Motor Inn development proposals criticised

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32422, 8 October 1970, Page 11

Motor Inn development proposals criticised

It was obvious that when the hotel was established there was going to be development in depth, and these developments would have been better settled at the time, rather than introduced “topsy turvy like,” said Mr R. J. de Gold!, appearing for objectors in a Waimalri County Council town-planning hearing yesterday.

Inns of Canterbury, Ltd (Mr P. R. T. Taylor), asked for a specified departure to enable a property at 100 Wharenui Road, in a residential A zone, to be used as a car-park, and for the construction of a bottle-store and store-room on the Blenheim Road frontage of the Blenheim Road Motor Inn. Mr de Goldi represented Mr C. H. Shaw, 4 Aileen Place, Mr R. P. Norris, 6 Aileen Place, Mr I. M. Hampton, 98 Wharenui Road, and Mr P. A. Connolly, 104 Wharenui Road. He said there was no evidence that the hotel needed more car-parking space, as the existing space would not be more than 60 per cent used at peak times.

Mr de Goldi said he wished to protest at the way in which the owners had treated conditions set by the council two years ago when it granted a specified departure in respect of another carpark application. The council had then required screen planting and the like to provide an acoustic and visual barrier between the land and surrounding houses. For the company, Mr B. J. Wilks had volunteered to provide this barrier. But, said Mr de Goldi, the land had been used immediately on permission being given for car parking, and it was not until the beginning of this year that kerbing was put in round the car park, and trees were not planted until this winter. “Impudent assumption” “The trees are spaced 13ft apart, and are about 2ft high, a single row,” said Mr de Goldi. “These spindly little shrubs will never provide a barrier, and even if they grow to the height of the fence, 6ft, they will do nothing. By planting in that way, the company ignored the spirit of what was intended.” The fact that the company had not put in kerbing along the boundary of the land in the present application was an impudent assumption that the application would be granted, he said. The effect of the application, if granted, would be to create an island of commercial use in the Wharenui Road residential A zone, said Mr de Goldi. The examples he had quoted showed some of the worst aspects of patchwork development. Mr Shaw said in evidence that the noise, visual detriment, loss of privacy and the like which he had feared two years ago, had occurred

to the extent that he expected, and the company had done virtually nothing to minimise the disadvantages. Mrs Connolly said teenagers had lived in the house at 100 Wharenui Road for a week-end, and had had a party. The house was in a disgusting state, and the closed right-of-way from the car-park to Wharenui Road, which the council required to be kept tidy, was not looked after. “Our rights of privacy are being taken away by granting privileges to others, said Mr Norris, who also complained about noise from the band playing at the hotel. For the company, Mr Taylor said that it was proposed to use the land at 100 Wharenui Road together with the closed right-of-way to give more car-parking space, and an additional traffic exit to Wharenui Road.

“Considerable expense” The company was going to considerable expense to fulfil the generally-accepted townplanning principle of providing off-street parking, and better traffic flow on to adjoining streets. While initial minor inconveniences were caused to adjoining owners, the over-all public interest required car-parking development, and this should be encouraged by the council. “Much has been made about the risks involved to schoolchildren,” said Mr Taylor. ’’This is a fanciful ground of objection which has no basis in reality.” All the objectors except the owner of 98 Wharenui Road had bought their properties since the hotel licence transfer was authorised in 1957. There was publicity then, and from time to Jme until the hotel was built in 1964. The possibility of hotel extensions could well have been taken into account by these objectors. Mr R. B. Wright, who said he was responsible for the buildings and development at the inn, said the house at 100 Wharenui Road was dilapidated, and “something of an eyesore.” The storeroom would be at the rear of the hotel, and the drivethrough bottle-store would be at the east end, 65ft from the boundaries of Wharenui Road properties, and a much greater distance from the houses. Neither of these owners had objected.

The hearing panel, which comprised Crs R. C. Neville (chairman), F. S. Blogg and I. Calvert, reserved its decision.