Residents oppose tavern

Press, 23 April 1980, Page 6

Residents oppose tavern

A survey of residents near the Barrington Park Mall had shown that “the vast majority” were opposed to the building of a neighbourhood tavern there a Christchurch City Council hearing was told last evening. Of the people who lived in 181 houses randomly selected for the survey, 56 per cent opposed the tavern and 28 per cent favoured it, said Mr D. A. R. Smith, a University of Canterbury psychologist He was giving evidence at the hearing of an application by G.U.S. Properties, Ltd, to build a tavern and bottlestore as an extension to the shopping mall and to use two residential section-5 off Simeon Street for car-park-ing. The strongest opposition came from residents who owned houses, had families/ or who regularly shopped |

1 at the mall, he said. I The views of residents should be paramount in conI sidering permission for the proposal. ’ ■ i For the applicant. Mr J. R. Milligan said council consent thad been given to the company in 1978 for the exten-l sion of retail space at the :mall. The tavern would be i part of this development. I He accepted legal argument • that the consent had lapsed ; because the company had not I acted on it within two years. |The site proposed for the, tavern was just outside an; area which the Licensing Control Commission'*'• had said in 1977 was in need of; ;a tavern. Mr K. G. Daldorf, general I manager of G.U.S. Whole-’ salers, Ltd, said his company; still intend to proceed with, i the mall extensions originally jproposed but with part of!

1 the retail space replaced ,-with the tavern. The tavern, which would /include two bars and a resitaurant, would complement J the extended shopping centre. The additional car-, /parking, even without the' .itavern, would be useful for: /increased patronage of . the 1 . shops alone. i A council planner, Mr B. W. Alexander, said he could [ not support the proposal in ■its existing form. The tavern, '.would be too large for a (truly “neighbourhood type, /situation.” ,! A tavern reduced in size! i by about a fifth of that pro-; /posed would be more appro-; ipriate. It would also not re-! I quire the additional car park-; ‘ ing on residential sections. I j Mrs J. C£«sey. who lives in l ! Sefton Place with two young,, 'daughters, told the hearing,; I “The thought of such a;

I; facility fills me with great [fear for the safety of all 11 three of us.” She was the organiser of a /petition signed by 187 /people against the tavern ■.proposal and one of eight /residents who spoke on her jOwn behalf at the hearing. : j She -said the residents feared ifor their safety and the .“value of their properties if 1, the tavern was built. i; The secretary of the Sprey--1 don Ratepayers and Resi--1! dents’ Association (Mr R. !,Langley) said the area already had adequate licensed facilities and the proposed •Itavern would attract an ■■“ undesirable element." | The minister of the Spreydon Baptist Church, Mr M. lA. Robertson, said he was 'aware of “widespread disstress" in the community /caused by the proposal, I A decision was reserved.