Decision reserved on Hillsborough tavern

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32458, 19 November 1970, Page 12

Decision reserved on Hillsborough tavern

“Your proposals seem to invite an aggregation of customers from afar,” said the chairman (Mr S. T. Barnett). when the Licensing Control Commission yesterday reserved its decision on an application by Salisbury Holdings, Ltd, .to transfer the licence of the old Central Hotel to a new tavern, which it is proposed to build at 360 Port Hills Road. Mr Barnett was referring to suggestions made at the hearing that the 7300 square feet of bar and bar lounge space proposed was in excess of what the commission had in mind when it suggested “locality” taverns on the outskirts of the city. Mr A. K. Archer appeared for Salisbury Holdings, Ltd, and Mr P. G. S. Penlington appeared for the only objector, Valley Inn Hotel, Ltd. Objection “not valid” Mr N. L. Heyder said he was secretary of Salisbury Holdings, Ltd, which held the Central Hotel licence transferred to it by the Christchurch Wrecking Company, which had the same shareholding. If the licence transfer was approved, the company’s name would be changed to Hillsborough Tavern, Ltd. The Valley Inn objection, said Mr Heyder, was not a valid one, and the proposed tavern fitted the commission’s concept bf a medium-sized tavern suitable for the outskirts of the city. The site was close enough to the commission’s suggested locality. The commission had indicated that it was not happy with the bar space provided, but the full area would not be required except at peak times. The idea was to build big enough now to keep costs down, rather than pay more for extensions later. Mr Heyder said that finance was available to spend up to $300,000 on the tavern as soon as the consent of the building controller had been obtained. To Mr Penlington, Mr Heyder said that extensive inquiries had been made fot a site nearer where the commission favoured, at Huntsbury, but suitable land could not be found. . Mr G. F. Willis, a registered architect, said that 310 car-parking spaces would be provided initially, and the company had an option over adjoining land to create another 300 spaces. “Where are you going to get all these cars from?” asked Mr Bamett. Mr Willis said the spaces were based on the requirements of the Christchurch Regional Planning Authority. The present population of the district to be served by the tavern was about 8000, and this was expected to rise to 10,500 by 1981. There was considerable development likely at Huntsbury and around Port Hills Road. As to the bar sizes, said Mr Willis, he had compared

them with similar premises, and only Bishopdale Tayem had a smaller area than was proposed. If the commission decided the area was too great, the lounge could be reduced. Mr Bamett pointed out that Bishopdale had 5000 square feet of bar, while 7300 square feet was proposed for Hillsborough. “Tve visited Bishopdale on several occasions, and found it difficult to get a seat,” said Mr Willis. It was perfectly plain that the Hillsborough proposals were designed to direct customers away from the Valley Inn at Heathcote, and that this was one of the aims of “this very extensive tavern,” said Mr Penlington. Mr M. F. Neiman, governing director of Valley Inn Hotel, Ltd, said that major expenditure had been undertaken in the expectation that business would grow. “After you did that, what was the percentage increase?” asked Mr Bamett. Mr Neiman: It must have gone up 50 per cent. Similar evidence was given by Mr D. J. Pearce, governing director of D. j. Pearce Industries, Ltd, who said the company leased the Valley Inn at a rental of $758.33 a month. Many of his customers came from lower Wool- . ston, Hillsborough and southern Opawa. Asked again about 610 carparking spaces, Mr Archer said that the applicants were caught on both sides —by the commission’s own views and by those of the Regional Planning Authority. The company would, if the commission wished, modify its plans, but did not wish completely to alter the design.