Risk seen in extension

Press, 26 August 1982, Page 7

Risk seen in extension

Expansion of the Philatelic Centre in Worcester Street could set a dangerous precedent making it more difficult to. convert buildings back to residential uses in a sensitive inner-city zone, a Christchurch City Council planning hearing' has been told.

The Philatelic Foundation wants to add a 60 sq m library and landscaping to the front of its building at 27 Worcester Street, across from the Arts Centre and in the special residential 5A zone.

■‘We believe that the proposed extensions would make the reconversion of the property to residential use virtually impossible.” said Mr G. H. Hollobon. a member of Inner City Operation Neighbourhood (1.C.0.N.).

The applicant said that the extension, designed by a prominent architect. Mr D. E. Donnithorne. would improve the building's frontage. Mr Donnithorne- said the present building had a flatroofed addition facing the street, "completely out of character with the original design." . Over all. it was "a supreme case of ugliness in our built environment, carried out by previous owners of the building." The former house has beer used for clubroom activities since the 19505. Until 1977, il was occupied by the Christchurch Senior Citizens Association.

Mr Donnithorne said the extension would include three "domestic-type bay windows" facing the street, centred on three gable roofs. The present parking area would be removed, and the garden restored. There would be a red brick street wall.

Dr J. L. Cameron, a spokesman for 1.C.0.N., said that approval of the extension would have a substantial effect on the neighbourhood because it would be difficult to refuse similar applications from other .nonconforming uses.

The Philatelic Centre was also near the zone's edge, which was most vulnerable to pressures for unsuitable development

An expanded centre would have less off-street car-park-ing. but Mr A. Hearn, solicitor for the Philatelic Foundation, said there was ample off-street parking in the area for a building used mainly in the evenings.

Mr R. J. Duns, the foundation s chairman, said that Mr Donnithorne had been chosen as the architect so that alterations would be “in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood." Mr Donnithorne said the addition "will go a long way in restoring the quality and vigour of buildings opposite the old university, but at the same time avoiding an antiseptic sterility to the area, which could be the case if a uniformity of uses and forms

of expression is insisted

on- . ■ . Tn this respect, it is sad indeed to see objections to the proposal from an organisation whose early aims most would have supported, but who now seerri to have become reactionary towards such proposals as the Philatelic Foundation has to improve its premises." Ms Diana Shand, an 1.C.0.N. member and nearneighbour of the Philatelic Centre, said that more families had moved into the block recently, but such a project could endanger that trend. "The landscaping at the front is a most commendable action." she said. “My objection is more to how it (the expansion) fits in with future residential uses.” Ms Shand was concerned that the project's design might “give- the appearance of a commercial building or ultra-modern house." "Is the building an ornament to the locality now?" asked Sir Terence McCombs, chairman of the hearing panel. ■Oh. it's dreadful." she said. Mr Hollobon said the residential 5A zone was littered with houses which had been converted to non-residential uses in the last 30 years. Their reconversion to residential use became exceedingly expensive, problematical and. at times, impossible. Mr M. J. G. Garland, a council senior planner, said that the proposed extension’s

appearance should not be a central argument for or against the proposal. ' The proposal would improve the appearance of the site considerably, he said. It was different in style from surrounding buildings, but not necessarily inconsistent with neighbouring houses.

Mr Garland said he could not support the application unless councillors were satisfied with the reduced parking provided. Council traffic engineers could not support it on transport planning grounds.