Commission Reserves Decision On Airport Restaurant Licence

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29901, 15 August 1962, Page 17

Commission Reserves Decision On Airport Restaurant Licence

Decision was reserved by the Licensing Control Commission yesterday on an application by the Flamingo Restaurant, Ltd., for a restaurant licence for premises to be built on the observation deck at the Chnstchardi airport The application was opposed by the Women’s Christian Temperance I mon, the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches, the Baptist I nion, and the New Zealand Alliance. The Christchurch City Council, as joint controller of the airport with the Civil Aviation Administration, supported the application.

The commienen (Mr S. T Barnett, chairman, MajorGeneral Sir William Gentry, and Mr F. P. Kelly) will give a wr.tten decision in a week or so.

Mr G. S. Brockett appeared for the Flamingo Restaurant Ltd., and Mr J. G. Leggat for the City Council as joint owner of the premises. Mr 11. W. Thompson appeared for the objectors, apart from

he Methodist Church and he Baptist Union. No witesses appeared for the Bap-

t.st Union, written submissions being made. Called by Mr Brockett, Charles Solomon Levy. gJV-c-tong-director of the applicant company, said that a new dining area was proposed. It would be built on the observation deck and would contain an area for dancing which would be carpeted when not in use. Many persons travelling had asked him when licensed premises were to be established at the airport, the witness said. If the licence was X.-anted, persons would not be able to drink for the sake of drinking. Cost of Work

Cross-examined by Mr Thompson, the witness said the propcsed alterations would cost about £40,000. He was not sure whether the rent for his company would be raised. Mr Thompson! You mean that the citizens of Christchurch are going to pay £40.000 to provide you with a new restaurant at the airport without charge to you? The witness: Not exactly. The witness agreed that last September his company applied for a restaurant ' icence for the airport, but that was for the present restaurant area on the ground floor. He agreed that there had been dine-and-dance evenings in the ground floor restaurant. They had been stopped because they interfered with service to travellers. To farther questions, the w/.ness agreed he would be relying on dine-and-dance evenings to a certain extent, ■hat Saturdays would be his big nights, and that the patrons would be more from ths Christchurch area than from •ravellers. because the hours were restricted to noon to 2.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 1130 p.n*. for serving wines with meals. Airport Manager Andrew Ivan Robert Jamieson. the airport manager called by Mr Leggat, said that the proposed building on the roof of the terminal would cost between £40,000 and £50,000, and would include lounges, hairdressing rooms for women and men. and toilet facilities, as well as the restaurant dining-room and kitchen. The applicant company paid rent in ratio to the turnover. If the turn-over went beyond an optimum point the rent would be increased. The cafeteria would remain on the ground floor, but the restaurant area would be used for passenger and other traffic when the roof restaurant was opened. He said that Sundays was a prolific day for sightseers, but liquor could not be pro-

vided with meals on Sundays. The council had voted in favour of the application for a licence for the restaurant. There had been no objections. One or two of the councillors could have abstained from voting on the motion. The council's policy. as defined by the resolution. was in favour of a licensed restaurant at the airport.

To Mr Thompson, the witness said that visitors and businessmen from Christchurch and the surrounding area would provide the majority of the custom for the proposed restaurant, as they now did for the groundfloor restaurant. The restaurant would be built on the first-floor roof whether a licence was granted or not Objections The convener of the Presbyterian General Assembly committee on liquor problems and alcoholism. King Lincoln Warren, submitted that the sale of liquor at airports was unnecessary and unwise. It would lead to intoxicated driving and unpleasant incidents in aircraft. To Mr Leggat, the witness said that the drinking of liquor in other established places would tend towards the same dangers, but the sale of liquor at the airport would make these dangers more likely to occur. The acting,president of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, Alice Winifred Clark, a married woman, made the same specific objections about intoxicated driving from the airport to Christchurch and the unpleasant incidents on aircraft. On a MelbourneChristchurch flight, she said, she had seen an air hostess have trouble with a passenger who had been drinking at the airport in Melbourne. The chairman of the North Canterbury area council of the New Zealand Alliance, Harold K. Brown, made similar objections, and said that the proposed tourist hotel to be erected in Wooldridge road, near the airport, by New Zealand Breweries, Ltd., would provide accommodation and all the necessary amenities that air travellers required.

To Mr Leggat, he said that drinking there or at any other licensed premises could lead to the difficulties he had raised, but liquor facilities at the airport itself would increase the likelihood of these difficulties. The president of the North Canterbury area of the Methodist Church, Hubert G. Brown, made similar objections, and said that 5C years ago liquor in railway refreshment rooms had been abolished because of unpleasant incidents in the rooms and on trains. Since then the public transport systems had been kept free of liquor, and he thought liquor facilities at the airport would be retrograde. Counsel’s Addresses Mr Leggat, addressing the commission, said that the Legislature had made the drinking of wines and ales with meals “a desirable part of our way of life. ... No evidence has been brought, only opinion, that any licensed restaurant at any airport has caused unpleasant incidents on aircraft or any of the type of event which has been postulated by the objectors. “If this licence is granted it will be the first in New Zealand, but that may well be because Christchurch has the only airport terminal suitable for the -standards required by the commission. Such a restaurant with a licence would be in conformity with the facilities available at overseas airports of similar size,” he said.

Mr Thompson submitted that the evidence had shown there was no need for a licence at the airport. "It has been said that the new restaurant will be built on the roof, regardless of the fate of this application. . . "Such a licence, with its restricted hours, is of little or no advantage to air travellers, but will be substantially for the citizens of Christchurch, who already have the amenities of licensed restaurants, hotels, and wine, dine, and dance places. “The citizens of Christchurch are proud of their airport. and will not want it to become a country club,” Mr Thompson said.