Tag: Historic Places Canterbury

Historic Places Submission: Braided Rivers building proposed occupation of legal road in Cathedral Square

Historic Places Canterbury made the following Submission to the CCC.

Historic Places Canterbury is concerned at the impact of the proposed canopy on:

  1. the heritage values of the square and
  2. the effective privatisation of a public space represented by the 6.9 metre encroachment in to the square
  3. as well as the impact of the proposal on the lime trees, which form part of the heritage fabric of the square, .

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.

Christchurch City Council Draft Annual Plan 2019-2020- Submission From Historic Places Canterbury

Christchurch City Council Draft Annual Plan 2019-2020

Submission from Historic Places Canterbury

Mayors and Councillors;

Thank You for the opportunity to make this Submission.

Historic Places Canterbury (HPC) requests the Councillors pass on our appreciation of the efforts and application of the Council Heritage Team. 

They have worked hard ensuring the Stakeholders and Residents were kept informed and HPC considers the recently adopted Heritage Strategy to be a credit to them and the Council as a whole.

In addition, we request the Councillors pass on our appreciation of Richie Moyle and his team in their ongoing efforts in restoring and repairing the Councils Heritage Buildings. Highlights in the past year include the reopening of the Nurse’s Memorial Chapel and Historic Rose Chapel.

Historic Places Canterbury wishes to acknowledge the passing of the heritage stalwart Pam Wilson. Her passing is a loss to us all.

HPC in addition wishes to acknowledge the efforts and achievements of the recently retired Dave Hinman who served this Council for 50 years.

(more…)

Historic Places Canterbury C.C.C. Public Forum Presentation- The Town Hall (And The Arches)

The following is the text of the Public Forum Presentation given by the Chair of HPC to the Christchurch City Council.

CCC Public Forum Presentation: Christchurch Town Hall (and the Arches)

28thFeb  2019

Deputy Mayor and Councillors

Thank You for allowing Historic Places Canterbury (HPC) to make this Public Forum Presentation.

HPC wishes to offer our congratulations and express our appreciation to the Councillors, past and present, the Council Staff, Engineers, Acoustic Engineers Architects and related Building Professionals, Hawkins and the Sub Contractors for their efforts in the successful restoration and enhancement of the Christchurch Town Hall. Our Town Hall!

HPC wishes to acknowledge the efforts of Sir Miles Warren, Maurice Mahoney Dr Ian Lochhead, Dr Jessica Halliday, and the many individuals and groups who made Deputations,  wrote letters to remind us why the Town Hall’s restoration is important to our city. The Town Hall is special and we await for Dr Ian Lochhead to inform us how special it really is when his book is released.

HPC wishes to draw the attention of the Councillors to the CCC Staff (and Hawkins) whose actions will be not be widely known but for whom HPC is appreciative. From Senior Managers down there was a concerted effort to ensure the Heritage Advocates were briefed on the work as it progressed and gave explanations on  how the buildings heritage features and interior objects would be retained and restored. As Chair of HPC I have been on three tours to view the progress of the work. On numerous occasions CCC Managers have introduced themselves to me. They have been informative, discrete, inclusive and attentive to the details- the CCC at its best.

HPC would like to draw the Councillors attention and commend another CCC Staff initiative. The asphalting of the Arches and Landscaping of their surroundings.

We now have a weatherproof path connecting the CBD and Victoria Street via the Arches and Victoria Square. CERA proposed a permanent pathway in their Victoria Square Restoration Consultation. For reasons unknown nothing eventuated until the Council Staff took the initiative. The CCC Staff organised the asphalting and landscaping. It is a great outcome that Councillors I am sure you will agree with

HPC asks that while we celebrate the Town Hall opening we should continue bragging about our Heritage in our Civic Discourse. We have much to be proud of: The Christchurch Town Hall, the Isaac Theatre Royal, the Arts Cente, Provincial Council Buildings,   we are the home of the Hamilton jet, Rutherford's University, Kate Shepherd and the campaigners for the votes for women, the Brazier Brothers responsible for the first commercial top dressing drop, McDougal's gift of an Art Gallery, Thomas Edmunds expression of gratitude by gifting us the Poplars, Band Rotunda and Clock Tower , Ell's vision of the Port Hills that is still as relevant today and the Great Christchurch Public Debates to name a few. It is a heritage we should be celebrating in our everyday conversation and public discourse

Finally to close HPC notes the individual moments are as important as the great civic events, the Town Hall joins the Isaac Theatre Royal the Great Hall of the Arts Centre and our heritage buildings where the individual magic is recreated. At every citizenship ceremony , Christchurch School of Music Concert, University Graduation the Town Hall will recreate the individual magic again and again and again.

