Chch ‘over-bedded'

Press, 23 August 1979, Page 13

Chch ‘over-bedded'

Christchurch was already "over-bedded” without the Eastern Tavem being granted a hotel licence, an inspector of licensed premises in the Justice Department (Mr R. Cockbum) has told the Licensing Control Commision.

The commission (Messrs G. B. Fea, R. S. Austin, F. W. Pringle) was hearing an application by Wilson Neill, Ltd, for a hotel premises licence in the place of a tavem licence for the Eastern Tavern at the comer of Fitzgerald Avenue and Cashel Street.

Wilson Neill had bought the tavern in February and was building an 8000 sq. ft bottle store on the site, the manager of the company’s liquor division in Dunedin (Mr M. K. Smith) said. The company wanted to provide accommodation for single people at a reasonable tariff, he said. Stage one of the development plans for the site included five bedrooms, and a restaurant to service them. It was proposed to develop the hotel along lines similar to the Prince of Wales Hotel in Dunedin, which the company owned, he said. Stage two of the development would include a kitchen which could cater for the “fast-food turnaround service,” at lunch time, as in the Oxford Hotel, and for dining similar to that in the Caledonian Hotel, in the evening, Mr Smith said. The proposed alterations and additions to the hotel were estimated to cost $125,000, Mr Smith said. The company hoped to double the turnover of existing liquor sales at the tavern. Purchases of liquor would amount to $560,000. Counsel for the Liquor Industry Council (Mr J. J. McGrath) suggested that by gaining a hotel licence the company would miss out on pays ing the annual 3 per cent tavern tax, which was based on liquor purchases. But Mr Smith said that it

would be wrong to assume that the conversion of the premises to a hotel would result in any significant savings to the comany. The servicing fee on the cost of alterations to the hotel amounted to $17,500 at 14 per cent per annum. The comany would be losing $lOOO a year by converting the tavern to a hotel, he said. Mr Cockbum said that the commission had reviewed accommodation in Christchurch in 1977 and had found that there were enough beds. The situation had not changed in the last two years. If anything there had been a decline in occuancy rates.

In his report to the commission Mr Cockburn said that the proposed five bedrooms were too small to accommodate two beds. Furthermore, the entrance to the lounge bar and the public bar was through the reception area. The number of bedroomsj did not meet the commission’s

minimum Mid Mr Cockbum. Counsel for IVilson Neill, Mr R. V. Duell,. Mid that although the hotel plans showed two beds in the rooms it was only intended to accommodate one person in each room. Entry to the bars could also be altered if the commission, required it. The company wanted to provide “reasonable and comfortable” facilities fjt>r drinkers. Under the Sale of Liquor Act, 1902, it was not necessary fog 1 the commission to call a public hearing when there was an application to changp a tavem licence to a hotel licence, as no other partjg was affected, Mr Duell said, Mr McGrath said that the test that the commission should apply was whether thtere was a need for more liteensed hotel accommodation -in Christchurch. Mr fcockbum had already said Ithat there was not, ‘he said 1 The commission reserved I its decision.