Press Release  7 May 2010

"A major victory for heritage values and common sense" today said Richard Sinke, Chair of Save Our Arts Centre, responding to the decision of the independent Commissioners not to grant a Resource Consent for the proposed Music School at the historic Arts Centre in Christchurch.

 

"SOAC is delighted that arguments that the proposed Music School building would seriously harm the heritage values of the historic buildings of the Arts Centre have been accepted by the Commissioners.

 

"We have absolutely no doubt that this is a landmark decision of great significance, and one which will be widely applauded throughout the community of Christchurch and beyond. It is a decision which reinforces the place of heritage values and why our world class Arts Centre site - heritage buildings and land - must be conserved and protected from inappropriate development, now and in the future.

 

SOAC will consider its response to the subdivision decision once it has been examined fully.

 

"SOAC is most grateful to its witnesses - many of them national or international experts in their fields - who presented submissions to the Commissioners.

 

SOAC believes that its stand against the construction of the proposed new building to house part of the University’s Music School was supported by a majority of the citizens of Christchurch. In particular, SOAC is most grateful to the months of steadfast encouragement and financial support from its members and supporters group, numbering nearly 5000 citizens", said Mr Sinke.

 

We now await due process, to see if the joint applicants - the University and the Arts Centre Trust Board, wish to exercise any appeal rights." said Mr Sinke.

Click here to view extracts from our evidence

Click here to view Music School decision

Click here to view subdivision decision

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Press Statement 24 March 2010

Arts Centre Trust Board Financial Misreporting Reported to Charities Commission.

Save Our Arts Centre announced today that it had reported the Arts Centre Trust Board to the Charities Commission for "misleading information in Annual Reports, and for significant failure to comply with legal financial reporting obligations.  In addition, SOAC has asked the Commission for the Board to be required to re-publish corrected Annual Reports, and also consider whether the Board should be reported to the Institute of Accountants," said SOAC Spokesperson, Dame Ann Hercus.

SOAC has also publicly released its letter to the Charities Commission, which raised “very serious issues” relating to financial reporting procedures adopted by the Arts Centre Trust Board, said Dame Ann.

"The facts are these. The Arts Centre Trust Board has two sets of accounts annually. First, a summary set of accounts in its Annual Report, which is widely circulated in hard copy and on its website. Secondly, it has a full and audited set of accounts which is not distributed or available on its website. To have two sets of accounts, one a summary of the other, is acceptable. The problem is that, in the Arts Centre Trust Board's case, the two sets of accounts are seriously inconsistent. In the two years of 2007 and 2008 [examined by SOAC as a sample] inconsistency is to the tune of millions of dollars in terms of reporting current assets.

In 2007, the widely distributed summary of financial reporting in the Board’s Annual Report shows current assets of $482,200 at 31 December 2007 while the full audited accounts for the same period show current assets of $4,691,723 a difference of over $4 million.  That is a giant inconsistency.  Another example is in 2008, where the summary report shows current assets to be $482,206, while the full audited accounts for the same period, show current assets of $3,650,114, another huge difference of over $3 million.”

As the Arts Centre Trust Board's public image is based in part on its Annual Report, (including for fundraising), it is absolutely unacceptable that the very widely circulated “summary” accounts in these Annual Reports should in effect understate its  real current assets situation by millions of dollars. This is a Board falsely attempting to portray financial hardship, in my view, in a way that can be nothing else but misleading," said Dame Ann.

"Ken Franklin, Director of The Arts Centre, cannot claim a "defence" that the summary annual reporting is “voluntary’, or that it is using a new category of asset “investments” or that it has investments which are tagged for future use.  The fact is that what the Arts Centre Trust Board is doing simply does not comply with the relevant legal financial reporting standards of FRS-39, and (later) FRS-43," she said.  "Not only is it seriously non-complying, it is seriously misleading. It is appalling stewardship particularly to the citizens of Christchurch who are entitled to accurate and consistent accounting , in SOAC's view," said Dame Ann

SOAC has requested the Charities Commission :-

-to take appropriate legal steps in relation to the Arts Centre Trust Board’s failure to comply with their legal obligations as to appropriate financial reporting, without inconsistencies ;

-to require the Board to republish its Annual Report Summary Statements in a format consistent with the audited financial statements;

-to consider whether the matters raised should be brought to the attention of the Institute of Chartered Accountants;

-to require the Board to file consolidated statements (as it has not yet done so).

Click here to see letter to Charities Commission

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Press  Statement 12 March 2010

Save Our Arts Centre says proposed subdivision would lead to "inappropriate development"

Save Our Arts Centre today told the Resource Consent hearing that the subdivision into six lots proposed by the Arts Centre would open the door to "inappropriate development".

 

The primary thrust of SOAC's case was that the proposed subdivision into separate lots, some with no buildings on them, opens the door to wholesale development projects on what the Arts Centre Trust Board insists on calling "undeveloped land", but which is really heritage open space, explained Mr Sinke, Chair of SOAC and owner of the Dux de Lux.

