Hotel zone objection reinforced

Press, 25 February 1988, Page 5

Hotel zone objection reinforced

A Canterbury United Council objection to a hotel zone beside Christchurch Airport could mean the city may lose a multi-million dollar hotel development, according to Cr Brian Shackel. A notice of motion by Cr Shackel at yesterday’s United Council meeting moved that the council not proceed with its previous objection to a Waimairi District Council decision that lifted planning restrictions barring the development of a hotel on the land at the corner of Memorial Avenue and Russley Road. The motion was defeated, 15 votes to eight. The vote at a previous meeting was in favour of the objection to the hotel zone, 16-12. Cr Shackel said that his main reason for the motion was “sound logic and common sense.” Some of his other reasons, listed in a letter to the council, were that Christchurch could lose a future development because of the objection and also that the site was ideal for a hotel. “Factories are closing ...in Canterbury, and it must seem strange to the community that we would oppose a development which would bring 300 jobs.” A hotel on the land adjacent to the airport would attract another 50,000 visitors to Christchurch and boost income from tourism by $5O million, says the Inver-cargill-based company behind the hotel zone,

Melbourne Holdings, Ltd. Although there are five other appeals against the decision to lift planning restrictions for the hotel zone, Cr Shackel said that the United Council was the main objector. Several councillors felt that their first priority should be to protect the land which they had previously designated as green belt. A council report said there was ample land available in the Christchurch urban area for hotel accommodation without any need to change zoning. It also said that if the change of zoning were approved, similar arguments could be used for placing , a wide range of “apparently airportorientated activities” in the green belt surrounding the airport. The chairman of the council, Mrs Margaret Murray, said she thought the whole debate had got completely out of hand.

She said that the issue concerned land zoning, and there were no immediate plans to build a hotel on the green belt. Ail job and tourist figures quoted by the company were for a hypothetical development.

“I urge you to keep your head. It is not something you should take lightly,” she said.

The United Council voted unanimously that it would support any tourist hotel development on appropriate rezoned land.