Victoria Square site ‘not best for tower’

Press, 24 April 1987, Page 9

Victoria Square site ‘not best for tower’

A Christchurch City councillor believes his opposition to the Victoria Square tower is vindicated by a council report that he says was kept from councillors. Cr Alex Clark, who has

strongly opposed the Victoria Square site for the ‘ tower since it was first suggested, said councillors were not given information compiled by a council officer that recommended examining alternatives sites for the tower. Cr Clark said the report of the staff project team on the proposal was “manipulated” by the omission of the assessment of

the proposal by the council’s senior landscape architect, Mr Gary Bateman.

Mr Bateman suggested that other city sites — the comer of Kilmore Street and Colombo Street, the south-east comer of Colombo Street and Armagh Street, Friendship Comer, the Farmers site, and the council’s Worcester Street car-park by the museum — should be assessed. He believed the Victoria Square site was not the best for the tower. Cr Clark said Mr Bateman’s reservations about

the visual impact of the tower were not conveyed to councillors. The council project team had weighed the pros and cons of the tower on its proposed site, had found in favour and had reported accordingly, he said. That decision was for the councillors, not the staff.

The leader of the project team, the council’s deputy general manager (works), Mr Harold Surtees, said that that was definitely wrong. The team had received advice and opinions from many people including the advisory team of representatives of the Institute of Architects, the Institute of Landscape Architects, the Planning Institute, the Civic Trust, the Historic Places Trust and the North of the Square Businessmen’s Association.

The project team’s report, which recommended that the council support the proposal in principle, noted the opposition to the tower proposal of some of those groups.

Mr Bateman was not a member of the project team or the advisory team. His opinion had

been sought by the director of parks and recreation, the head of his department, who was on the project team. Mr Surtees said much of Mr Bateman’s opinion was included in the pro-ject-team report. “It (the information) was used in compiling the report as a whole, as was the information of others. Many of the reservations in the report are Mr Bateman’s.”

Although the report’s conclusions were positive and in favour of the tower on its proposed site, the team had expressed reservations about several aspects and had recommended that the council further investigate these.

Mr Surtees said the council staff had already begun negotiation with Warren and Mahoney, the tower architect, as instructed by the council at its Tuesday meeting. The council and the firm were working together on an over-all plan for Victoria Square incorporating the tower. Cr Clark said he would ask for the tower proposal to be discussed again by the council “in light of this new information.”

He said he had been given a copy of Mr Bateman’s report when he asked for it

“All councillors should have got it”

That view was endorsed by another Labour councillor, Mr Charles Manning, who also voted at Tuesday’s meeting against supporting the proposal. He believed councillors were entitled to all the available information so that they could make an informed decision.

He said he would also ask the council to consider the matter again.

To discuss a matter that had already been the subject of a resolution the council might have to waive standing orders. That was easily enough done, he said.

Cr Clark said what concerned him most was the principle. Information given to councillors was the base for their decisions. He did not approve of that information’s being manipulated.

It had happened before, when the officers had reported on the T.1.5.W.1.G. traffic report.