 

 "This application, if granted, will form a springboard for future development of the Arts Centre site. I believe that creating new lots with no existing buildings will send a clear signal to other parties that the Arts Centre site is ready and available to be developed. This situation should be avoided to ensure that the heritage values of the site remain properly protected from inappropriate use, subdivision and development", he said. Save Our Arts Centre did not wish to have to keep opposing more inappropriate development, year after year, he added.

Save Our Arts Centre's lawyers, Wynn Williams & Co today told the resource Consent hearing that the legal argument under the Resource Management Act was that the proposed subdivision of the Arts Centre Site "amounts to a significant adverse effect on the ability to protect those recognised heritage values which far outweighs any asserted positive effects of the subdivision.  As such it would amount to inappropriate subdivision of this historic heritage site"

 

Mr Sinke also told the Commissioners that Mr Franklin's evidence earlier in the week admitted that a second underground carpark was to be built under Market Square.

"I believe in the strongest possible terms, that this second car park is "carparking by stealth". If the Arts Centre Trust Board were acting in a transparent and forthcoming manner as proper stewards of this heritage site, they would have ensured this second car park application was in fact being heard now, before you, the Commissioners, as part of a connected application so that all of us - ratepayers, citizens, tenants - could have made submissions on the full scale of the proposed works.

As it is, this evidence of the existence of the second carpark was to be built under Market Square.

"I believe in the strongest possible terms, that this second car park is "carparking by stealth". If the Arts Centre Trust Board were acting in a transparent and forthcoming manner as proper stewards of this heritage site, they would have ensured this second car park application was in fact being heard now, before you, the Commissioners, as part of a connected application so that all of us - ratepayers, citizens, tenants - could have made submissions on the full scale of the proposed works.

As it is, this evidence of the existence of the second car park which we all know has been lurking in the shadows, has come out after the School of Music hearing and too late for any of us to do anything about", said Mr Sinke.

"I also found comments about the Dux de Lux itself by Ken Franklin, Director of the Arts Centre, to the Commissioners self-serving and uninformed. Mr Franklin told the Commissioners that the activities of the Dux did not "fit" the arts and cultural role of the Arts Centre”. He forgets that cafes, restaurants and bars have been at the Arts Centre from the beginning, 35 years ago, as part of the facilities which attract people to visit, day and night. If the Dux doesn't "fit", with its live music, and craft beer brewing, then no cafe or restaurant or bar could ever "fit" on the site, under his management" said the businessman.

 

Adjunct Professor Alan Robb told the Commissioners that Mr Franklin's claims as to the costs of seismic strengthening needed examining. "In mid 2007, the Arts Centre Trust Board told the City Council that seismic strengthening costs were an estimated $15 million. At the same date, internal papers showed the costs were estimated to be $8.4 million. Two and ½ years later, a new estimate puts the same strengthening programme, minus work already done in that time, at $28 million - a huge increase in a small time. This bears questioning", he said. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Press Statement 5 March 2010

Misleading Arts Centre reports referred to Commission

Financial reports issued by the Arts Centre Trust Board which an independent expert believes are “misleading and deceptive” have been referred to the Charities Commission by Save Our Arts Centre Inc.

The Commissioners hearing the application for a resource consent to build a music school at the Arts Centre were told last week that the balance sheets in the Arts Centre annual reports differ materially from the audited financial reports and misstate the level of current assets. 

Professor Alan Robb told the commissioners that the claim by the Director, Ken Franklin, that the Arts Centre lacks working capital is not true.

Professor Robb said the figures in the Trust’s annual report, which are not audited, fail to follow correct accounting standards and treat investments as a separate balance sheet category.  Such a method of disclosure ceased to be acceptable many years ago. They differ from the audited balance sheets which are required to be filed with the Charities Commission.

Professor Robb cited the 2006 report as an example.  An apparent working capital deficit of $14,964 was actually a working capital surplus of $4.6 million according to the audited balance sheet.

‘I have never seen summary financial statements prepared that are at variance from the audited figures’ said Professor Robb. ‘The public reports create the impression that the Arts Centre has a long history of working capital shortages.  That is not the case.  The last year in which there was negative working capital was 1997.’

As I further told the commissioners the Trust’s annual reports “materially misstate the level of current assets and give a misleading and deceptive impression of the working capital of the Arts Centre.”

Professor Robb’s figures have been subsequently peer-reviewed and supported by a second  independent expert, at SOAC's request.

