Bar Tribe farewell

Ruapehu Bulletin, Volume 14, Issue 655, 24 September 1996, Page 4

Bar Tribe farewell

• Tomorrow, Bar Tribe in Ohakune will close and not open again. Many people may never have heard of us as we are a very small restaurant and bar. Many others however will remember the great pasta meals, warm convivial atmosphere, theme party evenings, pool nights and more. With a bit of Ruapehu District Council (RDC) wand waving and hocus pocus these are all now only memories. To those uninitiated into this melee of ludicrous red tape and the RDC' s seemingly unending desire to work against the will of the public, I wish to take you through the painful process step-by-step: 1 . In July 1 995 Sheree Drayton and myself took over the lease of 20 Thames St, renaming it Bar Tribe. As new lessees a new licence application was required accompa-

nied by a new Town Planning Certificate (TPC) application. While waiting for the new application to be processed we operate under temporary licences based on the previous licence (J.P's Wine Bar). 2. Changes to the building were made: French doors installed at front of building; new coat of internal paint; redundant rear dining tables taken out and pool and pinball machines put in. The previous owner, after his TPC had been granted, had turned the rear half of the building from private residence into restaurant space. This should have required a new TPC application but council was unaware of the changes so operations Continued for two years with a TPC based on a small front restaurant. Added to this was the RDC's assumption that six car parks were provided at the rear of the building. In reality - and commonly known - this area was never used for that purpose and was in fact always chained or gated to prohibit access. 3. By the start of 1996 the planners at Taumarunui informed us that in order to gain a TPC we would have to apply for a resource consent as we did not comply with the car parking requirements. Wanting to expedite proceedings we duly paid the substantial resource consent fee and waited for the hearing date. The basis of any resource consent of this nature is that the "use of the land or buildings has been substantially altered". For the RDC to argue that the changes listed above are substantial is at best stretching the limits of the word. The only large change we could note is that the restaurant and bar was successfully trading and drawing in crowds which previously it had not. That a reasonable percentage of the custom was the drinking market is perfectly allowable within the existing licence which allows for casual bar patrons until 1 am. 4. At the RDC's resource consent hearing on 14 June all these points were put forward in a reasoned manner and considered by the Councillors. At the time many questions

were raised over the fact that the planners had missed being made aware of previous changes to the building and that 'substantial' changes was a grey area considering we had made none. At this point it is pertinent to note the other businesses in the area who have been liable for the same car parking levy. The Powderhorn Chateau, who hugely increased the size of their hotel/bar/restaurant operation ($11,720); Margarita's, who underwent a 6-month renovation programme ($21,536); and Turoa Lodge, who built a new bar, extended restaurant and accommodation ($20,799). Consider alsothe size of these operations in relation to Bar Tribe; in revenue earning capacity there is not even comparison warranted. 5. The final decision of Cliff Houston's office was to fully uphold the planner's recommendation of a $17,000 + GST levy. No

consideration or mention was given to any of the points discussed. In my mind injustice has been dohe on several counts: • The RDC has covered up the fact that they were never aware of previous changes made to the building and that parking was in fact never provided at the rear of the building. • No substantial changes were made by us to the land or building use to warrant a resource consent application. • We are lessees of the building. By paying for the car parks we would in effect be paying for the benefit of the building owner and all future lessees. • The amount of the levy is equal to that of an entire season' s profit for a small business like ours. In other cases on Thames St the same amount is much more easily absorbed. • All of this happened amid assurances from mayor Weston Kirton and councillor Houston (editor's note: Mr Houston is not a councillor, but the council' s chief executive officer) that everything possible would be done to support small businesses during this crippling eruption season. • The planner is meant to work with and for businesses to ensure the betterment of the environment and demographics of the area. • Of $54,000 contributed towards car parking in the area $24,000 has been spent thus far (on one project outside the Powderhorn Chateau). There are no future plans for expenditure. • Pleas of a call for reason since to Mr Houston have been met with an answer tantamount to "if you don't like it, get out". We do not ask for sympathy in this matter. It is over. We ask simply to consider what the council has achieved with its hard-nosed revenue earning tactics. Do you wish your town to be presided over by a group of cronies who are so obviously not working for your better interests? We do not. Simon Barlow