The Press THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1965. Cathedral Square

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30666, 4 February 1965, Page 12

The Press THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1965. Cathedral Square

In a recent letter to the editor of “The Press” a correspondent expressed the concern of many Christchurch citizens over the announcement of the State Advances Corporation’s intention to put a new building on the site of Dalgety’s building in the south-east corner of Cathedral square. The State Advances building would be one of four post-war, multi-storey buildings bordering the Cathedral precinct, the others being for the Government Life Insurance Office, the Bank of New Zealand, and the Transport Board. The bank building, at present under construction, will be the nearest to the Cathedral. It will rise to a height of 140 feet—five feet more than the Government Life building, 70 feet less than the Cathedral spire. Its upper portion, however, will be set back from the building line, it will have a strong horizontal line about the same height as the gutter of the Cathedral roof, and in other ways has been designed with deference to its neighbour. Regret for the passing of the old Cathedral square is understandable, but attempts to prevent the erection of further multistorey buildings round the Square are doomed to failure. Each new building, accommodating more workers in better working conditions, creates a demand for adjoining buildings offering complementary services. But the new Cathedral square, and Victoria square, too, should not be allowed to become haphazard collections of buildings that clash with their surroundings and with each other. The Bank of New Zealand’s directors and architects shewed a commendable regard for local sentiment and for town-planning principles; other property-owners may not prove so amenable. What can be done, or should be done, to restrain the owner of a valuable site in Cathedral square who wants to erect an ugly building that is not in harmony with other buildings? The first part of the question can be simply answered: provided the owner’s plans conform to the Christchurch City Council’s by-laws, the council has at present no power to withhold a building permit. In fact, if the building is being erected for a government department, the council’s by-laws cannot be enforced. The professional standing and impartial judgment of senior public servants usually ensure that Government buildings meet all the requirements of local bodies. Offenders in Cathedral square are more likely to be private property developers. Lacking powers to decline an application for a permit merely because a building is in bad taste, the City Council now can do no more than be obstructive. If, for fear of antagonising property-owners, the City Council hesitates to seek legislative authority to insist on harmonious development, it could strengthen its position by setting up an expert advisory committee. Ample precedent for this form of control, which is ultimately in the best interests of owners, can be found overseas.