SOAC Spokesperson, Dame Ann Hercus said today the Commissioners at the Resource Consent hearing had made it clear to SOAC that the matters raised by Dr Robb were serious but outside their jurisdiction. "SOAC believes the Charities Commission is now the correct entity to turn to for a full investigation. The Charities Commission was set up specifically to ensure openness and transparency in reporting by trusts and incorporated societies. The Arts Centre Trust Board Annual Reports are neither" she said. "Furthermore, Arts Centre Director Ken Franklin's claim that approval of the Music School project is needed to help provide much needed working capital for seismic strengthening in particular is clearly nonsense", she stressed.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Press Statement Thursday 4 February 2010

Save Our Arts Centre Outraged At Allegations

"Save Our Arts Centre is outraged at the bizarre allegations by the Arts Centre Director, in yesterday's Christchurch Press, that SOAC is responsible for or connected in some way to bugging rooms or hacking into Arts Centre files" today said Dame Ann Hercus, spokesperson for SOAC.

"We require an immediate apology and retraction from John Simpson, the Chair of the Trust Board, and his employee Ken Franklin. Neither the Arts Centre Trust Board or its Director have ever approached SOAC with these bizarre allegations, but let me say categorically

• SOAC has not bugged or asked anyone to bug Arts Centre meeting rooms nor would we ever do so

• SOAC has not hacked into nor asked anyone to hack into Arts Centre computer files, nor would we ever do so

• SOAC have absolutely no wish to acquire illegally gained information, nor have we any need to."

"Further, we insist Mr Franklin of the Arts Centre Trust Board  takes appropriate and immediate legal action against any person or persons who have bugged their rooms or hacked into their computer files. We ask him to do so urgently, and then release all relevant information to the media. Hacking and bugging are both very serious allegations and activities which may carry criminal penalties. SOAC naturally wishes to see any person illegally hacking or bugging charge

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Press Statement  Wednesday 24 December 2009

Submissions on Subdivision Plan

SOAC has just learned that the City Council will be notifying the  subdivision plan application in the early January. Submissions will be due between the 11th of  January and the 5th of February (20 statuary working days).  We have been given an undertaking by the Council that they will notify everyone who made a submission on the music school building.  As soon as we have further details we will post information on the website so watch this space.

To read more about the subdivision and why we are concerned Click Here

Press Statement  Wednesday 23 December 2009

 SOAC very pleased with High Court Decision

SOAC is very pleased with the High Court decision today. Let us explain why. We came to the Court to seek help on three issues:

FIRST that the Court would recognise that the Music School controversy is a matter of serious public interest for Christchurch and New Zealand and that those who oppose it are perfectly entitled to do so in the public interest.  Rather than being a small, screeching publicity seeking minority as we have been characterised by proponents of Arts Centre site in the media, Mr Justice Fogarty was perfectly clear that the issue is a matter of widespread public concern and he repeated several times that he viewed it as one of serious public interest.  We are delighted  with his comments.

SECOND: We wanted the Court to order that the subdivision application should be heard at the same time as the resource consent application for the building. It is very important to SOAC that these two issues not be separated as the Arts Centre argued before the Court. The Judge did not rule directly on this in his decision but noted judicially the understandings that had been reached during the hearing that these two matters should be heard together.  We are delighted with this result as well.

THIRD: We wanted the Court to order an interim injunction to put the resource consent timing on hold while SOAC went to the High Court to argue that the Arts Centre Trust Board was acting ultra vires i.e. outside its trust deed.  We were enormously heartened by the Judge saying that we had a seriously arguable case and  that instead of an interim injunction, he would order a brand new High Court procedure called the Fast Track.  He recognised specifically the need for our High Court case to be held very close to the resource consent case and has started this new procedure already by ordering a meeting of counsel for the first week in February. 

He specifically said that the Resource Management Act cannot resolve the Trust deed issues so there must be two streams of litigation as close together as possible.  So we didn't get the high court injunction, but we got an alternative, the Fast Track procedure, which we didn't know existed, and we are content with this as a solution.

Those proposing the building at the Arts Centre should think seriously about the Judge's statement that it would be possible to succeed on the resource consent application and yet still fall down on Trust Deed issue in the High Court. 

Press Statement: Friday 18 December 2009

High Court Hearing Begins Monday

On Monday 21 December at 10 am at the High Court, Durham St, Save Our Arts Centre Inc takes its first legal step in the legal battle to stop the Music School being built at our heritage Arts Centre.This first legal step is called an interim injunction.We are asking the Court to rule that a temporary halt should be made to the Resource Consent process (due to start in mid February) until a number of very important legal questions of substance are heard and decided by the High Court - some involving the Arts Centre Trust Board and some the City Council.

We would not expect to get a High Court date to hear argument on these legal questions until at least mid 2010 as the courts are very busy (and probably not until later in the year)

It makes sense, our lawyers will argue, not to go through a very time-consuming and expensive Resource Consent process for several weeks and involving 100’s of people wishing to be heard, if, for example the Arts Centre Trust Board is acting “ultra vires” – outside its trust deed.

This legal issue of “ultra vires” is we believe, incredibly important, for now and the future. A ruling about what the Arts Centre Trust Board can legally do, (or not) should settle, once and for all, whether development proposals like the Music School – or others like it - can ever be built on Arts Centre land or whether associated 200 year leases can be offered by the Arts Centre Trust Board.

