Bishopscourt

Press, 19 February 1983, Page 14

Bishopscourt

Sir. — This superb building, Bishopscourt, still stands in its intended setting. Although we have become more concerned with preserving our architectural heritage there are few it appears, for various reasons, willing to make a stand and oppose this insensitive development. What has happened to the Historic Places Trust; surely this matter is of some concern to them? Even though a previous proposal for the building to be used for administrative purposes did not gain planning permission from the City Council, I do not feel that enough ideas and alternatives have been seriously considered and aired. There must be some enlightened way of using this building and garden — a plan that would keep Bishopscourt intact and still give pleasure to many. — Yours, etc..

J. M. ALLISON February 17, 1983.

Sir,- — The present correspondence over the Bishopscourt proposal appears to be the only opportunity for the community to air its views. Bishopscourt is part of our national heritage and the Church Property Trustees would do well to remember they have been entrusted with its care on behalf of all people

in Canterbury and New Zealand. This should not mean a unique area can be “bulldozed" by a few people who appear to think they are all powerful. If the city fathers would allow the Bishop to have his office and diocesan administration included at Bishopscourt, this area could become the focal point of the diocese, instead of an isolated unit catering for the minority. - Yours, etc.. SHIRLEY BENNETT. February 16. 1983.

Sir.—Resthaven was an old building used for the care of old people. It was demolished and a new single-storey complex replaced it. Surely those who planned the Bishopscourt complex can learn from Resthaven. Could somebody please give us definite answers to one or two questions? (1) Who made the decision to turn Bishopscourt into a retirement village? (2) Is it an irreversible decision; if so how far is planning advanced? (3) Why was the plan suddenly announced via the news media, without the knowledge of a lot of clergy and lay people? Many Anglicans regard the Bishop's home as essential a part of Christchurch as our Cathedral. We cannot make a decision as serious as this lightly. — Yours, etc..

L. A. STANTON February 18, 1982.

Sir,—The possibility that Bishopscourt may have to be sold has been untier discussion since 1977 and this matter has been fully considered by the Synod, the standing committee and the trustees. In fact a resolution of Synod was passed as long ago as 1979. I remember calling, some years ago on people, who share your correspondents’ views, to seek their financial support for their parish, but they said that they were unable to make a commitment. If, like some of your correspondents now, they and others had been as concerned about the welfare of their Church as they are now about Bishopscourt, it may have been possible to retain it as the Bishop's residence. — Yours, etc. A. B. HARMAN. February 18, 1983.

Sir, — The unfortunate disposal of Bishopscourt raises a number of questions, not only for Anglicans, but for the community in general. This is the home of the diocese and the heritage of the people of Christchurch. Many of us are deeply concerned about the way this was done and the way it is to be developed. But if we do not voice our opinions it will be too late. We must let the Church Property Trustees know the strength of our feelings in the hope that they may consider other alternatives. — Yours, etc., GILLIAN BRIDGE. February 16, 1983.