Thank You Councillors.

Mark Gerrard
Chair Historic Places Canterbury

“Historic Christchurch homestead Mona Vale reopening for ‘coffee and cake’ ” The Press Online Article

Historic Christchurch homestead Mona Vale reopening for 'coffee and cake' The Press Online
Historic Places Canterbury Chair Mark Gerrard quoted in article.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/110597414/historic-christchurch-homestead-mona-vale-reopening-for-coffee-and-cake

Historic Places Canterbury: Recognised In CCC Survey

Source: The future of heritage in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula – survey results

As part of the Heritage Engagement the CCC conducted  a survey and the results were released in :
The future of heritage in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula – survey results

Asked "Which of these heritage organisations and events have you heard of?"

Historic Places Canterbury's name recognition was ranked with CCC's Heritage Week!

Historic Places Aotearoa In The News: “Heritage advocates want more historic buildings to be protected from demolition in emergencies” (Stuff Online Article)

Heritage advocates want more historic buildings to be protected from demolition in emergencies (Stuff Online Article)

"Heritage advocates, Historic Places Aotearoa, want more heritage buildings to be protected from demolition in emergencies, its submission on the Building Amendment Bill says.

The bill, currently at select committee, adds emergency powers to and amends the Building Act 2004 to improve systems for managing damaged dangerous buildings in emergencies and for investigating building failures."

"Historic Places Aotearoa, and a member organisation Historic Places Canterbury, want the protection in the bill widened to include top tier or highly significant heritage buildings scheduled in territorial authorities' district plans."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/108733704/heritage-advocates-want-more-historic-buildings-to-be-protected-from-demolition-i

 

Historic Places Canterbury In The News: “Heritage advocates want more historic buildings to be protected from demolition in emergencies” (Stuff Online Article)

Heritage advocates want more historic buildings to be protected from demolition in emergencies (Stuff online article)

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/108733704/heritage-advocates-want-more-historic-buildings-to-be-protected-from-demolition-i

"Heritage advocates, Historic Places Aotearoa, want more heritage buildings to be protected from demolition in emergencies, its submission on the Building Amendment Bill says.

The bill, currently at select committee, adds emergency powers to and amends the Building Act 2004 to improve systems for managing damaged dangerous buildings in emergencies and for investigating building failures.

It protects category one buildings and wahi tupuna, places of significance to Maori, listed with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) from demolition in emergencies without ministerial approval."

"Historic Places Aotearoa, and a member organisation Historic Places Canterbury, want the protection in the bill widened to include top tier or highly significant heritage buildings scheduled in territorial authorities' district plans.' "

"(Director of policy Rebecca O'Brien) HNZPT is pleased at the provisions proposed to date and the progress they represent in providing appropriate protection for New Zealand's heritage.

However, Historic Places Aotearoa (HPA) and Historic Places Canterbury, disagree

HPA said too often demolition was seen as the only solution to public protection after a disaster.

It was the territorial authorities' heritage schedules that had standing under the Resource Management Act.

The bill's proposals might set aside RMA processes in emergencies, so it was essential the schedules were considered in the bill's proposals, HPA argued."

 

Christchurch City Council Draft Heritage Strategy 2019-2029 : Submission from Historic Places Canterbury.

 

 

 

 

 

Christchurch City Council Draft Heritage Strategy 2019-2029

Submission from Historic Places Canterbury.

The Process of Consultation and Formulation of the Draft Heritage Strategy:

Historic Places Canterbury (HPC) wishes to commend the Christchurch City Council Heritage Team for its efforts in Community Consultation, developing and delivering this Draft Heritage Strategy (Strategy). The Heritage Teams leadership has benefitted the process thus far and HPC considers it essential that they continue to lead in all subsequent work related and resulting from the Strategy.

Secondly Historic Places Canterbury formally knowledges the actions of the Christchurch City Councillors who adopted the Heritage Team’s recommendation of starting this process by right at the beginning asking the residents, groups and Communities of Christchurch what they wanted in the Christchurch City Council Heritage Strategy and then developing the draft strategy driven by the Residents, groups and Communities responses. In addition, the CCC Heritage Team sought feedback in the process of formulating the Draft Heritage Strategy.

