A copy of the Historic Places Aotearoa "Submission to Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage Draft Policy for Government Management of Cultural Heritage" can be downloaded at the following link:
You can download the Historic Places Aotearoa / ICOMOS Joint Submission at the following link:
The following is a link to all the Submission made to the Environment Committee:
Historic Places Aotearoa made the following Submission to the Covid (Fast-track) Consenting Bill".
HPA President James Blackburne appeared before the House Committee.
Historic Places Canterbury made the following Submission to the CCC.
Historic Places Canterbury is concerned at the impact of the proposed canopy on:
- the heritage values of the square and
- the effective privatisation of a public space represented by the 6.9 metre encroachment in to the square
- 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.
General policy statement
"This Bill amends the Building Act 2004 (the Building Act), and proposes 2 new sets of powers to improve the system for managing buildings after an emergency and to provide for investigating building failures.
Managing buildings after an emergency
This Bill proposes new powers that aim to address risks to people and property from buildings during and after an emergency. The proposed amendments seek to create a system that is clear, has proportionate impacts on personal and property rights, and ensures that heritage values are appropriately recognised. ...
"The Bill introduces into the Building Act an end-to-end process for managing buildings from response to recovery following an emergency.
The amendments in the Bill—
provide powers to territorial authorities (and where a state of emergency or transition period is in force, the relevant civil defence emergency management person) to manage buildings during and after an emergency event, including—
inspecting and placing notices on buildings:
evacuating and restricting entry to buildings:
demolishing or carrying out works to buildings that pose a risk of injury or death (including through impacts to critical infrastructure) or a risk of damage or disruption to neighbouring buildings, critical infrastructure, and public thoroughfares:
requiring building owners to remove or reduce risks posed by their building, on a case-by-case basis:
provide that the Minister for Building and Construction can choose to take direct action and make decisions to manage buildings, when warranted by the scale and impacts of an emergency event: ...
provide that the carrying out of works on certain heritage buildings (Category 1 or wāhi tūpuna on the New Zealand Heritage List or buildings on the National Historic Landmarks/Ngā Manawhenua o Aotearoa me ōna Kōrero Tūturu list) that pose a risk of injury or death is a ministerial decision and require consultation with Heritage New Zealand for works on other heritage buildings:
Building Amendment Bill details legislative progress, reports, links for submissions-
Link to the Proposed Bill's Text:
Historic Places Canterbury (HPC) requested that it wishes to speak to its written Annual Plan Submission 2017 to Christchurch City council.
Due to scheduling mistake HPC was not included in a time slot for the Hearings set aside by the C.C.C. HPC was granted a slot during a regular Council meeting. You can see the video of HPC Chair Mark Gerrard speaking to the submission at the following link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmcm0ElbD8w -(The presentation starts 10 minutes 37 seconds in.)
Warning: One of then HPC requests is "Councillors we need more (heritage) hype!"
You can download a copy of the HPA Submission at the following link: HNZPT draft Guidelines for Assessing Historic Places Submission
Please find a copy of the Submission (PDF) at the following link:Historic Places Canterbury Submission CCC Annual Plan 2016-2017