Hearings Panel

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 14 December 2017

Time:                                    9.05am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

14 December 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Brendan Anstiss

General Manager Strategy & Transformation

Tel: 941 8472

 

Christopher Turner-Bullock

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 


Hearings Panel

14 December 2017

 

 

1.   Apologies

 

Council Resolved BLHP/2017/00025

That the apology for lateness from Councillor Keown be accepted.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                                   Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Consultation analysis on proposal to contribute a grant of $10 million to the reinstatement of the Christ Church Cathedral

 

Katy McRae, Manager  Engagement, presented the consultation analysis report to the Hearings Panel.

Councillor Cotter joined the meeting at 9.09am.

4.   Hearing of Submissions

Below is a list of the oral submission’s that the Hearings Panel received together with any additional comments made that were not included in their written submission:

 

David Maclure (assisted by an New Zealand Sign Language Interpreter) – Submission Number 7496

 

The submitter is opposed to the grant because he is concerned that it is not inflation protected. He is also concerned about possible cost blowouts due to unexpected requirements once work begins. He asks the Hearings Panel to seriously consider the risk of this.

 

Very Reverend Lawrence Kimberley of the Christchurch Cathedral Chapter, Gavin Holley of Church Property Trustees and Chris Oldham the Cathedral Administrator and Chapter Secretary – Submission Numbers 9637 and 9642

 

The Very Reverend Lawrence Kimberley noted that they were initially in favour of building a new Church, however they have now received the strong message of support for reinstatement of the Cathedral. This coupled with the legislative promises of the Government and the offer of support from the Council has led the Synod to vote in favour of reinstatement. The Cathedral has been the heart of the city since 1881 and is a gathering place for all. It is open for celebration and a place for those when needing to grieve. The building offers aspects for social justice as well as music and the arts.

 

Gavin Holley noted that the Church Property Trustees has worked hard to recover from the earthquakes, with 234 projects. It is the largest private heritage owner in Christchurch. He asked that the Council continue with its in principle support and to carefully consider any impacts to the project should conditions be placed on the grant.

 

Chris Oldham noted the Civic importance of the Cathedral and that the Chapter is fully supportive of the proposed grant to restore the heart and soul of the city.

 

Following questions it was noted that should the Hearings Panel decide not to grant the funds, or if there are conditions applied to the grant, it may mean that the matter has to go back before the Synod for reconsideration, as it changes the funding risks. It is not the intention of the Church Property Trustees to seek further funding annually, they would be looking to establish an endowment fund to generate sufficient income to cover future costs such as insurance.

Mark Gerrard of Historic Places Canterbury – Submission Number 9799

 

The submitter fully supports the grant and said that it is important that the Council joins with the Government in providing support. He is aware that the Cathedral has a history of seeking and receiving support however these are exceptional circumstances. Reinstatement is needed for the successful regeneration of the city heart. The city has lost so much of its built heritage legacy and there is a need to show civic pride. Historic Places Canterbury considers that the grant will show that as a city we are back. He acknowledged that there will not be total agreement, but is certain that upon looking back in the future it will be seen as the right thing to do. He noted that the full amount of the grant may not be required, that public fundraising has yet to begin, which will likely see a lot of support, including from the wider Canterbury region who would not be included in the targeted rate.

 

The Hearings Panel asked questions regarding the amount of the grant in comparison to other heritage grants given, being approximately five times the amount. The submitter considers that this is an iconic centre and represents the city and is worth the value of the grant. The submitter was asked about future heritage grants should the Council grant funds to the Cathedral – it was noted that the proposal is for the Cathedral only and he could only speak to this proposal, but that is part of the regeneration of the square, which the Council needs to support.

 

Dr Chris Kissling and Ross Gray of Christchurch Civic Trust – Submission Number 9449 (Handout attached)

 

The submitter’s read from the attached handout.

 

A question was asked about the potential for funding by the Christchurch Civic Trust, they replied that they do not have the funds themselves but their strength is in motivating others to donate. The Mayor did note that the spire and steeple is separate from this project.

 

Ross and Lorraine Gray – Submission Number 7819 (Handout attached)

 

The submitter’s read from the attached handout.

 

The hearings panel asked whether they felt it was more appropriate for an opt-in/opt-out rate? The submitters opinion was a rate that was based on property value was fairest, noting that $12 per year would be too high for some people. They are happy that it is compulsory, but would like to consider a different method.

 

Lytton Volante – Submission Number 7430

 

The submitter raised his concern that the Cathedral is a practicing Church and that asking people of many faiths to support one faith is not correct. The submitter also noted that the Church has $171 million in assets but are reluctant to move money from the Papanui Parish, for example, to pay for a Church in the Central area. If the grant proceeds, the submitter would like to see the option to opt out, to give everyone the opportunity to stand by their views. The submitter acknowledged that the grant may be for the heritage aspect of the building, but feels if this is the case the building should no longer be a practicing Church.

 

The Hearings Panel asked about the bylaw option raised in the submission, the submitter would like to see a bylaw created to prevent damaged buildings remaining in this condition for so many years after an event, as they are a danger to the public.