Historic Places Canterbury was pleased to learn that the Mayor and Councillors individually involved themselves in the workshops and events that were used to develop this Draft Heritage Strategy.

Historic Places Canterbury considers the process and philosophy used for the Draft Heritage Heritage Strategy adopted by the Heritage Team and the Christchurch City Council (CCC) as one that should be used as a Council Template for future Consultations especially concerning Heritage.

 

Historic Places Canterbury requests the Christchurch City Council share these processes and experiences with other Territorial Authorities as we consider they and heritage will benefit from this approach of consultation and this process of strategy formulation becoming more widespread.

General Overall Comment on Draft Heritage Strategy:

Historic Places Canterbury is in agreement with the Strategy and our comments are mainly suggestions of refinement. HPC considers it is an important to consolidate and recognise the many informal relationships as well as establish new ones with the Communities that make up Christchurch and the Banks Peninsula. HPC fully endorses this approach.

Historic Places Canterbury considers the partnership, participation, role and acknowledgement of the Papatipu Rūnanga as being essential and long overdue.

Historic Place Canterbury is supportive of the Draft Heritage Strategy’s recognition and inclusion of the heritage of those who are not part of the traditional European heritage and again we consider this long overdue.

Historic Places Canterbury notes the extensive use of the work “community” in the text of the Strategy.  HPC requests “community” should be substituted with the word “Communities” or something similar in meaning.  HPC notes the phrase “communities of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula” (p16 of the Draft Heritage Strategy) sums up the intention of the documents.

The Strategy uses the phrase “partnership with six papatipu rūnanga” to define its relationship.

For the Community/Communities it uses the word “collaboration” and “together with the community” within the Strategy.

HPC requests the CCC reconsider the relationships (as defined in the Strategy) with the Communities and change it to one of Partnership or Collaboration as appropriate?

The Strategy mentions a “Charter” which effectively quantifies the CCC heritage relationship with the Communities.

(HPC notes the terms and conditions for those who take part in Heritage Week could be described as partnership agreements.) Defining relationships clearly also means there is less chance of a misunderstanding.

Historic Places Canterbury considers the Draft Heritage Strategy needs more development in dealing with our digital heritage future which is already here and will continue to exert a growing and significant presence. The CCC has put online the Scheduled Heritage Building’s own Statements of Significance but what is its Strategy when it comes to its own history and the social history of the buildings it has within its custody?(At one stage an oral history project recording the experiences of those who worked in the Canterbury Provincial Chambers was being discussed.)

 

Historic Places Canterbury would like the Strategy to give an indication of the variety of roles CCC envisages it will be providing in supporting the Communities of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula in their attempts to record and promote their heritage.

HPC notes the Library has a digital archive along with the Canterbury Museum’s collection and similar organisations such as Wigram and Akaroa, the Hall of Flame at Ferrymead etc and the University of Canterbury and the Strategy needs to look at the relationships the CCC has with these. What are the Community Board’s role within their local area? How is their local history and objects to be recorded or kept?

The Strategy correctly identifies the importance of intangible heritage as it relates to the stories of a heritage building. Questions will then be asked, for example, will the Library have a role in facilitating or storing those oral histories?

Historic Places Canterbury notes that a workshop participant commented the Strategy has the potential to be a part of the core of the CCC in its functions. HPC submits the Strategy provides an opportunity for the CCC to lead by example in demonstrating the importance of our City’s and Banks Peninsula’s heritage.

The Strategy commits the Christchurch City Council to be an active Heritage participant as evidenced by the word’s “collaboration” and “partnership”.

Historic Places Canterbury fully endorses this approach.

Such an approach will necessitate a cultural change within sections of the Bureaucracy especially as it will require a change to the traditional bureaucratic top down decision making management style which will at minimum have to be more open and communicative. HPC considers the Councillors will have to lead by example as they have thus far in this process.

 

Historic Places Canterbury is aware of the work published, such as by Building Economist Donovan Rypkema which conclusively provides evidence of the positive economic contribution of Heritage Buildings (and their retention). (These economic benefits are not just confined to Tourism.)

The Strategy, HPC requests should have additional text that states that the CCC understands and accepts the Economic Value of Heritage Buildings, the value of their active retention and the positive economic effects i.e. revitalization, restoration benefits etc they have on the local economy.

