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!
Greetings the next Historic Places Canterbury Members Event will be a
Heritage New Zealand (Christchurch) Briefing.
There will be an email sent to all members with all the details.
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."
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.
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.
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…
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
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.
Historic Places Canterbury Deputation to Christchurch City Council.
Thursday 27thSeptember 2017.
“Thank You” Mayor and Councillors for granting Historic Places Canterbury’s (HPC) Request to make this Deputation.
This Deputation is made in reference to the Draft Heritage Strategy, Item 28 on today's Council Meeting Agenda.
HPC is aware it is proposed that the Draft Heritage Strategy be put out for Consultation and a Panel Hearing, and this Deputation confines itself to the process of Engagement used.
HPC commends the Councillors for adopting a process of Engagement where the Community and Individuals drove the formulation of the Draft Heritage Strategy. HPC also Commends the CCC Heritage who with professionalism and a vigour, almost bordering on enthusiasm, engaged the Community. It is this Chairs opinion there cannot be many individuals or community groups who missed out on the Council Heritage Team’s determined Engagement.
As Chair I heard the Mayor, Councillors Clearwater and Galloway participated in Workshops and Councillors Livingstone and Johanson attended the Community Report Back. For those Councillors who attended Engagement Events and I have omitted to mention, please accept my apologies, as my excuse is the Engagement was so extensive it was difficult to keep up with who attended where.
Their efforts were recognized with a Commendation at this year’s Canterbury Heritage Awards.
As Chair there are two snapshots that sum up the Heritage Teams approach:
HPC considers that an Engagement Process as followed by the Heritage Team, where open, practical, flexible and very early stakeholder involvement occurs will lead to a solution that is more acceptable and effective. HPC considers this should be the Christchurch City Council template.
Mark Gerrard
Chair Historic Places Canterbury
Submission of Historic Places Canterbury on the Building Amendment Bill 2018
1. Our comments
Historic Places Canterbury supports the policy objectives of the Building Amendment Bill. The experience of the Canterbury Earthquakes illustrated the shortcomings of the exisiting legislation both in regards to managing buildings after an emergency event and in relation to investigating serious failures.
2. Sections 207C - 207S
We believe the power to investigate major building failures is vital if lessons are to be learned which could help avoid future building failures and potential loss of life. We believe that the measures proposed in this Bill strike an appropriate balance between the need for investigation and the rights of property owners and other affected individuals.
3. Subpart 6B Special Provisions for buildings affected by emergency
We recognise that the Bill proposes significant improvements over the current situation in relation to managing buildings after an emergency and it will avoid the need for special empowering legislation to deal with those shortcomings as was required following the Canterbury earthquakes.
It is pleasing to see that these proposed amendments to the Building Act directly address the serious shortcomings that occurred in relation to heritage buildings following the Canterbury earthquakes but we have some reservations as to whether that protection goes far enough. We accept that protection of life safety must have primacy over heritage issues (and that this can include risk to critical infrastructure). Hence we accept a need to draw a distinction between the rules set out in 133BU ( Urgent works to remove or reduce risks) and 133BV (Works to remove or reduce other risks). However we are concerned that the requirement for the responsible person to obtain Ministerial approval for demolition of a heritage building is limited to Category 1 and Landmark buildings on the Heritage New Zealand Register. This involves the false assumption that all the most significant heritage buildings will be listed by Heritage New Zealand,(HNZ) but this is not the case. If a significant building is already protected by a Territorial Local Authority (TLA) then HNZ may have opted to apply its scarce resources to registering another building, given that district plan listing is the key listing for protection under the Resource Management Act. A good example of a key building not listed by HNZ is the Christchurch Town Hall but which is listed as Highly Significant by the Christchurch City Council. The problem identified here could be overcome by extending coverage of the section to Highly Significant heritage buildings listed by TLAs (however they may be described in the relevant district plan). However the reality of the situation for many small towns and rural areas in New Zealand is that most of their heritage buildings will be Category 2 or simply listed as protected in the district plan. If the provisions of this proposed section are limited to Category 1 buildings then smaller towns could potentially lose most or all of their heritage buildings following a major earthquake, especially as these will typically be on the major thoroughfare through the town, so for this reason may well pose a risk to critical infrastructure. Significant loss of heritage from small towns or rural areas would constitute a major loss for the cultural heritage of the country. We understand that extending the requirements of this provision to all listed heritage buildings would place a more onerous responsibility on the the 'responsible person' and the Minister than confining the section to Category 1 and landmark buildings, but if heritage listing is to be meaningful, then all listed buildings should be worthy of consideration. A national register of all listed heritage buildings would be helpful in the case of emergencies to ensure that the responsible authorities are aware of which buildings are heritage buildings. The suggested extension to the section would also require notification to the TLA (if it is not already the responsible authority).