 


 

Janet Begg – Submission Number 8237 (Handout attached)

 

The submitter read from the attached handout.

 

Councillor East left the meeting at 10.12am and returned at 10.15am.

 

Ashley Cunliffe – Submission Number 7779 (Handout attached)

 

The submitter read from the attached handout.

 

Lynette Hardie Willis – Submission Number 7789 (Handout attached)

 

The submitter read from the attached handout.

 

Councillor Livingstone left the meeting at 10.27am and returned at 10.32am.

 

Tim Preston of Restore Christchurch Cathedral – Submission Number 9606

 

The submitter supports the proposed grant and noted that the labour costs alone today would total $3.5 million and there would be a loss of the artisanal skill used in the building. Polling and feedback have shown this to be an irreplaceable treasure. The submitter acknowledged the scale of the building when it was created and noted that if this debate was happening in 2010 there would probably be less opposition, but there has been a lot of distraction and confusion in the public arena which has put residents off the idea of reinstating the Cathedral.

 

Tim Preston (individual submission) – Submission Number 7859

 

The submitter confirmed that a targeted rate would be preferred if the proposed grant goes ahead.

 

Rosie Belton – Submission Number 7672

 

The submitter read from the attached handout and also read on behalf of David Collins, also attached.

 

Mark Robberds – Submission Number 9872 (Handout attached)

 

The submitter advised the Hearings Panel that he is a qualified engineer in stone masonry. He wished to counter any claims that this is money ill spent. A third of each day would be spent creating the stones prior to laying and in this building all this work is done already and could be reused. Once reinstated, the building will be worth far more than the $100 million which will be spent on the reinstatement. The value of the stone is much higher now than when it was created. The submitter wished to make a strong recommendation to the hearings panel that whoever the successful tenderer for the project is, they be required to train young people in the craft of stone masonry.

 

Lady Barbara Stewart – Submission Number 9186

 

The submitter made the suggestion to the Hearings Panel that it recommend entry charges be instated for the Cathedral. That local residents be permitted free entry and that others pay a charge which could then be used as a return to the Council or to be used to cover future running costs of the Cathedral. There will be substantial tourist numbers in future as the hotels and convention centre around the square reopen. The submitter urged the Council to support the proposed grant.

 

The meeting adjourned at 11.07am and resumed at 11.25am.


 

Julie Tobbell – Submission Number 9869

 

The submitter supported the proposed grant and noted the importance of saving over 130 years of history in the Cathedral. The submitter noted that the Cathedral has suffered from earthquakes previously and been restored and we now need to make a stand and show that the community stands behind it again.

 

Councillor Keown joined the meeting at 11.30am.

 

Reverend Dr Patricia Allan – Submission Number 9819 (Handout attached)

 

The submitter read from the attached handout.

 

Andrew Troup – Submission Number 9736 (Handout attached)

 

The submitter wanted to draw comparisons to other buildings such as the Bamiyan Buddhas, Easter Island Heads and the Dunedin Railway Station and how people would feel if they were to be demolished in a similar event. The submitter acknowledged the lack of infrastructure when building the Cathedral, that there was no roading, lorries or quarries to assist and they still successfully built the Cathedral. He asked the Council to reflect on the implications of making the building vanish.

 

Penny Orme – Submission Number 9652

 

The submitter supports the proposed grant and acknowledged the Cathedral as being a central city landmark that makes ongoing contributions to the city’s economy. The submitter requests that the Council give sympathy to the Catholic Basilica in future also.

 

Jean Nel – Submission Number 9556

 

The submitter noted that the Cathedral was the fledgling building for the City and took 31 years of struggle to build. In 1881, one month after its consecration, the Cathedral suffered damage in an earthquake but was restored. The heritage loss of all buildings including category 2 buildings is circa 10,000 years.

 

Francis Gidden – Submission Number 8408 (Handout attached)

 

The submitter read from the attached handout.

 

Dale Coulter – Submission Number 7970

 

The submitter noted that they would not normally make a submission but felt strongly to oppose the grant. The submitter was pleased a decision has been made the restore the Cathedral but does not feel it is an issue for the ratepayers to support an underinsured building. He noted that some 16,708 rating units are currently defaulting on rates and that this will likely lead to more. He also noted that the proposed grant would go a long way towards minimising flooding and repairing roads or providing social assistance.

 

Michael Le Petit – Submission Number 9901

 

The submitter noted that the funding shortfall should sit with the Anglican community and not the ratepayer. He also noted that the proposed grant could be used instead to purchase social housing or be used on other pressing issues that the city faces.


 

Haydn Rawstron – Submission Number 8295 (Handout attached)

 

The submitter read from the attached handout.

 

Diane McCarthy – Submission Number 9647 (Handout attached)

 

The submitter read from the attached handout.

 

Paul Gautron of the New Zealand Stone Masons Association – Submission Number 9893

 

The submitter noted that they fully support the grant and that the importance of the building cannot be underestimated. They also noted that the Cathedral is possibly the most important stone building in New Zealand due to the level of skill used in its creation. The main reason the association was formed was for training and to pass skills on to apprentices.

