Motels At Hotel Court Upsets Ruling By Commission

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31230, 30 November 1966, Page 1

Motels At Hotel Court Upsets Ruling By Commission

GVew Zealand Press Association)

TIMARU, November 29.

An appeal by John Henry Smith Hogg, a Timaru hotelkeeper, against a determination by the Licensing Control Commission that he should build eight twinbed motel units as an accommodation requirement for the Terminus Hotel has been allowed by Mr Justice Henry.

In a reserved judgment issued today, his Honour said the commission virtually required the appellant to enter the business of a motel proprietor in conjunction with the running of, and as part of, his licensed premises.

“Nothing in this judgment is to be taken as being an acceptance by the Court that such a requirement was within the authority of the commission. The point was not argued, and can be determined when it arises,” said his Honour.

The appeal was the first against more than 700 decisions of the commission to be heard by the Supreme Court. At the hearing in Timaru earlier this month, Mr Hogg was represented by Mr G. S. Raymond, of Timaru, and the commission by Mr G. S. Orr, of the Crown Law Office, Wellington.

“The real point put up on appeal is that the commission has made the following findings—that the hotel occupies an ideal situation for a modern motor hotel on premises which contain nearly three acres; and, the hotel is in a situation where there is a substantial demand for liquor and accommodation.

“On these findings the commission required the construction of eight twin-bed motel units. But one looks in vain for any suggestion during the hearing that such a requirement was in contemplation. There was nd evidence, and the appellant

was given no opportunity of calling evidence. The area also was wrongly stated—it is 1 acre 22.5 perches,” said his Honour.

Zoned For Industry The judgment said that further facts placed before the Court on appeal showed the area was zoned for heavy industry. In its immediate vicinity there was a wool tops mill, a wool scour works, a joinery factory, a fibrous plaster factory, an engineering and foundry works, and a concrete block manufacturer. A feature of the hotel was that it provided off-street parking for patrons in an area where that type of parking was important, and no inquiry had been made into the availability of space for parking if motels were erected. Special Body

“It was pressed upon the Court by Mr Orr that the respondent was a special body having peculiar and comprehensive knowledge of the requirements of the Act (the Sale of Liquor Act, 1962) and its particular application to the city of Timaru, which it had just inspected. With that I agree,” said his Honour. “I am satisfied that the Court ought to interfere with the finding of the commission on the following grounds:— “It proceeded on the basis that an area of nearly three acres was available, whereas the correct area is 1 acre 22.5 perches.

Financial Implications

“It failed to consider, or give proper or sufficient weight, to the following relevant facts—the zoning of the area; the nature and proximity of industries; the practicability of siting motels on the land and still preserving the amenities of the hotel for parking; the rentals at which the motels could be let and probable rate of occupancy; and, the financial implications involved in requiring the appellant to enter into the business of a motel proprietor in conjunction with, and as an addition to, his business as a hotelkeeper. “It failed to give the appellant an opportunity to be heard on a topic which was in no way adverted to or foreshadowed at the inquiry, but which would require the ex-

penditure of a large sum of money and the entering into a subsidiary business." New Building

His Honour said the commission’s decision not only enforced the standards laid down under the Act, but also required a specific building programme to be carried out independently of the buildings now on the licensed premises, and as an individual and not a class requirement. The main purpose of sections 310 and 313 of the Act was the determination whether a hotel premises or a tavern premises licence should be issued in place of an existing provisional hotel premises licence. For that purpose the commission was required to have regard for the accommodation requirements of the public and to prescribe a standard to be complied with. “It is under this power or authority that the commission prescribed for the construction of eight twin-bed motels and virtually required the appellant to enter the business of a motel proprietor in conjunction with his licensed premises. Nothing in this judgment is to be taken as being an acceptance by the Court that such a requirement was within the authority of the commission,” said his Honour.