City Council declines Arlington applications

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32797, 23 December 1971, Page 1

City Council declines Arlington applications

The City Council at a special meeting yesterday declined an application by Arlington Motor Inn, Ltd, for permission by way of specified departure to build an extra storey on the company’s hotel now under construction in Park Terrace near Peterborough Street.

The council also declined an application for permission for the company to have a tourist hotel liquor licence.

The decisions must go before the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board, which cannot sit in Christchurch before February. The Mayor (Mr N. G. Pickering) ruled out of order a motion by Cr D. R. Dowell that a special sub-committee be set up—consisting of Mr Pickering, Cr R. M. Macfarlane (Deputy Mayor) and Cr Dowell (chairman of the finance committee) —to inquire into "the circumstances surrounding the issue of a building permit by the City Council for a private hotel to the company.” Mr Pickering ruled that the matter was sub judice in view of proceedings filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of residents objecting to the hotel. The, resolution declining the company’s application for an extra floor and for a tourist hotel licence under the City Council’s existing district planning scheme and objecting to the proposals under the council’s review scheme, was moved by Cr M. McG. Clark (chairman of the town planning committee) and seconded by Cr Dowell. The resolution was carried on the voices, only two of the 16 councillors present voting against it. As soon as the resolution (a recommendation from the

town planning committee who had heard submissions and evidence over eight hours) was put, Mr Pickering said it had been noted that Cr M. R. Carter (a member of the town planning committee) had asked at previous council and committee meetings that it be noted he would take no part in discussions and would not vote on the matter. Rival company The Town Clerk (Mr M. B. Hayes) read the latest amendment to the Municipal Corporations Act on the matter, which said that councillors with any direct or indirect financial interest in a matter under discussion would be advised to leave the chamber. Mr Pickering then invited Cr Carter to "leave the table.” Cr Carter said he had no direct financial interest in the Arlington Motor Inn company’s project, but that he had disqualified himself on the ground that he was in a rival company that could have an interest in the result of the applications. Cr H. G. Hay said that the Auditor-General should be asked to clarify the law on the matter. Mr Pickering replied that the council had obtained a legal opinion on the statute. Cr Carter then accepted Mr Pickering’s invitation to leave the table. Mr Pickering said it was no reflection on Cr Carter, but merely obeying the law. Cr Carter sat in the public gallery after retiring. First speaker Cr H. L. Garrett was first speaker after the resolution was put. She attacked it on the grounds that Christchurch urgently needed more firstclass tourist hotel accommodation; she said that evidence had been given before the town planning committee. . “The Labour members of, the council by this recommendation show themselves to be timid, lacking in imagination and it—could be thought a competitor against the development of Christchurch—geared to last century, not this,” she said. Cr P. D. Dunbar supported , Cr Garrett's stand. , Cr D. F. Caygill said that Cr Garrett has missed the, point: the evidence for the' applicant company was clearly, on oath, that it j would not suffer great hard-, ship if it were not granted ; the extra floor (16 beds) or, the liquor licence. The Lab- ’ our council was not against 1 more tourist accommodation ; but was thinking of the effect of the proposal on neighbours I and the environment of Park i Terrace.

Cr Dowell said the "other side of the table” should recall it was previous council that' had laid down the existing planning scheme and the review scheme. Two council officers on subpoena, had given evidence that the proposals did not conform with the council’s present scheme or its review scheme.

The objecting residents had been unable to see the plans put in with the first application for a private hotel unti] they had caused legal proceedings to be instituted, said Cr Macfarlane. Those plans contained provisions for a lounge bar and other drinking facilities.

Cr Macfarlane said that the council should change its procedures so that interested neighbours who suspected that a private hotel might be a licensed one could obtain information without hav-

ing to start legal proceedings. He said he could not recollect one councillor who had seen the original plans until the first hearing of applications for the present specified departures. ‘Too much’ “But it was said in evidence that others persons had seen the plans. We cannot find out who those persons were—except that they were not interested members of the public who could be affected by the proposals,” Cr Macfarlane said. Cr Clark said: “The proposal before us is to cram too much into too small a space. Any specified departure should be for’the benefit of the people and the city. Nobody can say that the specified departures asked for are for that.”