Specific Strategy Comments:

 

Whāinga  Goals (p34)

Historic Places Canterbury requests an additional Whāinga be added, that the CCC will commit to updating and regularly add heritage buildings and sites to its District Plan Heritage Schedule.

HPC understands that between 1996 and recent Independent Hearing Panel there were little or no Christchurch Heritage Buildings Scheduled. It is important to acknowledge the importance of heritage however the CCC needs to actually commit itself to fulfilling its RMA Duties in its own Heritage Strategy.

Historic Places Canterbury requests the Strategy state that it will be adopted as binding by the Council as a whole. 

HPC understands that the Urban Design Panel approved plans for the proposed demolition of the Harley Chambers, a scheduled heritage building. Whilst HPC does not wish to curb the independence of the Urban Design Panel it is not unreasonable that the Strategy be respected and acknowledged by such organisations and only in exceptional circumstances should the Strategy be ignored.

Mahinga Actions

Whāinga Goal 1. (page 35) …

“4. Celebrate and promote the Council’s role as heritage champion…

  1. Celebrate how the Council models best practice asset management ..”

Historic Places Canterbury requests that an addition be made to this section that the CCC will commit to share its knowledge and experience of heritage management best practice.

The Council has extensive experience knowledge in all aspects of heritage building management i.e. procurement, project management, budget, engaging professionals and HPC considers a practical Strategy is to commit to sharing its knowledge and experience with Heritage Building Owners and other Territorial Authorities.

Historic Places Canterbury requests that Whāinga Goal 1 contain a paraphrase of Whāinga Goal 2 section 4.

HPC proposes that  “The Council …” add the following;

Raise awareness of Our Heritage, Our Taonga across all Council Departments.

Whāinga Goal 2

Historic Places Canterbury fully endorses Whāinga Goal 2.

Whāinga Goal 3

Historic Places Canterbury fully endorses Whāinga Goal 3.

Historic Places Canterbury requests further consideration be given to this goal and the responsibility that will need to taken on by the Community Boards.

For example HPC notes that Crown Glass used to be a prominent industry in Hornby with artisans living close by. HPC considers the Strategy should enable the local Community Board to participate in celebrating and preserving its own unique community heritage.

Whāinga Goal 4

Historic Places Canterbury requests that under

(Section) “4 Support owners of heritage building through; …. ”

Historic Places Canterbury request that an addition be made to this section of the Strategy. The CCC work on a standard or accredited list of approved suppliers of Heritage Plaques for owners of Heritage Buildings. These plaques would publicly identify that the building is a historic building.

 

Historic Places Canterbury’s federated national body Historic Places Aotearoa has recently launched a nationally available Heritage “Blue” Plaque project (inspired by the UK Blue Plaque) which allows a building to be identified as heritage. Such a project is an ideal candidate for accreditation as well as being part of an emerging national standard.

Whakatinanatanga Implementation (p42)

“Implementation of this strategy depends upon partnership and collaboration.”

Historic Places Canterbury fully endorses this approach.

As noted above HPC requests the CCC reconsider and describe the relationships in the Strategy with its Communities as one of Partnership and or Collaboration.

HPC considers the Heritage Charter to be an excellent initiative and is looking forward to hearing the Communities heritage voices.

 

HPC requests as part of the Whakatinanatanga that consideration be given to setting up a Forum and or Reference Group that would meet on a regular basis.

As well as enabling the CCC to receive feedback it will have the additional advantage of allowing the sharing and exchanging of views.  The CCC could use this to facilitate the sharing and understanding of views from the Papatipu Rūnanga and the wider Communities.

We wish to heard by the Hearing Panel.

Mark Gerrard
Chair Historic Places Canterbury
021157 5043

 CHRISTCHURCH CIVIC TRUST AND HISTORIC PLACES CANTERBURY DEPUTATION TO THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL OPPOSING THE RSA REQUEST FOR THE SHIFTING OF THE CITIZENS’ WAR MEMORIAL FROM CATHEDRAL SQUARE 27.09.18 Ross Gray, Deputy Chair CCT, HPC 

 CHRISTCHURCH CIVIC TRUST AND HISTORIC PLACES CANTERBURY DEPUTATION TO THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL OPPOSING THE RSA REQUEST FOR THE SHIFTING OF THE CITIZENS’ WAR MEMORIAL FROM CATHEDRAL SQUARE 27.09.18 Ross Gray, Deputy Chair CCT, HPC 

The Citizens’ War Memorial monument is a vital and integral component of the city’s most important public space, Cathedral Square, and it is essential that it remains so in the post-disaster years. Its structural and visual form creates a carefully orchestrated synergy with the structure, form and symbolism of Christchurch Cathedral. 

