Bushmen and farmers to lose their oasis

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33521, 30 April 1974, Page 11

Bushmen and farmers to lose their oasis

'Bj B. A SIMPSON) NELSON. April 28. Ihe absence of any objections by Rai residents to the building of a tavern at the Rai \ alley, has dashed the only hope for survival of the Belgrove 1 lotel, about 22 miles south of Nelson.

The hotel’s death knell has been sounded; patrons' hopes have been crushed under the weight of an anomaly in the licensing laws that could close many other doors of little country hotels owned by brewing interests. The licensees of the country pubs, the rural community and the travelling public, are powerless to prevent such closings under the present law. There have been other hotel and tavern-licence transfers in the Nelson district. Some have raised eyebrows. but none as much as the successful application of Dominion Breweries, Ltd, to transfer the licence of the Belgrove Hotel to a new •avem to be erected in the Rai Valley, about 30 miles from Nelson. Belgrove is a school, a store, and a pub. It is surrounded by farmlands, hop gardens, and tobacco fields, and is on the rim of the South Island's largest exotic forest. Golden Downs. Belgrove is the latest to he affected by some of the anomalies in the Sale of Liquor Act. 1962. COMMUNITY CENTRE The hotel is a modern, comfortable building which is many more things to the farming community (about 376 are eligible to use the hotel) and the 150 bushmen who work in the huge forest. than just a pub. It is community centre, bank, restaurant, and at times a labour excnange. Deals are negotiated in it, and solutions to problems, agricultural and silvicultural, found. It is, a typical New Zealand country pub. as important to the rura 1 community as the working men s dubs in the city. The most bitter feature, say the patrons of the hotel, is that there are no avenues open to them or the licensees to appeal against the transfer. The residents of a district and patrons of a hotel have no rights when an application for transfer of a licence is considered by the Licensing Control Commission. In this case, the commission listened to the o biections of patrons, though it was not obliged under the law to hear them. It was

l;only obliged to give full; . consideration to objections • from those adjacent to the i new site of the licence, and! to decide if a poll of resi-i E dents should be taken in the 1 area to be served by the I transferred licence. NEW PROPOSAL There appears to have •’ been some recognition of r .this anolmaly in official cir-j ’ des. Recently, the Minister I (of Justice (Dr Finlay) an-1 nounced in Parliament a new - proposal (the third in a year I • and the first not totally; ■ decried by the liquor trade; t and other parties involved) ? to deal with a situation, which occurs when the holdr er of a hotel licence seeks to s move the licence to a dis-1 . trict which has no hotels. The first proposal,: $ presented last year in the, f Sale of Liquor Amendment; > Bill, sought to give residents! > the same rights to a trust 1 . poll when the removal of aj > licence was proposed as the 1 ; residents enjoy when a new ; licence is authorised. This was strongly opposed ‘by the Liquor Industry ’Council, but the Parlia;mentary committee which ’considered the bill felt that ; the present law was too " harsh, and produced a sec}.ond plan. THIRD PLAN f This, too, was unaccep-’ table to both sides, and after! :further talks a third plan! was devised. This provides : . that a trust poll will be! i allowed where a licence re-! ? movai is sought, except! t when the Licensing Control; >! Commission decides that it il should not be held. -| In deciding this, the com-1 s mission will have to consid-| - er that the applicant did not i acquire the licence with a j view to seeking its removal; . that there is no reasonable , ! prospect of carrying on the /business profitably in the <ilocality; that if the appli-i cation for removal were pre- ■ - vented, the applicant would! ’ suffer undue financial hard-] ship. • I , This compromise plan was! .not wholly supported by! /both parties, but it did not! - offend as much as the two > earlier plans. i Unfortunately, this new if carried and if i not interfered with by the • report of the Royal Commis•ysion into the liquor industry, - will not help the Belgrove Hotel, although it might pre- ■ vent other rural commun- ■ ities from being robbed of t their pub. ? The Belgrove community; ? does not begrudge the Rail

Valley a tavern. Hotel pat- ■ rons do object, however, tc the transfer of their own I pub's licence, and ask why the brewery could not have > applied for a new licence? AVOIDING “RIGMAROLE” A spokesman for, Dominion Breweries said that the "rigmarole” associated with the obtaining of a new licence was too great a deterrent. There were no big problems or hold-ups involved in applying for a transfer of licence. A ne.v licence, however, might involve the applicant in up to three years of work, with no guarantee that it would be granted. He agreed it w’as for this reason that the brewery ap,plied for the transfer from > Belgrove to the Rai Valley, rather than seeking a new (licence. The Belgrove Hotel’s accommodation figures were I low (the commission was not obliged to consider the fact that the hotel had six permanent boarders) and its liquor sales were falling, said the spokesman. It was, he agreed, for financial reasons that the licence was being transferred from Belgrove. The Rai tavern was expected to yield bigger prbifits. i The licensees, Mr and Mrs H. M. Saunders, disputed ■ that bar sales were unecono- • mic. They said that the}’ ’ would be very happy to own the hotel. PULP MILL PLAN ! The establishment by 1977 (of a pulp mill in the : Wakefield area by H. BaiIgent and Sons, would have a Ibearing on the trade of the hotel. Although the mill itself is about eight miles from the hotel, much of the timber for the mill will come from areas around Belgrove. The influx of bushimen and others, would undoubtedly have increased its ■patronage. It is in this matter of degree of profitability that the main danger to country’ pubs : lies. Brewery-owned hotels lean have their licences (transferred almost at the ■ whim of the licence-holders. Logically, if a country hotel has small returns and small accommodation figures (as most have), their licences would be the first to be considered if they were required for the more profitable city premises. And for those affected by I the loss of a licensed hotel, (there is at the moment no (redress and no appeal.