S. 133BV(3)
We fully support the application of this section to all heritage buildings. We have a minor reservation relating to the wording. S. 133BV (3) (a) states that the responsible person must consult with various persons listed in 133BV(3) (a) (i) - (vii) " if it is reasonably practicable to do so". While one can readily see that it may not always be practicable, for example, to locate the owner or occupiers of the building or persons with a mortgage interest etc, it is difficult to conceive of a situation in which it would not be reasonably practicable to consult with HNZ or the territorial authority. We would feel happier with a less discretionary provision in relation to HNZ and the TLA and a stronger directive than merely to consider their views. With the current wording the 'responsible person' seems to be granted greater discretion to deal with a Category 1 building in the less urgent situation envisaged by S. 133BV than in the previous section where Ministerial approval is needed before carrying out demolition. It is clear that demolition may be an outcome of S. 133BV even though there is a requirement to consider alternatives to demolishing the building [S.133BV(3)(b)] but there is no comparable requirement to seek Ministerial approval. It seems an anomaly of the proposed changes that a building which might have been protected by the Minister withholding approval for demolition in the more serious situation dealt with in S.133BU, might be lost through the exercise of the discretion in S. 133BV if the situation is deemed to be one where S.133BU does not apply.
It should also be noted that at the time of an emergency there may be a number of buildings which are presently going through the process of listing either by HNZ or the TLA. It would be beneficial if these could be included, at the very least, in the provisions of S133BV. This would be difficult under the current law relating to heritage protection but it may be that as a result of the review of the heritage protection system being undertaken at present by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage there could in future be a provisional listing category to provide protection against pre-emptive destruction of buildings in the process of being formally listed. If such a change were to be introduced As in the case of listed buildings, a national register of provisional listings would assist those involved in emergency responses.
S .133 BP
We commend the inclusion of S. 133BP (4) (b) which requires those entering or inspecting a building to take all reasonable steps to ensure that minimal damage is caused to the buildings. This was a significant problem following the Canterbury earthquakes where, for example, doors were forced open and wrecked rather than applying the simple expedient of testing the door handle first. It is doubtful whether this legislative requirement will have much impact in reality unless it is backed up by a penalty for failure or at the very least a change in the culture of search and rescue personnel through training.
In conclusion, we welcome these proposed changes to the Building Act and believe, apart from the reservations that we have expressed here, that they will make a substantial contribution to dealing with future emergencies in a much more satisfactory way.
4. Our recommendations
We recommend the following changes:
That the requirement be extended to all heritage buildings by removing (a) and (b) from S133 BU (2)/
If this recommendation is accepted then consequential changes will be required to S 133BU (3) (4) and (5) to include reference to the TLA
S.133BV Insert a requirement that the Minister must approve demolition of a Category 1 listed building or landmark building (or if the recommendations in relation to S. 133BU are accepted, then the Minister must approve demolition of any listed heritage building.
Bringing life back into quake-damaged heritage buildings a tough task- the Press Online.
"...Historic Places Canterbury chairman Mark Gerrard believes the council is doing a good job with its damaged heritage, and is being "very thorough" with its tendering process.
He says the council benefits by having some "really good staff" who listen to the community and take pride in the buildings.
Some are of the sites are harder than others to find a use for, and some are better suited to community rather than commercial use, Gerrard says.
"They are very very special buildings. We are very happy that they are safe and they are going to be restored - the council is weighing up what is best for them and finding an appropriate use.
"Their value is not just the architecture, each one has its own individual stories, they are a reminder of people who have come before us," says Gerrard.
He believes Harry Ell, the naturalist whose vision established the Sign of the Takahe and Sign of the Kiwi as Port Hills rest stops, would approve of today's walkers and cyclists enjoying hospitality in the buildings.
"People need to be able to see them. They are our buildings, they are our gems, our treasures."
The following is the text of a letter published in The Press. The letter was sent by HPC Chair Mark Gerrard in his role as Convenor of “Victoria Square - No Need For Change" campaign committee.
" The re-opening of a restored Victoria Square will be celebrated by the many Christchurch Residents who supported the successful “Victoria Square- No Need For Change” campaign.
I am writing this letter to publicly “Thank” the many concerned residents who wrote letters to the Press, rang ZB Talkback, emailed their MPs, turned up for the Yellow Ribbon Picnic and attended the Knox Church Forum. I wish to acknowledge the “No Need For Change” committee, the volunteers, the residents who encouraged us, the Knox Forum panellists and Chris Lynch, and Historic Places Canterbury and The Christchurch Civic Trust who funded the campaign.
Whilst we celebrate the re-opening, we must all acknowledge the skill and thoughtfulness of the original Designers who, 30 odd years ago, created this very special space we know and love as Victoria Square.
Victoria Square is “Christchurch at its best” and it sets the standard for which the quality and success of the CBD rebuild will be judged.
The re-opening will be a momentus event. However, for most of us Victoria Square is about the quiet enjoyment of reclining under a tree, sitting on a park bench and stopping at night to enjoy the Bowker Fountain water display and the light show.
Mark Gerrard
Convenor “Victoria Square - No Need For Change”