It needs the cathedral and the cathedral needs it, because of a shared meaning embodied in the crucifix form of both structures. We can see this in the Latin cross floor plan of the cathedral and in the 15m high structural cross of the War Memorial. This is no accident or coincidence: the Anglican Church gave explicit instructions on these design matters and sculptor William Trethewey and architect George Hart fully and faithfully executed them. In doing so they created what eminent New Zealand historian Jock Phillips says is possibly ‘…the finest public monument in the country'. To separate the two structures would be to considerably diminish both heritage structures. 

Re-stated: for more than half its life Christchurch Cathedral has been the core of a shared civic experience of great profundity with its nearest neighbour, the Citizens’ War Memorial. The Civic Trust and Historic Places Canterbury cannot see any valid reason to sever this physical and deeply symbolic bond. 

The Christchurch City Council through its ratepayers has recently agreed to contribute a generous $10m to the reinstatement of Christchurch Cathedral, with some stated restrictions. This follows a long history of the council making a significant contribution to the cathedral, including re-roofing and earthquake strengthening. Furthermore, the current concept plan by Regenerate Christchurch for the future of Cathedral Square shows the Citizens’ War Memorial in its present position. Planners have clearly not considered its presence a problem: rather they see it as part of the mix of features contributing towards a vibrant civic centre. The council has agreed to contribute half the initial costs for the redevelopment of Cathedral Square and must do all it can to strengthen the “Square experience”. The objection, that the cathedral is some years away from re-occupation, may be true, but in the interim, the south facing areas of the new City Library offer quiet spaces with views out to the War Memorial. 

In light of these factors it would be highly counter-productive for the council to accede to the RSA’s request to move the Memorial away from Cathedral Square to another city location. 

The RSA submission takes little account of the War Memorial’s function to be a reminder and a memorial of war and sacrifice for everyone, certainly not just for the comrades, family members or descendants of Association members. For instance: thousands of German and Japanese tourists come to Christchurch annually. Those tourists, descendants of some who will have fought against New Zealanders, are most unlikely to make a special trip to another open space to visit the Citizens’ War Memorial relocated there. In fact, because Christchurch Cathedral is so close to the War Memorial, visitors to it are provided with a magnificent, enclosed space whose prime purpose is to give people of any and all persuasions a place in which to reflect. 

The Citizens’ War Memorial, when viewed from east of The Square, presents a relatively plain rear façade. This is not a significant problem given the extent of the surrounding built environment, but if it were to be shifted to another open city space, this would present a serious visual difficulty given the possibly long vistas from any direction. The Memorial is absolutely a site-specific monument and as such is totally unsuitable for shifting away from its designated site. The Christchurch Civic Trust has a particular concern for urban planning matters and is alarmed at the ramifications for inner city neighbourhood living that any shift would raise: siting, orientation, impact on living values and the like.  

It appears to have been all too easy for the RSA to claim some sort of ownership of the Citizens’ War Memorial. It commemorates the ultimate sacrifice made by men and women from Canterbury, but those who remember are in fact all people – from greater Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand, the globe. The memorial is owned by the citizens of Christchurch and is administered and cared for by the funds from those ratepayers. The RSA’s line of thinking, that the War Memorial must be shifted at its request, may well be borne of years of post-earthquakes frustration, but it carries an ill-founded proprietorial attitude and fails to take into account all relevant heritage and urban planning factors. 

I’d like to conclude with a brief comment from Professor Chris Kissling, Chair Christchurch Civic Trust: “The submission certainly represents my personal view regarding the war memorial staying where it is. I do not believe the restoration work on the Cathedral requires the shift of the war memorial and I have not seen any cogent arguments for such an undertaking. 

The Citizens’ War Memorial is not a chess piece to be moved from square to square at the whim of current players who have decision-making power.” 

The Christchurch Civic Trust and Historic Places Canterbury both urge Mayor and Councillors to reject the request by the RSA for the removal of the Citizens’ War Memorial from the heart of the city, Cathedral Square.