The other part of our legal challenge will be to the Christchurch City Council and the process and their decisions about the $24.3 million loan and subdivision of land issues.

If we win the legal arguments in 2010, there would be no Resource Consent Hearing; the proposed Music School would be stopped in its tracks; so would any like proposal in the future.

So the first step is to argue for the interim injunction (which involves simply lawyers and affidavits in front of the judge), and then get a date in 2010, before the High Court again, to argue the substantive legal case against both the Arts Centre Trust Board and the Christchurch City Council.

Press Statement: 09 December 2009

Save Our Arts Centre Claims significant Victory

The High Court has granted urgent hearing time to Save Our Arts Centre Inc (“SOAC”) in its bid to stop the building of the proposed School of Music at the Christchurch Arts Centre.

“A Court conference was held with Justice Fogarty of the Christchurch High Court today to discuss when SOAC’s injunction application is to be heard” said SOAC spokesperson Dame Ann Hercus. 

The Court recognised that it was important to deal with matters urgently and that the injunction application should be heard well before the resource consent hearing.   

The University, Arts Centre Trust Board and Christchurch City Council refused to delay the resource consent hearing from its February date.  As a result SOAC’s injunction application will be heard in the Christchurch High Court on 21 December 2009.

Dame Ann said SOAC was prepared for the hearing, and was not surprised the Court had recognised the importance of urgency. 

“We are glad we now have a timely opportunity in Court to put a stop to this project before the consent hearing.  Proceeding with the hearing with its large costs would be a pointless waste given SOAC believes the Music School cannot legally go ahead.  We look forward to the Court resolving matters and putting a stop to this project.  Watch this space!”

---

Press Statement: Tuesday 2 December 2009

Save Our Arts Centre Inc Concerned about Vines Report

Save Our Arts Centre today challenged the City Council to be "even-handed and transparent" and the University of Canterbury to "come clean" on the matter of the Vines Report.

SOAC understands:

• The Vines Report is a section 42A report commissioned by the City Council as part of its responsibility as the  authority in charge of the Resource Consent process. Ms Vines is an internationally respected heritage expert based in Adelaide, Australia; and was contracted by the City Council as an independent expert on heritage matters, for the Music school proposal.
• The Vines Report has been months in preparation and has involved at times queries by Ms Vine and responses provided by and through the City Council, during that period, as would be usual in such a significant expert report.
• The Vines Report was being prepared for the Resource Consent hearing [before two independent commissioners] due to commence on 7 December. The Vines Report, along with other material was due to be circulated to submitters on about 26 November,  5 working days before the hearing on 7 December.
• During the early part of the week of 16 November, the Vines Report [we understand completed] was forwarded to the City Council, in time for release on 25 November. It was reportedly very critical of the Music School proposal, from a heritage perspective.
• The thrust of the Vines Report was immediately conveyed to representatives of the University and the Arts Centre Trust Board [who are the joint applicants] by the City Council. We believe a copy of the Report, or most of it, was also transmitted to them.
• The University then announced that it had requested a postponement of the December hearing because there were submitters who needed "more time". It is true that the hearing procedure was being rushed through, with insufficient time allotted to hear from submitters. But it now seems more likely that the real reason for the postponement was to give the University and the Arts Centre Trust Board time to quickly re-design the building, in an attempt to answer the criticism which the Vines Report contains.
• Knowledge of the Vines Report and its expert views soon became relatively widespread. A number of approaches have been made to relevant Council staff, including by Councillors, asking for a copy of the Vines Report.
• The Council staff's reasons for refusal to do so include a description of the report as "partial" [ie half completed], a description of the report as "a draft", a claim that draft reports are not available as " a matter of policy", and a claim that the report "contains errors".
• However, Council staff have now to explain to the public of Christchurch how the essence of a report that is partial/draft/with errors/and which is not available "as a matter of policy" has been given to the representatives of the University and the Arts Centre Trust Board. Every participant in the resource consent process should be given the same information.  We are equally entitled to know the contents of the Vines Report, including any criticism of the proposed School of Music building which it contains.
• The University also needs to "come clean" and explain that its somewhat unctuous claim it was taking advantage of the postponement it had obtained to look at "elements of design", having "listened to the community views" is not the full story. The fact is that the University  needed the postponement of the hearing to attempt to re-design the Music School building, because of the critical response in the Vines Report.
  

Save Our Arts Centre Inc is extremely concerned at what is happening on this matter. We require the City Council to be  even-handed and transparent, as the  authority organising the Resource Consent hearing,  and not favour the applicant. We expect the University [and the singularly silent Arts Centre Trust Board] to be  open in its communications with the citizens of Christchurch. And, we expect the City Council to give us, and others, the Vines report now. 

---

Press Statement

SAVE OUR ARTS CENTRE TAKING TRUST BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL TO COURT

Save Our Arts Centre today announced that it is challenging the Arts Centre Trust Board's involvement in the controversial Music School proposal in the High Court. It is also legally  challenging the Christchurch City Council on two specific matters, in the same proceeding.  

