No money to buy buildings

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33487, 19 March 1974, Page 14

No money to buy buildings

The Christchurch City Council had no money to buy buildings just because they were of historic interest or architectural beauty, the chairman of the council’s finance committee (Cr D. R. Dowell) said at the council meeting last evening.

“Nobody disagrees with the preservation of some of these fine buildings, but the council just hasn’t got the funds,” he said during a debate on an amendment to the district scheme which gives enlarged scope for preservation provisions. 1

The amendment also came under fire from the Citizens’ Association councillors, many of whom objected to the revised list of buildings and trees to be preserved being kept in committee. The public should be entitled to the information, said Cr P. T . R. Skellerup. It was wrong that a person could be kept in ignorance of a council decision affecting his property, or trees on his property, until after the decision had been made, he said.

Cr M. J. Carter said it was wrong that some interested bodies, such as the Historic Places Trust, had had the opportunity to express their views before the council designated properties as worthy of protection from demolition or alteration, when the owners of the property had not had a similar opportunity. Cr H. L. Garrett said the council was moving into a new realm in the intrusion on private property. “When this amendment becomes law, no longer can it be thought that a Christchurch citizens’ home is his castle,” she said. “This whole thing is an example of socialism mixed with misguided enthusiasm," she said. As it stood the pro-

visions were unenforceable and the amendment should be referred back for sound legal opinion. Cr H. G. Hay said the amendment contained a financial dilemma. It might be possible to call on funds from lottery proceeds for the purchase of endangered buildings, but the council could also, be caught by the provisions.

“It is possible that some enthusiastic group, keen on the preservation of some particular building could—l was going to say ‘con’—could compromise the city into bridging a financial gap,” he said.