Fendalton Dining-Rooms Approved By Council

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29389, 16 December 1960, Page 19

Fendalton Dining-Rooms Approved By Council

An application to hold wedding receptions, occasional luncheons and dinners at a property at 148 Glandovey road, owned by Messrs H, C. Brock and A, J. Lister, was approved by the A\ aimairi County Council last evening after a protracted debate.

In approving the application, the council amended the code of ordinances of its undisclosed scheme plan in order to provide for such an establishment in a residential A zone, and also laid down four conditions:

That functions -not continue after 9 pun. That no dancing be permitted. That the licence be not transferable without the councils consent. , That the licence be reviewed annually.

The application was only approved after two opposing amendments. moved by Crs. A. E. Wagner and C. L. Austin, had been defeated.

Although the final motion to approve the application appeared lost on the voices, the county chairman (Mr J. I. Colligan) declared it carried. Cr. Austin then called for a division, when the chairman and Crs A. R. Blank, J. W. Green, A. A. Adcock and H. J. Reynolds voted for the application. With Crs. Wagner, Austin, W. E. Cassidy and W. T. Rice against. Two petitions, one for and one against the proposal were received by the council, and were read by the County Clerk (Mr K. Maclachlan) during the debate.

The petitions were read out at the request of Cr. Austin, who said the council was doing business “in a most peculiar way” when they were not laid on the table for the majority of councillors to see. Cr. Austin asked for the addresses of the signatories to be read out, but the chairman said councillors could see them for themselves, and they were passed round the table. “Exclusive Functions”

The application, from Messrs Brock and Lister’s solicitors, recommended for approval by the council’s town-planning committee, said that the functions indicated would be “exclusive,” and would .not carry on late in the evening.

Approval of the application was moved by Cr. Green, chairman of the town-planning committee, and seconded by Cr. Reynolds.

Cr. Wagner said that the council had some time ago discussed a building application “by these people” which was “purely for residential purposes.” In October, it was brought up again, by which time it seemed perfectly obvious the people were trying to make a commercial use on the area.

A stopwork notice was served on alterations at the Glandovey road property, and there was council discussion about the fact that the alterations were “purely for residential purposes.” “I think these people wrote stating their application was ■purely for residential purposes,’ ” said Cr. Wagner. “Is that right, Mr Engineer?” Mr D. P. McLellan (county engineer): That is right

“I’m not at all happy about it,” said Cr. Wagner. “When I tried to bring this matter up at the October meeting I didn’t get very far.” The present applicants had applied for a dining use of the Glandovey road property, and had then withdrawn it, Cr. Wagner said. They had first made the application for “purely residential purposes,” but bad now come out into the open saying they wanted a commercial use anyway—“and the council is prepared to condone that action?” asked Cr. Wagner. “These people, Brock and Lister, had every intention of making a commercial undertaking when they applied for a building permit for “purely residential purposes,” Cr- Wagner said. "If this permit is granted to these people, I presume this council will give a permit to any person living anywhere in the Waimairi county for a restaurant. The council is setting a precedent If we pass this tonight, we are duty bound to keep to a policy. "Rather than start anything of that nature, I would move this application be not granted,” Cr. Wagner said. “I’ll second the motion,” said Cr. Austin.

The original motion would allow any person to have a restaurant, said Cr. Cassidy. The chairman: I say, no. “This council is shielding these proprietors,” claimed Cr. Cassidy. "Two months ago we tried to have the builder doing the alterations prosecuted, but you let him go. Yet tonight you are prosecuting a builder for small alterations- It is not consistent at all.”

The chairman, at this stage, suggested there need be no further discussion. Cr. Austin, however, said that as there was very strong feeling against the application, the council should give it “the very deepest consideration.”

After the question of any necessity of advertising a proposed change of land use had been canvassed, during which the chairman said there was no such requirement under an undisclosed scheme plan, Cr. Wagner spoke in reply to his amendment He said there were many wealthy residents in the Waimairi county who had paid high prices to live in “the peace and quiet” of the area, and such a commercial undertaking as that proposed would do a lot to upset them. “Bulldozing” Cr. Austin then sought to move a further amendment but the chairman ruled him out of order. Cr. Austin claimed the chairman ruled against him in order to “bulldoze” the application through, and suggested discussion continue, to allow an amendment. On a point of order, by Cr. Rice, it was decided an amendment could be accepted by a motion to recommit discussion to a stage before Cr- Wagner spoke in reply to his amendment, a motion which was put and carried. Cr. Austin then moved that because of the degree of confusion on legal technicalities of the code of ordinances, the matter be ceput to the county solicitors. "There is confusion round this table. I heard one councillor say our legal adviser was wrong,” Cr. Austin said.

Cr. Reynolds said the matter could be settled immediately. It had been before the council for some time and there had been a great deal of publicity over the fact that the property had belonged to Cr. Blank, the former county chairman.

“He has given us his word he is now in no way connected with this property,” Cr. Reynolds said. He has no interest in it at all.” There had been two petitions to the council, which cancelled out each other, but the council’s proposed conditions gave it “a first-class control” of the establishment.

When Cr. Wagner attempted to speak to Cr. Austin’s amendment the chairman ruled he had no right to speak.

. Cr- Cassidy: He is speaking to the amendment. I would say he has a perfect right to speak. The chairman: I rule he has not Cr. Austin (rising to his feet): A point of order, Mr Chairman! After Cr. Austin had pursued his point, along the lines indicated by Cr. Cassidy, the chairman admitted he had ruled wrongly, said he was “sorry ” and permitted Cr. Wagner to speak.

The fact that Cr. Blank had once owned the property had nothing whatever to do with the matter, said Cr. Wagner. Council Policy

“Here at this council we have, one after another, work for which building permits have not been applied for,” he said. “We let some go because of a hardluck story, but it is high time this council’s policy was kept to strictly—and if we don’t like our policy, let’s change it,” Cr. Austin brought up the matter of the petitions and asked if they had been tabled. The chairman: They were tabled at the committee meeting. Cr. Austin: I mean here, at the full council table. I think we are doing business in a peculiar way when a majority of the councillors have not seen them. Cr. Austin pressed for them to be read. The petition against the application asked that the council take steps to prevent Messrs Brock and Lister bringing about a change of land use in the area by the restaurant establishment known as "The Four Seasons.”

After the reading of tlje petitions, and scrutiny of the addresses of signatories, voting was taken on the amendments. Cr. Wagner’s amendment was lost, Crs. Wagner and Austin voting by show of hand, and other councillors, including Cr. Blank, who spoke for the first time in the debate, giving an oral “no.” Cr. Austin’s amendment was also lost, although Cr. Austin demanded a division.

When the final motion was put, it appeared carried by the. “noes,” but Cr. Colligan declared-