"We have filed with the High Court, on behalf of Save Our Arts Centre Inc, a legal challenge which goes to the heart of the Music School proposal. The key question is: Does the Arts Centre Trust Board have the power to be involved in the controversial proposed development of a University Music School on Arts Centre land or is it acting "ultra vires" - outside its Trust Deed? It is our opinion, based on legal advice, that the Trust Board is acting "ultra vires"." today said Richard Sinke, Founder and Chair of the Save Our Arts Centre Society Incorporated.

"This is an incredibly important issue, not just for the current controversial proposal, but for the future of the Arts Centre buildings and land. We believe it is a question of deep public interest to resolve this issue - the extent of the powers of the Arts Centre Trust Board.

If the current proposal fails the Resource Management process, then Christchurch citizens will no doubt face the prospect of a further succession of similar proposals. There have been three in the past, which got to various stages of development before being stopped. The only way for certainty, one way or the other, for everyone, is to have the matter tested in the High Court.

This decision has not been taken lightly. It costs a great deal of money to take such High Court actions, which Save Our Arts Centre, as a recently formed incorporated society has now committed itself to raise. It is difficult to run a case like this for less than $80,000.

This legal challenge to the Arts Centre Trust Board is based on requiring an order from the Court that some changes to the Trust Deed since 1993 should be set aside and that the Trust Board should, as a consequence, be stopped from any involvement in the Music School proposal, including providing car parks for the City Council and entering into any lease arrangements for 200 years.

Save Our Arts Centre is also, in the same proceeding, challenging two aspects of Christchurch City Council involvement in the Music School proposal. We are seeking an order requiring it to hold  hearings for a subdivision application and an additional car-park application at the same time as the Music School hearing because all of these matters are closely interrelated. We are also claiming that the Council decision to fund the project was invalid because of pre-determination and because the Council took into account irrelevant considerations yet failed to have regard to other relevant considerations. We ask that the decision be set aside and reconsidered in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002.  

Finally, we are seeking an interim injunction to prevent the Resource Consent hearing going ahead before these legal issues surrounding the Trust Deed have been clarified. " said Mr Sinke.

---

Background – legal action against The Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board and the Christchurch City Council

Save Our Arts Centre Society Incorporated (“SOAC”) has filed a proceeding against The Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board (the “Trust Board”) and the Christchurch City Council (the “Council”).  The proceeding seeks to prevent the National Conservatorium of Music from going ahead, and it makes a number of claims against the Trust Board and Council to do so.

SOAC seeks to:

1. Set aside changes made to the original trust deed by the Trust Board in 1993, 1998 and 2007;
2. Stop the Trust Board from building or authorising the building of the National Conservatorium of Music and from entering into any arrangements with the Council or the University of Canterbury for the purpose of that, or any similar, development;
3. Stop the Trust Board from entering into the proposed lease with the Council;
4. Make the Council hear the resource consent applications for the subdivision, the underground car-park and the building of the National Conservatorium of Music at the same time; and
5. Make the Council re-consider its decision to fund the building of the National Conservatorium of Music.

Against the Trust Board, SOAC first claims that the amendments made in 1993, 1998 and 2007 to the objects of the trust on which the Arts Centre site is held were invalid.  That is because the Trust Board did not have the power to change those objects in the way it did.  The most significant change was to declare the Trust could “hold and develop” the Arts Centre site, where the original objects were for the Trust Board to “hold” the Arts Centre site.  It is alleged that change was made to allow this development to go ahead and getting it set aside will help stop the National Conservatorium of Music.

Second, SOAC claims against the Trust Board that it cannot build or authorise the building of the National Conservatorium of Music because to do so would adversely affect or detract from the object of the Trust to preserve the architectural character and integrity of the historic stone buildings presently on the Arts Centre Site.  It is also claimed that the Trust Board does not have the ability to enter into a 200 year lease with the Council as to do so is an imprudent investment.  Preventing the entering of the lease will prevent the National Conservatorium of Music.

Against the Council SOAC claims that because the resource consent applications relating to the subdivision, the underground car-park and the National Conservatorium of Music are related they should be heard together.  To hear them separately is contrary to the Resource Management Act 1991.

SOAC also claims against the Council that its decision to fund the building of the National Conservatorium of Music was invalid.  That is because the Council had pre-determined the issue and it did not properly consult as required under the Local Government Act 2002.  SOAC believes that if the Council completed the consultation properly then the funding of the National Conservatorium of Music would not have been approved, and the Council should re-consider its decision.

---

Press statement: Friday 20 November 2009

Postponement of Hearing Inevitable

"An inevitable postponement which we had already requested" today said Richard Sinke, Chair of the Save Our Arts Centre Inc. He was commenting on the news that the resource consent hearings , due to start on 7 December, had been postponed until February, on the joint application of the University of Canterbury and the Arts Centre Trust Board. The hearings, in front of two independent Commissioners, are on the controversial School of Music at the heritage Arts Centre land.

