED

The Paparua County Council, acting on behalf of a trust yet to be formed, will be granted a licence for the establishment of a hotel in Hornby.

The chairman of the Christchurch Licensing Committee (Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M.), in announcing the committee’s unanimous decision, said that building must commence within one year. If there was no progress towards the establishment of the trust within that time the notice of intention to grant a licence might be revoked; however, there was provision for the extension of this time limit if, in the opinion of the committee, this was warranted. The conditions were set, said Mr Ferner, in fairness to the other applicant for a licence, Mr Frank Mitchell, a taxi proprietor, whose application was refused. The committee was required, where a poll of electors was in favour of a trust hotel, to grant a licence to the authority sponsoring the trust, unless there were special circumstances, said Mr Ferner. The result of the 1957 Hornby poll was acceptable; there was no material difference between the separate sites and plans submitted by the two applicants; the county council had acted in good faith and its prospects of establishing a hotel were as good as those of Mr Mitchell. The committee was agreed that there were no special circumstances. The council was represented by Mr N. H. Buchanan and Mr Mitchell by Messrs J. G. Leggat and W. F. Brown. Case Against Trust The county council knew, as early as 1953, that there was a demand in Hornby > for a licence, yet three years later, when supportf for a hotel was sought by Mr Mitchell, the council replied that it was not its intention to support a licence for the district, said Mr Leggat. The council saw fit not to appear when the Licensing Control Commission sat in Christchurch to review the needs of the district, he said. The poll held in October, 1957, was neither sufficiently extensive nor sufficiently decisive in indicating the wishes of the electorate. A letter from the Minister of Finance (Mr Nordmeyer) outlining an acceptable programme of finance for a trust hotel was non-committal, said Mr Leggat. It was permissive only and at least two of the three bodies whose consent would be required at one stage or another—the Capital Issues Committee, the Local Authorities Loans Board and the Bank of New Zealand—were under the direct control of the Minister.

“The trust is open to all the political and financial winds of the moment, while an individual can raise money without statutory influence of any kind,” he said.

Where a majority of the electors who voted was in favour of a trust hotel—as was the case in this instance—said Mr Buchanan, the committee was enjoined to grant the application made on behalf of the trust, unless there were ' special circumstances. ‘Here there was a clear majority of more than two to one. in a poll by 26 per cent, of the electorate, a figure fully comparable with other local body polls,” he said. The council’s reply, in 1956, refusing Mr Mitchell support for a licence, had not been made by Mr Mitchell himself but by his solicitors, who did not name him, said Mr Buchanan. Its reply had been that it would not be prepared to support such an application. County Clerk's Evidence At the poll, in October, 1957, 26 per cent, of the electorate voted, said the Paparua County Clerk. Mr G. A. Kelly, in evidence. This was comparable with the interest shown in other polls recently held in the county A total of 437 votes was cast. 293 in favour of a trust hotel. 133 against and 11 informal. A year ago residents in the

district were willing to lend £6500 if and when a trust was established, he said. ‘ It was the Hornby Residents’ Association which first approached the council, about three years ago, for a hotel, said Mr Kelly, Under cross-examination by Mi Leggat, Mr Kelly admitted that the council would be committed to raising or guaranteeing £20,000. He considered that the ratepayers had been made well aware of this financial commitment. The council had taken full account of the opposition offered by the newly-established workingmen’s club.

A church in Tower street was some distance from the proposed site of the hotel, he said. The Plunket Society rooms next door were temporary- premises on council property. Council's Policy

It had always been the policy of the council that, if a hotel was to be established in Hornby, it should be a trust hotel, said Mr R. J. Roberts, deputy-chairman of the council. In reaching this decision the council had taken account of public opinion. Although, in 1953, residents of Hornby voted, in a door-to-door poll, three to one in favour of a hotel for the district, he recalled that, in 1956, the council replied to Mr Mitchell that it was not in favour of a licence for a hotel in Hornby, said Mr Roberts, cross-examined by Mr Leggat. It was a question of finance—it would have been difficult to find the money for a trust hotel at that time.

He realised that it could De many years before any profit from the hotel would be available for distribution in the district, said Mr Roberts.

For many years there had been, on the council’s part a “secret unwillingness to have a hotel” in the district, said Mr Brown. Mr Mitchell said he had an offer from a brewery, upon certain conditions, of £20,000; had between £7OOO and £BOC3 to put in himself and the support ol other interested parties for the remainder. To Mr Buchanan, he said he had no firm commitment from the other parties, and would have none until he had a licence. Of 24 applications for trust hotel licences 22 had not been proceeded with, said Mr K. N. McGillivray, secretary to the Canterbury branch of the Licensed Victualler’s Association. He said that most of the proposals had “fallen by the way side” because of financial difficulties. The committee comprised Mr Ferner and Messrs W. G. Carpenter, J. M. Clarke, C. A. Cooper, and A. A. Dingwall.