Club may lose some privileges

Press, 26 February 1986, Page 9

Club may lose some privileges

Members of the Canterbury Club are in danger of losing .some of their parking privileges. A Planning Tribunal decision gives the club the option of accepting its declaration that its parking building, at the corner of Worcester Street and Cambridge Terrace, is a permitted use only if those parking there are in the adjacent club building — or of allowing its application for two more floors for the parking building to lapse.

The tribunal’s interim decision resulted frottP the cliib’s to

double the parking building, which it claims is an accessory building on the site. At present, of the club’s members 112 hold “fulltime” parking privileges and 481 “part-time” privileges. Full-time privileges cost $435 a year and allow members to use the parking building at any time, the tribunal heard. Part-time privileges allow the members to use the building only when also using the club, or for short periods while conducting business in the city but not between ritidday and 2 p.m.

Owners of adjacent buildings oppose the extensions to the parking building because they believe their buildings would be adversely affected. Their counsel, Mr John Milligan, told the tribunal that the essential matter was whether any parking building was an accessory building. He submitted that the building was a permitted use only if the building was substantially to be used for parking while those members were on club premises. The tribunal noted that many members used the

building without using the club. Although a fine point it was a distinction required by the scheme. It also noted that the council’s District Scheme allowed for car-parking buildings in its Commercial 2 zone, but not in Commercial 3. It decided that it was prepared to make a declaration that the use of the land for the parking building was a permitted use in the Commercial 3 zone only if those parking remained on the land. There could be difficulties ifor the council in entering its District

Scheme provisions but that should not influence interpretation of the scheme, it decided. If the club regularly provided parking contrary to the scheme provisions the council had to decide what steps to take. The tribunal sounded a warning for the club that “we would hope the applicant would consider its position also.” The tribunal has given the club the option of whether it wants the declaration made. If not, the application for the extension would be dismissed. r