"Last week, Save Our Arts Centre submitted to the two Resource Hearing Independent Commissioners that now the total number of people to be heard was known, the pre-Christmas time table was simply not long enough. We pointed out that each submitter would only get 11 minutes on average on the pre-Christmas timetable!

"We were confident that had the joint applicants not asked for a postponement of proceedings until February 2010, the Commissioners themselves would have ordered one anyway", said Mr Sinke.

"Save Our Arts Centre has also asked the independent Commissioners to rule on some other matters, including the issue that there are in fact three related resource consent applications - for the Music School itself, for an extension of the proposed underground car park, and for the subdivision of land - and we believe these must be heard together, not separately as lodged, as the applicant has done.

"On the matter of the University looking again at the design of the proposed building, it is really very simple. The building is too big and bulky for the small Arts Centre site, but conversely it is too small, according to Music staff for current and future use. It cannot be redesigned to be both bigger and smaller, even by Sir Miles. It should be abandoned, as a proposal."

From Richard Sinke, Founder of Save Our Arts Centre Campaign,
and Owner of the Dux De Lux.

“Very disappointed but absolutely determined to continue the fight”, said Richard Sinke, founder of Save Our Arts Centre campaign and owner of the Dux De Lux.

He was responding to the recent vote in Council to support a $24.3 million loan for the University’s Music School building at the Arts Centre. “I believe Councillors have severely misjudged the level of opposition in the community to this particular proposal. I also believe the decision making process has been appalling - a case of “closed doors and closed minds” again “ he said.

“If it hasn’t been for the Save Our Arts Centre’s pressure, there would have been no public consultation process and no release of withheld financial information. Even then, it appears a majority of Councillors’ minds had been made up from the beginning particularly the Mayor’s. This is not democracy in action” said Richard Sinke.

“Save our Arts Centre, along with the Civic Trust and thousands of others, will now prepare the strongest possible case to fight this proposal in the Resource Consent process and (if necessary) in the Environment Court. Our tens of thousands of supporters want us to do this” he said. 

---

The Next Step in the Fight

The City Council has voted - by a majority of one! - to fund a loan of $24.3 million. The next step in the fight to stop the building of a University Music School on our heritage Art Centre site is to make the strongest possible submission, with the strongest possible expert evidence, at the upcoming Resource Consent hearings. These are due to start on the 4th of December (only three weeks away!).

Below are the main points [in layman’s language] of Save Our Arts Centre’s preliminary submission, which has already been lodged. These points will be argued and expanded in the Resource Consent process, in the context of the Resource Management Act.

1. The new building will seriously detract from the heritage value of the existing buildings.  They are trying to shoehorn a large new building into a small space.  The new building will dominate the existing buildings visually, and ruin views to those buildings.  It will cause excessive shading and wind tunnelling in neighbouring open and public spaces.
   
   
2. There would be irreparable harm to the character, coherence and visual amenity of the existing buildings and the Arts Centre site as a whole.  This would seriously downgrade the opportunity for the Arts Centre site to be identified as a UNESCO World Heritage site.
   
   
3. The application has been framed in a way which tries to sidestep the rules in the City Plan which are meant to protect this treasured site.  First, there is a rule in the Plan which requires a resource consent to erect any new building on a site which has existing Class 1 or 2 heritage buildings.  The existing Arts Centre buildings are of course Class 1 and 2 heritage buildings.  But this application has drawn an imaginary line around a part of the Arts Centre site which currently has no heritage buildings on it, and said that is the "site", so the rule shouldn't apply.
   
   If that was a correct interpretation of the rule, then it would never be applied, because developers would just define their building "site" as any empty part of an existing title which does include heritage buildings.  That is not a correct interpretation of the Plan, and it is very worrying that the Arts Centre Trust Board has joined with the University to produce an application which seeks to sidestep a City Plan rule that is meant to protect heritage buildings.
   
   The Arts Centre Trust Board has also brought a separate application to subdivide the existing titles of the Arts Centre site.  That subdivision would create a new title which would not have any heritage buildings on it, so their argument that the heritage buildings protection rule should be ignored would be stronger.  The Board wants that subdivision application to be granted without public notification, instead of being dealt with in the same public hearing as the proposal for the new building.
   
   
4. The second way in which the application is trying to sidestep the City Plan rules protecting heritage buildings relates to shading effects of the new building.  There is a rule in the City Plan which requires a resource consent for any new building on the Arts Centre site.  That means that the "permitted baseline" for the Arts Centre does not include any new buildings.  The "permitted baseline" is a legal concept which allows some effects of proposed activities to be disregarded if the Plan allows an activity which produces those same effects.
   
