THE PRESS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1983. Fate of Bishopscourt

Press, 19 February 1983, Page 14

THE PRESS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1983. Fate of Bishopscourt

Plans to convert Bishopscourt. the home of the Bishop of Christchurch, to other purposes have aroused objections. The fate of the large house and its fine garden in Park Terrace is. of course, the business of the Anglican Church authorities to whom the ownership and maintenance of the property are entrusted. If they have not the resources to maintain it in its present form, they have every reason to devise a way to rid themselves of a burden that they cannot bear, or change its use so that it serves the Church in a more satisfactory way. After long thought, they have devised a plan to partition the garden and rearrange the house so that Bishopscourt will become a place for retirement cottages and a residence for elderly people. The social value of such a scheme cannot be denied, and the planning of the scheme has undoubtedly been done with the greatest possible sensitivity to the exceptionally fine surroundings of the house. Public reaction against the idea is understandable. Here is a large house, superbly designed in a classic style, the product of exceptional craftsmanship, not a lavish residence, but certainly one that has quite extraordinary architectural value. More than this, and probably most important in the discussion, the building is complemented by appropriate landscaping and trees that have matured; all compose into a fine house in a superb setting. The Bishop of Christchurch may well feel that it is not an ideal house for his purposes; but he has never set out to persuade the church authorities to dispose of the property, or alter its use, just to serve his own convenience. The destiny of such a house is something that transcends the interests of its present occupant. He could probably live elsewhere, if he chose.

Some may feel that a person in a Bishop's position should not live in a house that is so far removed from the style in which ordinary people must live. If anyone supposes that the Bishop’s sense of charity or concern for less grandly housed people is lessened by his occupying Bishopscourt, they would be far from the truth. If anything, a person in his position may well have his concern heightened by the contrast. This, however, is not the central issue. One question is whether the church is capable of sustaining the property as it is. The obvious answer is that the church no longer has this capacity. The next question is whether this incapacity should lead to the defacing of what is generally acknowledged to be a treasure of architectural and landscaping unity. Many would hold that this.is, not the most desirable consequence, and that the sale of the property would have better achieved the financial and social ends that are sought.

Had the church authorities’ embarrassment been, not a house and garden but, say, a painting of great artistic and financial value, it is unlikely that pieces of the picture would have been sold off or that its central feature would be masked almost to obscurity. The answer is clearly that a work of art of this kind would not have been dismembered. The objectors to the Bishopscourt plan have much on their side. The final question remains: Would the objectors buy and assure the preservation of the picture — or Bishopscourt? Or would they give the present owner the means to preserve and put the treasure, unscathed, to good use. If not, can they or others find someone else who will do so? Although the present plan is unfortunate, no alternative is in sight.