Residents appeal against Hornby bottle store plan

Press, 22 November 1980, Page 21

Residents appeal against Hornby bottle store plan

A trend towards fast take-away liquor sales and competitive pricing at Christchurch hotels had thrown the Hornby Trust Hotel's bottle store into turmoil, a Planning Tribunal . hearing has been told.

In support of an application to build a new supermarket-type of bottle store, the secretary' of' the Hornby Licensing Trust, Mr C. J. Checketts. said take-away liquor sales financially supported the hotel’s other activities.

He was giving evidence at an appeal hearing against Paparua County Council's consent for a specified departure to use residentiary zoned land by the hotel for the proposed bottle store and car park. Mr F. D. Morgan, of 13 Tower Street, Hornby, and other residents brought the appeal. The tribunal, consisting of Judge Skelton. Mr R. A. McLennan, and Mr G. J. Broker, reserved its decision, although this may be given by tomorrow. The application concerned six lots on Tower Street, owned by the trust

but outside the Commercial B zone where the hotel is. The council had consented to the use of four of the lots for car parking. Ine hotel's bottle store did not cope with demand and did not provide a service to meet the expectations of patrons, Mr Checketts said. Space limits meant costly and time-consuming man-handling of liquor stocks and twice-daily bulk truck deliveries while the bottle store’s "poor” siting led to traffic congestion in the hotel carpal k. he said. Changes in the bottle store industry had highlighted the trust's inability to take advantage of discount bulk buying, and inadequacies in such selling points as brand selection and stock layout, Mr Checketts said.

The new building, of 1850 sq. m, would have storage space for three times the existing quantity of stock and allow bulk deliveries to be reduced to three or four a week. Mr F. W. Cooke, the trust’s architect, gave evi-

dence that the bottle store plan had been modified to include the council’s requirements on landscaping, car-parking space, and access from the street.

The building, which would include a large "drive through” canopy, had been designed "in sympathy with its location.” He described it as a necessary development to "protect the viability’ of the trust's investment for the benefit of the people of Hornby." The Paparua County Engineer (Mr K. G. Lawn) said the original plan had placed the proposed bottle store largely in the commercial zone, the residential land being proposed for carpark use. Because of Railways Department concern that a clear sight line for motorists approaching the Aymes Road-Shands Road level-crossing would be encroached on, the plan was amended, placing more of the proposed building in the residential zone.

The council was satisfied that a bottle store of that size was justified and its site adjoining the existing hotel was appropriate.

Traffic using Aymes Street would be increased, but the development’s effect on adjoining properties would not be greatly different from at present, Mr Lawn said. The real issue was location of the boundary of the tavern use in relation to the commercial zone, he said. For the council, Mr J. R. Milligan said the Paparua County’s district scheme clearly provided for a hotel on the Hornby Trust’s site. Trends in the hotel business could not

have been anticipated when the scheme was considered in the early 19705, and the zone boundaries were not drawn with the type of development now needed.in mind. In view of the nature and location of the existing hotel, the proposed bottle store did not infringe the scheme, Mr Milligan said. For the trust, Mr A. Hearn said it had complied with the Railways Department's sight-line requirement, placing the proposed building more in the residential zone in the interests of public safety. It was uncertain that the department could enforce compliance. The tri’. mat heard evidence by the Railways Department's assistant district engineer in Christchurch, Mr G. McGlashan, that the department wanted sight-line ordinances included in district schemes for greater safety at road-rail crossings. Mr Hearn questioned whether a handwritt. ■. letter from Mr Morgan constituted a proper appeal and whether Mr Morgan could appear on behalf of other unnamed residents who had not signed the document.

Mr Morgan told Judge Skelton he was appealing against the granting of consent for the proposed bottle store and that the whole matter was at issue. Mr Morgan later made a submission that the bottle store should be sited closer to where proposed in the original plan, with its resultant modification of the sight-line sougnt by the Railways. He wanted car-parking restricted to the residential lots on which such use had already been permitted and a high fence round that area to reduce noise effects on nearby residents.