As you will be aware we have fulfilled most of the formal AGM requirements online. The wrap up of the AGM is being held at Risingholme Community Centre.
Where: Risingholme Community Centre
Date: Wednesday 2nd December 2020
Time 5.30-7.00pm
Gareth Wright of the CCC Heritage Team will be giving a presentation on Risingholme.
Formalities will be very brief!
The following is the link to the Historic Places Canterbury Christchruch City Council Draft Annual Plan Submission. (This was revised due to the Council revising its Draft due to the COVID Pandemic.)
The Next Heritage Conversation will be a presentation on Heritage Project Management by Richie Moyle, Programme Manager- CCC Heritage Capital Delivery.
The event will be held on Wednesday 4th December.(2019)
Contact Historic Places Canterbury for the details: canty@historicplacesaotearoa.org.nz
The following is the link to the Oculus article:
Protected Heritage Buildings Make Up Just 00.25% Of The Total Christchurch Building Stock
Historic Places Canterbury has data that backs strong public arguments for Heritage Retention
The following article appeared in the HPA Oculus September 2019 Newsletter.
Historic Places Canterbury (HPC) has found that only just one quarter of one percent of the total number of Christchurch Buildings have heritage protection.
Historic Places Canterbury using the Christchurch City Council data has found that scheduled Heritage Buildings (under the District Plan) make up a risible and paltry 00.25% of the total number of Christchurch Buildings.
In the Christchurch Central Business District we found the Heritage Buildings make up just 5.5% of the total number of buildings. (This percentage will drop significantly as new buildings are built on the empty sites.)
HPC considers that having such statistics is a great public talking point in any Public Debate about Built Heritage.
Firstly, we can authoritatively refute any claims, made or implied, that there are too many heritage buildings being protected. It would be hard to argue 00.25% is anything but a very small number.
Secondly, we can argue that as we have so few protected Heritage Buildings, authorities and developers should be protecting them as they are quantifiably rare in number. Taking as an example the CBD with 5.5% being Heritage Buildings means that 94% of the Buildings have no protection and can be developed.
Thirdly, we can argue that as the number and percentage is so low and are qualitatively rare, the Christchurch City Council and Heritage New Zealand should be vigorously defending any attempts to demolish protected Built Heritage.
Fourthly, as our Built Heritage is so scarce, the Christchurch City Council (and HNZ) should be making a real effort to add suitable Heritage Buildings to the District Plan for protection HPC respectfully suggests that Historic Places Aotearoa's Membership Organisations conduct a similar exercise.
Such statistics (or raw numbers) can be used to rebut the Developers’ public arguments against protecting a heritage building as it shows there is often a local abundance of unprotected buildings they can focus on and leave the precious few Heritage Buildings alone.
In addition using a specific local statistic provides a strong argument as to why local councils (and Heritage New Zealand) should be working harder to protect and save unequalled local heritage at hearings etc and by increasing the number of buildings being scheduled/listed.
If local statistics were collated, these local percentages provide great arguments for HPA and its Membership Organisations to lobby MPs and Councillors. Heritage Buildings are quantifiably rare treasures so they should have more protection and we should not be complacent in increasing the number which are protected.
It is also worth noting, it appears, based on the Christchurch numbers, that despite being a very small percentage of the total number of Buildings, Listed Heritage has a (huge) disproportionate influence on our Tourism marketing and City/Town/District's marketing identity and branding.
The following are the raw numbers for Christchurch:Christchurch has scheduled 573 Heritage Buildings from a total of 22,3927 Christchurch Buildings in Total (within its TLA boundary) i.e. 0.25%
The Christchurch CBD has 127 Scheduled Heritage Buildings.The Christchurch CBB has in total 2,579 Buildings ie only 5.5% are protected.
The Historic Places Canterbury AGM is to be held:
5.00pm Thursday 5th September at Avebury House.
9 Eveleyn Couzins Ave, Richmond, Christchurch 8013
Historic Places Canterbury Media Release:
5thAugust 2019
Mark Gerrard Chair of Historic Places Canterbury:
“Historic Places Canterbury is very disappointed to hear that Bishop Martin has chosen to demolish one of our finest neo-Classical Buildings.”
“The Basilica is one of New Zealand’s most iconic and beautiful neo-classical buildings.”
“George Bernard Shaw preferred the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, Christchurch to our Christ Church Cathedral.”
“Historic Places Canterbury is surprised the Bishop appears to have lost faith in the cost of restoration of this unique beautiful heritage building”
“The Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, Christchurch has for many generations been a beacon of faith and inspiration. Today we are left with the impression that cost and location are more important considerations.”
"Christchurch has lost many special heritage buildings under the CERA Section 38. CERA’s legacy still lives as it is being used to demolish a heritage building and bypass the RMA. "
Mark Gerrard
Chair Historic Places Canterbury
Historic Places Canterbury Public Forum Submission to
The Social, Community Development and Housing Committee
Christchurch City Council
31 July 2019
Councillors,
Thank You for hearing our Public Forum Submission
Historic Places Canterbury (HPC) wishes to request that the CCC set up what we are provisionally calling a "Heritage Buildings and Sites Reference Group”.