   The application has incorrectly developed the concept of a building that complies with the development standards for the Cultural 1 zone, and said that this is part of the permitted baseline.  It has then used that imaginary 'complying building' as the standard against which the shading and other effects of the proposed building should be assessed.  It has labelled the shading of the 'complying building' bulk plan as 'permitted' on the images showing shading effects in the application (Appendix 9).  This implies that a certain degree of shading is permitted, when in fact no shading effects are permitted by the Plan, because no new building is a permitted activity on this site.
   
   
5. We are also very concerned about the structural and other damage to which will be cause to existing buildings from excavation works, dewatering of the site, and construction.  Those effects will cause immediate and actual damage to the heritage buildings.  That is ironic, given that the Arts Centre Trust Board says that it needs the income from the new building to pay for earthquake strengthening of the existing buildings.
   
   The Board's proposal does not stack up in that regard.  At the recent City Council hearing into funding of the new building, Ken Franklin (the Director of the Arts Centre Trust Board) said that earthquake strengthening of the existing buildings is likely to cost $26M to $28M.  But the net income gain to the Board from the new building (that is, over and above what is already being gained from that part of the site through carparking) is only about $100,000 per annum.  Even if that increased rental can be capitalised, it is still only a drop in the bucket compared to the amounts required for earthquake strengthening.  And we think the construction is likely to damage the buildings so that earthquake strengthening becomes an even bigger and more expensive job.
   
   As with the Board's other proposals for development of the site which have been floated over the last few years, this proposal does not adequately assess the damage which is likely to be caused to the existing heritage buildings by excavation, dewatering, and construction.
   
   
6. Another way in which the application is misleading relates to the carparking requirements.  Construction of the new building would require removal of the 64 existing carparks which are available for tenants of the Arts Centre and the general public.  Under the City Plan rules, the School of Music building would require a certain number of carparks to be provided for students and staff.
   
   But we've been told that all of the 41 carparks proposed for underneath the new building would be leased to the City Council for the users of the new civic building.  That would leave no carparking for students and staff.  Staff and students would have to find parks in the surrounding area, together with tenants and the public who are using the current above-ground parks.  That effect has not been acknowledged or assessed in the application.
   
   
7. We are also very concerned about the effects which the construction phase will have on existing Arts Centre businesses, such as dust, noise, sediment run-off and discharge, the visual impact, traffic and vibration effects.  An important part of keeping the Arts Centre functioning is the viability of the businesses that are located there.  Driving our businesses under in the name of building a new School of Music is not good stewardship of the Arts Centre site.
   
   
8. We also disagree with the notion that it will be better for Music School students to be at the Arts Centre, instead of on the Ilam Campus.  One of the key issues identified with the existing facilities at Ilam include the fact that the school is spread across five sites on the Ilam campus.  If the School of Music is located at the Arts Centre, it will be spread across two sites with a distance of over 5km between them, and will be further separated from the Centre for Fine Arts, Music and Theatre within the College of Arts.  This arrangement will be extremely inconvenient and in some cases expensive for those students who are studying other subjects in addition to music and who will be required to travel between the two sites.
   
   
9. Our submission also points out the ways in which the proposal is contrary to the Christchurch City Plan objectives and policies, as well as the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement and the Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value which was adopted by the New Zealand National Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).
   
   
10. We have also raised as a relevant issue the concern that the Arts Centre Trust Board is acting outside of its powers under the Trust Deed in attempting to develop the Arts Centre site in this way.  The guiding principle of that Trust Deed is the preservation of the existing heritage buildings.  The Board has spent huge sums on this and other resource consent applications, but we say that the expenditure is not authorised.  

Can you help?

To appear as a major player in a Resource Consent hearing of this kind costs tens of thousands of dollars. (for example we need to have legal representation of the highest quality and some of the expert witnesses we want require payment).

If you can make a donation – large or small - towards the next stage of this fight, please forward to:
Either
Direct banking: our Kiwibank account number is 38-9009-083764-00
Please use your name and initials as a reference
Or: send a cheque or cash to Save Our Arts Centre, PO Box 150, Christchurch.
Please enclose your name, address, and email (if you have one).

---

How the City Council Voted: These are the Facts

The proposal to fund, by way of borrowing $24.3m, the University Music School on our heritage Arts Centre site was first discussed by the full Christchurch City Council in a closed workshop, in early July 2009 (though it is clear that the Mayor was very active supporting the general proposal long before this).

Obviously, a closed Council workshop is just that – closed to the public. But two reasonable assumptions can be made. Councillors Yani Johanson, Chrissie Williams, and Helen Broughton no doubt made their opposition to the loan proposal very clear. And the draft Council resolution being considered at that stage had absolutely no provision for any public consultation [It is assumed staff advised that consultation was not necessary and most Councillors agreed with this].

However, when this item came before the public Council Meeting on the 23rd of July 2009, there was major public challenge. This came from Richard Sinke of the Dux De Lux and Save Our Arts Centre, (through the submission of their lawyers Wynn Williams) plus the Civic Trust, ICON, the Music Centre and a large number of individual distinguished Christchurch citizens.