 

Helen Broughton – Submission Number 9957

 

The submitter noted that the Council should make the pragmatic decision to support the reinstatement of the Cathedral as one of three parties involved. The submitter noted that it is a category 1 heritage building designed by Benjamin Mountfort and sits at one end of a boulevard with another of his buildings at the other and asked the Council not to take away from this. The submitter would prefer to see the grant funded by borrowing so that the increase can be shared more fairly than a targeted rate. The Cathedral is an intergenerational asset.

 

David Morrell and Celia Hogan of the Great Christchurch Buildings Trust – Submission Number 9628 and 9646

 

The submitter noted that the Cathedral is the lynchpin of the core of the central city. It would be a great loss to see the waters muddied again should the proposed grant not go ahead. The building is not a private building but a public building open for public events. Most of the real estate is owned by individual parishes and not the Diocese that may have gifted it. The reinstatement will trigger a wider and deeper recovery. The Great Christchurch Buildings Trust have committed $13 million to the project. It was also noted that tourists are skipping Christchurch currently due to the delays and the Cathedral is key to enhancing the visitor experience.

 

The meeting adjourned at 12.57pm and resumed at 1.34pm. Councillors Cotter, Clearwater and Gough were not present at this time.

 

Councillor Clearwater returned at 1.35pm and Councillor Gough returned at 1.36pm during Prunella Harris’ submission.

 

Allan Matson – Submission Number 9985

 

It was noted that the submitter was not able to attend due to family illness.

 

Prunella Harris – Submission Number 7943

 

The submitter noted that the majority are not against the reinstatement of the Cathedral, but the method. Once reinstated, a climate of certainty will follow allowing businesses to re-establish. The hearings panel need to consider not only those that have submitted, but those that will come after, the children and the unborn, there is so little heritage remaining.


 

Celia Hogan – Submission Number 9614

 

The submitter noted their support for the grant and asked the Council not to break their support of the Cathedral now, after many years of connection with the building.

 

Councillor Cotter returned to the meeting at 1.46pm.

 

Rodney Routledge – Submission Number 10295

 

The submitter wished to oppose the grant and questioned the suitability of rebuilding a stone building in an earthquake prone area. The submitter would prefer to see voluntary contributions rather than a levy on rates. A question was asked about the need for a space for civic functions. The submitter responded to say the transitional Cathedral is available and the Town Hall will soon be available also.

 

John Thacker – Submission Number 10000

 

The submitter supported the grant and noted that the Council spends money on art and this building is a form of art for the city. The city is known around the world for the Cathedral and people will come again when it is restored.

 

The meeting adjourned at 2pm and will resume at 9.30am on Tuesday 19 December 2017 in the Council Chambers, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street, Christchurch.

 

The meeting reconvened at 9.38am on Tuesday 19 December 2017 in the Council Chambers, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street, Christchurch.

 

Apologies (Tuesday 19 December 2017)

 

There were no apologies.

 

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.12am and returned at 10.17am.

5.   Hearings Panel Consideration and Deliberation

 

The Hearings Panel considered and deliberated on the proposal to contribute a grant of $10 million to the reinstatement of the Christ Church Cathedral.

That the Council :

 

1.              In response to a request from the Crown and recognising the heritage and civic value of Christ Church Cathedral, confirms a grant of net $10 million towards the capital cost of the Cathedral's reinstatement, to be made available once other sources of Crown and Church funding have been applied to the reinstatement project; 

2.              Notes that should the fundraising exceed the amount required for the reinstatement of the Christ Church Cathedral for Council contribution will be adjusted accordingly;

3.              Agrees the mechanism for funding the grant be a targeted rate the detail of which be resolved as part of the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

4.              Seeks support for stonemason training to be undertaken on site.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                                                             

Councillor Templeton moved by way of amendment, that the Council:

1.         In response to a request from the Crown and recognising the heritage and civic value of Christ Church Cathedral, confirms a grant of net $5 million towards the capital cost of the Cathedral's reinstatement, to be made available once other sources of Crown and Church funding have been applied to the reinstatement project; 

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Davidson                                                                                                             Lost

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Davidson and on being put to the meeting was declared lost.

Councillors Davidson, Johanson, Swiggs, and Templeton requested that their votes for this resolution be recorded.

Council Resolved BLHP/2017/00026

That the Council:

1.              In response to a request from the Crown and recognising the heritage and civic value of Christ Church Cathedral, confirms a grant of net $10 million towards the capital cost of the Cathedral's reinstatement, to be made available once other sources of Crown and Church funding have been applied to the reinstatement project; 

Mayor/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                                               Carried

Councillors Davidson, Johanson, Swiggs, and Templeton requested that their voted against this resolution be recorded.

Council Resolved BLHP/2017/00027

That the Council:

2.              Notes that should the fundraising exceed the amount required for the reinstatement of the Christ Church Cathedral for Council contribution will be adjusted accordingly;

3.              Agrees the mechanism for funding the grant be a targeted rate the detail of which be resolved as part of the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

4.              Seeks support for stonemason training to be undertaken on site.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                                               Carried

 

The meeting closed at 10.54am.