HPC considers a Reference group with appropriately qualified individuals would be useful for the CCC Staff and Councillors wishing to seek advice from those with heritage expertise.
It could be useful for a number of roles such as:
HPC wishes to nominate Dr Ian Lochhead, Dr Anna Crighton, Dr Lynne Lochhead, Katharine Watson and a Ngai Tahu representative as members of the Heritage Buildings and Sites Reference Group.
Forming such a Group would be an implementation of the much lauded CCC Heritage Strategy where there is recognition of the importance of the heritage expertise held in the community.
HPC notes the success of the Victoria Square Reference Group where the Plan was refined after Consultation and the feedback/comment was sought on the Design decisions etc in the restoration / construction.
(The CCC you will recall recommended the Group be kept so it could have a role in the restoration work.)
Mark Gerrard
Chair Historic Places Canterbury
MEDIA STATEMENT FROM CCT, RCC, HPC, ICON 10.07.19
The Christchurch Civic Trust, Restore Christchurch Cathedral Group Inc, Historic Places Canterbury and ICON are shocked and appalled that part of the re-allocated fund of at least $1.5m for heritage from the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust has been awarded to the Anglican Church Property Trustees (CPT) for the relocation of the undamaged Citizens’ War Memorial.
At a CCC full council meeting on 27.09.18 these organisations presented vigorous opposition to the proposed Cenotaph relocation (presentations attached) and maintain their opposition.
To award uncontested for a purpose yet to be scrutinised through a required public consent procedure shows an arrogant disregard for process and transparency which threatens to undermine the existing goodwill and support for the Cathedral’s restoration.
It appears possible that a decision to provide CPT with assistance to remove the Cenotaph from its land was in fact made privately many months ago: if so, this demands the closest public scrutiny.
The attached submissions show that the Citizens’ War Memorial is an incredibly significant protected public monument and legally and morally cannot be subject to the whim of either the CPT or the RSA.
Note: the conditions set by the CCC for submissions to present deputations on the relocation of the Cenotaph strongly excluded discussion about potential relocation sites (even although the RSA had clearly and publicly already made its preference for Cranmer Square widely known): this is why the attached submissions do not refer to locations – Cranmer Square in particular – much as the submitters had wanted to at the time!
Ross Gray Deputy Chair Christchurch Civic Trust and Historic Places Canterbury
Mark Belton Co-Chair Restore Christchurch Cathedral Group Inc
Neil Roberts Immediate Past Chair ICON
Historic Places Canterbury made the following Submission to the CCC.
Historic Places Canterbury is concerned at the impact of the proposed canopy on:
Although both the heritage consultant for the applicant and the Council's heritage advisor for the Council consider that the impact of the canopy on the heritage of the square is minor. Historic Places Canterbury disagrees.
Although having a building returned to this site is important for re-delinineating the form of the cruciform maltese cross, which is an essential aspect of the heritage of the square, by projecting 6.9 meters beyond the building line, this design effectively muddies the form. The Spark building proposed for the opposite side of Colombo Street adheres to the building line, so the canopy will create a visual anomaly.
It has been argued that there is precedent for verandahs projecting into the space of the square and this is certainly true. However, the height and scale of this design makes it quite different in its impact. The United Services hotel had a verandah projecting immediately above the ground floor. Viewing the building from the Square, the several stories above were what defined the edge of the cross form. The supporting columns for verandahs were also typically fine with limited impact upon the pavement, whereas these, to judge from the plan, are bulky and quite intrusive. Traditional verandah were clearly an add-on to the building and were not read as something which extended the building into the realm of public space, whereas this integrated canopy impinges on public space and by implication privatises it.
This effect is emphasised by the presence of the columns occupying space in the legal road. It will be the perception of members of the public that the space below the canopy is effectively that of the adjacent building.
Historic Places Canterbury is concerned, that not only does this proposal impinge upon the heritage of the Square, but that it will set a precedent for further intrusion into the public space of the Square. While we recognise the desirability of activity around the edges of the Square, this proposal, by creating a permanent structure which is an integral part of the building design, goes well beyond a license to put out tables and chairs.
In fact, Historic Places Canterbury is surprised that a design which intrudes to such an extent into the premier heritage space of the city, was treated as a non-notified resource consent, with the opportunity to comment only arising from the technicality that it intrudes onto a legal road.
The proposed canopy extends right up to the existing tree line of the 3 lime trees adjacent to the building. The Council arborist has indicated that these have not yet reached maturity and could double in size. It is accepted that these will require clearance pruning for construction of the verandah and ongoing maintenance pruning. The beauty of the lime trees lies in its symmetrical form. This will be severely compromised if constant pruning is required on the building side of the tree. Indeed it is not difficult to foresee that the ongoing cost of this work and the problem of leaf litter caused by the trees will before long result in pressure for their removal. Were this to happen it would be a significant loss of public amenity. If consent were to be granted,
Historic Places Canterbury believes that the Council should be responsible for the pruning to ensure that the best possible job is done, with the cost to be borne by the building owner. However, we believe that the impact of this design on the trees is such that at the very least, the canopy needs to be scaled back. Although we consider that building is an attractive addition to the city, we believe that the overhanging canopy element of the design needs to be reconsidered.