They said it must NOT be voted on there and then. The Mayor and Council clearly heard this message, and then amended the substantive resolution by references to holding a  “Special Consultative Procedure.”

This somewhat badly crafted amended resolution had two parts [a] setting up a special consultative process (in Part II) and [b] Part 1  which was about the substance of the issue and contained words like "To approve the Council's involvement .......in the development and subsequent lease of a National Conservatorium of Music facility for the University of Canterbury at the Arts Centre of Christchurch".

Voting took place on a clause by clause basis on Part I; Part II [about the special consultative process] was supported unanimously.

Voting for Part I, showing support for the loan proposal
Mayor Bob Parker, Deputy Mayor Norm Withers, Ngaire Button, Barry Corbett, Mike Wall, David Cox, Claudia Reid, Bob Shearing.
TOTAL: 8

Voting against Part I, showing opposition for the loan proposal
Chrissie Williams, Yani Johanson, Helen Broughton
TOTAL: 3
Absent: Crs Buck and Sherriff
Cr Wells took no part

So the Council had placed itself in the somewhat conflicting position of having (by majority) shown support for the loans proposal, but also agreeing to a public consultative process, on the loans proposal they had already in effect voted to support (by majority)!

However odd the Council resolution was, two facts are clear from that July Council Meeting.

Fact One:
Only three Councillors were at that stage opposing the loan proposal – Chrissie Williams, Yani Johanson and Helen Broughton.

Fact Two:
Without Richard Sinke and SOAC and all the others, the public of Christchurch simply wouldn’t have had any say at all!

The next major event was the successful challenge by Richard Sinke and SOAC (through the Ombudsman) for the Council to release crucial withheld financial information. It was only through this action, that the public found out for example, that a loan of $24.3m was at the core of the proposal.

Then came the public consultations. We know that at these consultative hearings, (held at the end of October) there were in total 475 opposition submissions, and only 31 in support. Many spoke in person, over three days.
Following this the Council had a session for deliberation; at a second closed workshop  at which Councillors received a report from staff (in favour of the loan proposal proceeding). Dr. Rod Carr, Vice Chancellor of Canterbury University was allowed to appear(in support), but not SOAC or anyone else "in opposition".

Then on the 12th of November, came the open Council meeting, and the final vote.

In Favour of the $23.4m loan:
The Mayor – Bob Parker, Barry Corbett, Ngaire Button, Mike Wall, Gail Sheriff, Claudia Reid and Bob Shearing.
TOTAL: 7

Not in Favour of the $23.4m loan:
Norm Withers (deputy Mayor), Yani Johanson, Chrissie Williams, Helen Broughton, David Cox and Sally Buck.
TOTAL: 6

So three more Councillors voted against the loan proposal than on the 23rd of July.

SO WE WERE ONE VOTE AWAY FROM STOPPING THE $23.4M LOAN

So close! So frustratingly close!

To see the resolutions and voting of the CCC, for 23 July and 12 November 2009, click here

---

Commentary From Save Our Arts Centre

For the past 3 months we ran a strong and active campaign, to inform the public and to try and change Councillors’ minds. Save Our Arts Centre organised a huge petition, which (at the date of the consultative hearings) had about 3,000 signatures and addresses of Christchurch citizens on it, together with another 1000 names and some addresses from international tourists and from other parts of New Zealand.

We also wrote articles for the Press and The Star (as did others on “our side”), we wrote letters to the editor of the Press (only a small handful was published), we spoke at meetings and to neighbours and put an ad in the Press just before the crucial meeting. We met regularly with the Civic Trust and other groups opposed to the proposal and loan, we set up a very successful website, which shows through architects' sketches, how big and bulky the proposed building is, on this very small heritage site. We tried to publicise the UNESCO World Heritage status argument.

And all the time, we knew how difficult it would be to change even one councillor’s mind on the loan issue.
We are enormously proud of the three City Councillors who, from the beginning, opposed this bizarre loan proposal – Chrissie Williams, Yani Johanson and Helen Broughton. And thank you to the three other Councillors  - Norm Withers (deputy Mayor), Sally Buck and David Cox, who made up the total of 6, who voted, on the 12th of November in opposition to the loans proposal.

And we are appalled by the actions of Bob Parker (surely now a one-term mayor) who seems to have predetermined his support for the loans proposal. He has promoted and supported this imprudent loan from the beginning, just as he promoted and supported spending $3 million on an overpriced Ellerslie Flower Show, and $17 million on buying the overpriced Dave Henderson properties.

And we are very disappointed in the remaining Councillors who (with very thin arguments or no arguments at all) voted in favour of the loan proposal, namely Barry Corbett, Ngaire Button (didn’t even speak) Gail Sheriff (didn’t even speak) Claudia Reid and Bob Shearing (didn’t even speak).

The City of Christchurch has not heard the last of this. It is widely believed that there have been so many flaws in the City Council’s processes on this matter, and so much evidence of predetermination, particularly by the Mayor, that action is surely warranted. Watch this space!!!