Arguments for and against public restaurant

Waimarino Bulletin, Volume 1, Issue 38, 13 March 1984, Page 1

Arguments for and against public restaurant

At last month's meeting of the Ohakune Borough Council an application to operate a restaurant catering to the general public at the Hobbit Motel was declined. The application had previously been considered at a public hearing on 9 February at which the ^^ipplicant, Mr Phillip JackJ^»n was represented by his solicitor Mr Les Taylor of Wellington who presented the following arguments in relation to Section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977. • The application was not contrary to the public interest and indeed it would seem that, from the signatures of more than 300 people who signed a petition, the public (s.ome of whom live in the immediate neighbourhood and who would therefore be most likely to object) wanted a restaurant that would provide a service 7 days a week all year round. • It would have little town ^^id country planning signififlj^Hfnce beyond the immediate vicinity of the land concerned because it was already a restaurant catering for motel guests and this fact had been accepted by the owners of dwellings and operators of business premises in the immediate vicinity. With the amount of off-street parking that could be provided at The Hobbit there would be no impact on neighbouring streets. • The provisions of the scheme can remain without change or variation because what was being asked for was not a new restaurant but merely an extension of the restaurant facilities to provide a service to the public as well as to motel guests. Mr Jackson then outlined a brief history of his various applications to Council and pointed out that in order to operate a restaurant providing high class fare for his motel guests, he had to

remain open for seven days a week and he had to employ a full-time chef. This, he said, was not only a costly operation but also a partly wasted one if the facility could not be fully utilised. Mr Jackson assured Council the restaurant would continue to cater primarily for rflotel guests who would alVvays have first priority. The application to operate a public restaurant at the Hobbit Motel was opposed ' by four objectors: Sunbeam Lodge, Cafe Stua, Kings Court and the Junction Businessmen's Association. The Sunbeam Lodge was represented at the hearing by Mr Duncan Harvey of Ohakune. The application was opposed on all three conditions stated in Section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977 namely: • It has been stated in law that the primary matter of public interest is the integrity of the district scheme and that an applicant must establish that his case is a true exception. • That the granting of an application such as this would have great Town Planning significance beyond the immediate vicinity of the land concerned. • the provisions of the scheme could not remain without change or variation. Mr Harvey said that an additional restaurant was unneccessary ... "Ohakune was well served with the 1 1 restaurants it alreadv had." Mr Harvey also argued that if this application was granted it would be a green light for other developers to come into town when they see fit, ignore the provisions of the District Planning Scheme and then come to council and seek a mandate to continue. The Planning Tribunal specifically stated that the restaurant was not to be a public restaurant. Despite

that decision the applicant ignored the ruling and proceeded to advertise his restaurant as being open to the general public. This, said Mr Harvey, puts council into a most difficult position: on one hand they have a successful restaurant providing a service to the public; on the other hand they have to consider the integrity of the District Planning Scheme. Speaking on behalf of Cafe Stua Mrs M. Lishman and Mr G. Aasland presented their objections verbally. The. other two objectors did not appear nor were they represented. The Council considered the application as a specified departure in terms of Section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977. In a unanimous vote, council declined the application with the following decision. • That whilst the council are sympathetic to the proposal, but because planning principles were such that the application would have to be declined on the following grounds. • That it will have substantial Town and Country Planning significance beyond the immediate area of the land concerned. • That if approval was granted the District Scheme could not remain without change or variation.