Planning ‘stifles tourism’

Press, 17 April 1980, Page 10

Planning ‘stifles tourism’

Planning restrictions stifle the growth of tourism in New Zealand, according to a Christchurch hotel manager. Mr T. A. McKenzie, managing director of the Autolodge Motor Inn, told the Planning Tribunal on Tuesday that he thought that the Christchurch City Council’s refusal to grant his company permission to build 24 more rooms (48 beds) on to the 50-bedroom (100 beds) hotel in Papanui Road was a case in point. Autolodge Investments (Christchurch), Ltd. has lodged an appeal against the City Council’s decision on the planning application. The hearing finished yesterday after the objections of neighbours have been heard. The decision was reserved. Seven of the 17 residents who have objected to the extension gave evidence to the tribunal yesterday 7. They described the noise, traffic congestion, loss of privacy, surface flooding and the depreciating value of their properties, which, they alleged, had occurred because of the presence of the Autolodge Motor Inn in their neighbourhood. They also objected to the visual intrusion of the complex, which some said was already “overpowering” without any extensions being added. One resident, Mr H. W. Dangerfield, a builder, described the lodge as an “eyesore which spoilt an otherwise pleasant neighbourhood.” Mr F. A. Field, a retired fanner, whose two-storeyed wooden home has been in his family for four generations, said that the extensions would take away “considerably more” than 25 per cent of his view of the Port Hills from his dressing room window. The view from the two round-cut crystal leadlight study windows in his study would also be impeded by the extensions, he said.

I Mr Field said that the inoise in the area wa<s much •greater now than it was i “before the last war” and he i attributed part of the noise (pollution to the Autoiodge. : Counsel for the residents : (Mr A. Hern) asked that, if consent for the extensions was granted, opaque glass be put in the 24 bedroom windows which overlook the homes of residents who felt their privacy would be invaded because of them. He also asked for something to be done about the on-street parking associated with the lodge, for more landscaping, and for noise limits to be imposed on the Autolodge property. Mr McKenzie said that Autolodge had had to turn down 82 busloads of tourist ■and other special interest groups during the coming tourist season, which will be from about August this year until April-May, 1981. This was because there were not enoueh beds. . He said that a Tourist Advisory Council report had estimated a shortage of 50 rooms in Christchurch by March 31. 1981. This would be aggravated by the demise of older inner-city hotels as they became uneconomic to run. Thirty-seven rooms were lost when the Embassy Hotel was demolished, the Excelsior had gone from 40 to 23 rooms; the Clarendon had lost four rooms and the United Service’s viability as a residential hotel might be ! threatened because of the .deficiency of its fire-safety provisions. I There were 1211 rooms, I not counting suites, at the ‘standard of Autolodge or (better available in Christchurch, Mr McKenzie said. | Under cross-examination ibv Mrs H. C. Hodgson, who appeared for the City Council, he said that the shortage of hotel beds in Christchurch was not as acute as in other centres, such as Queenstown or Auckland.

.Auckland was estimated to[ suffer from a shortage of; 500 beds, compared with an; 'estimated lack of 50 in: iChristchurch. The situation; I in Auckland was a “crisis. , ; For Autolodge In-1 'vestments. Mr A. A. P. ! Willy said that delays in ; planning decisions could | cost the company $60,000 al :vear. His figure was based • on the current inflation rate jin the building industry; | which he estimated to be 15i 'per cent, on the cost of the! bedroom block, which was: $400,000. i Mr Willy said that the I proposed Autolodge exten-| ! «ions failed to comply with, the City Council’s operative district" scheme in that they j (exceeded the plot ratio re-, quirement for a Residential; 3 district. The four-storey' building, which would be at ithe rear of the lodge, would (have a plot ratio of 0.6, which exceeded the required ratio in the scheme, which ■is 0.5. With the additions, l the ratio would be 0.72, I nearly half as much again as was allowed. i In the proposed revision :of the current scheme, the; [existing lodge would further I offend in that it exceeded the maximum floor area of 3000 sq. m. Mr Willy suggested that the proposed revisions of the scheme seemed to have 'been “tailor-made” to present Autolodge Investments I from developing any further lon the site. In particular, the ■3OOO sq. m limit on the size of buildings, irrespective of ithe size of the. site, which iwas introduced just after the ,■ City Council rejected the Autolodge application last September, seemed to be aimed at the appellant, he said. It affected only three, buildings in the R 3 zone — The- Gainsborough and thej Carlton hotels, and Auto-: lodge. A senior town planner of the Christchurch City Council, Mr M. J. G. Garland, del.nied this. He said the

scheme had been prepared 18 months before and its introduction had been delayed. The council had in its review taken steps to protect residential areas from such ‘‘semi-commercial intrusions,” Mr Garland said. He opposed the extensions because he said he thought it “made a bad situation worse” because of the “visual intrusion and the strength of the hole it makes in the community." “We are desperately trying to hang on to inner-city residential areas,” Mr Garland said. "That is the one thing Christchurch lacks in terms of its inner city.” Large complexes with a temporary population detracted from the community spirit and led to families 'moving away from the area. .