More conflict for ‘Mona Vale’

Press, 15 July 1987, Page 21

More conflict for ‘Mona Vale’

DERRICK ROONEY reviews the history of “Mona Vale” and some of the issues raised in the present controversy.

The land on which “Mona Vale” is built was once part of the Deans Estate at Riccarton, and was named "Karewa” by Frederick and Alice Weymouth, for whom the homestead was built in 1899-1900.

The original “Karewa” property comprised about I.6ha surrounding the homestead, and on it a garden was made by Mrs Weymouth, an amateur botanist. The native cedar by the bath house, now one of the finest specimens of this tree in cultivation, probably dates from Mrs Weymouth’s time. In 1905 “Karewa” was sold to a wealthy heiress, Annie Quayle Townend, who renamed it “Mona Vale” after her mother’s birthplace in Tasmania.

Mrs Townend had plenty of money, and she spent freely on the development of “Mona Vale” as an English-style garden. She bought additional land, increasing the area of the property to considerably more than its present 4.2 ha, had hundreds of trees and shrubs planted, and built the gatehouse on Fendalton Road. The fernery, now condemned as structurally unsound, was one of Mrs Townend’s early additions to “Mona Vale”; she bought it at the New Zealand International Exhibition of 1906-7, and had it moved to its present site after the exhibition ended. The bath house dates from Mrs Townend’s time at “Mona Vale.” It housed a heated swimming pool, and was also designed as a “stovehouse” in which tropical and subtropical flowering plants were grown.

After Mrs Townend died in 1914 the estate was sold. There was a succession of owners over the next 25 years, and little was done in the garden until 1939, when Tracey Gough bought the property and began to redevelop the garden. Extensive plantings of rhododendrons, azaleas, and other trees and shrubs were made and the lily pond, now a major feature, was made.

Mr Gough died in 1954 but his widow continued to live at “Mona Vale” until 1962, when the property was sold to the Mormon Church. Five years later the church, which had built its temple on land between the Mill Stream and the Avon, announced plans to demolish the homestead (by then in disrepair) and subdivide the property into building sites.

An appeal launched by the Christchurch Civic Trust — and supported editorially by “The Press” — to save “Mona Vale” as a park for the people of Christchurch raised $75,000 in contributions from the public within a year, but met a cool reception from local bodies. Waimairi, Heathcote, and Paparua declined to contribute to “Mona Vale,” and despite a

decision by the Riccarton Borough Council to contribute $lO,OOO and to meet half of any maintenance costs, the appeal was about $45,000 short of the target when, in December, 1967, the Christchurch City Council decided by one vote to fund the balance of the purchase price and to meet the other half of the maintenance costs. Labour city councillors and one Citizens councillor voted against the purchase, which was approved, 10-9, after a debate of two hours.

“Mona Vale” is now owned by the Christchurch City and Riccarton Borough Councils, and the title is held by the Christchurch City Council. It is registered in the Riccarton district planning scheme for protection as a place of historic interest and is designated, under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, as a privately owned property having special value to the community. The homestead has been restored and is leased to a catering company, which uses it for receptions and other functions. The other two houses — the gatehouse on Fendalton Road and the lodge at Mona Vale Lane — are used as private dwellings. The remainder of the property is used as a public park, though it is not a reserve under the terms of the Reserves Act. The revenue from the catering concession provides most of the income from “Mona Vale.”

The property is administered by a joint committee of management on which the City and Riccarton Borough each has three members. The civic trust and the Canterbury Horticultural Society each has one member on the committee.

This committee is at present considering a management plan for the property, and last Friday was the deadline for submissions on the draft plan — which includes, as an appendix, a report by a project team on the proposal to build a horticultural hall within the grounds of “Mona Vale.”

When the Canterbury Horticultural Society put its proposal before the management committee last December, it favoured the site occupied by the old fernery, a structure which is of

debatable aesthetic and architectural merit and which, given the cost involved, is unlikely to be restored. The proposal included the acquisition of railway land, outside the brick boundary wall of “Mona Vale,” as a car-park, and the restoration of a small arched gateway to provide access to the hall and gardens.

The society’s offer was to acquire the railway land, if possible, and give it to “Mona Vale,” in return for a 99-year peppercorn lease of the hall site, with one right of renewal. A lease of the lodge, for use as the society’s office, was also sought. One garden club objected to this proposal, on the ground that

no further buildings should be erected in “Mona Vale.” The civic trust also objected, on the grounds of loss of open space, additional traffic and noise, the visual intrusiveness of the building, and the suitability of other sites.

It might be worth noting here that back in 1967, during the “Mona Vale” campaign, the civic trust proposed developing “Mona Vale” as a “semi-cultural” centre, with new structures including a sound shell for openair concerts and a boathouse for the hire of boats.

The trust also proposed, in 1967, construction of a licensed restaurant, a coffee house, conference facilities in the homestead, and a car-park for 100 vehicles in the south-east area of “Mona Vale,” near what is now the boundary with Christchurch Girls’ High School. In its summary of the horticultural society’s proposals, the joint management committee’s project team lists as positive aspects • The development of a car park outside “Mona Vale.”

• Enhancement of “Mona Vale” as a function centre, with a corresponding increase in revenue. • The possible sale of souvenirs and refreshments to “enhance visitor enjoyment.” • Possible provision of botanical, historical and architectural displays.

• The establishment of “Mona Vale” as a centre to promote, encourage, and enhance horticulture.

• The gifting of the land now owned by the Railways Corporation. The negative aspects of the proposal, in the team’s view, were: • Increased maintenance requirements in the grounds. • The loss of an area of ground and a historic feature. • Additional noise and traffic.

• The visually obtrusive size of the proposed building, its prominent location, and its possible detraction from the architectural character of “Mona Vale.”

• Possible conflict with the homestead concessionaire and the public in the use of the property. On balance, the team thought that the society’s proposals had some potential to complement existing values and permit worthwhile additional features to be developed. However, it rejected the fernery site — suggesting instead the area behind the

lodge, now occupied by tractor sheds, which are scheduled for renewal. The team has also recommended that the society be required to meet the cost of developing a car-park on the railway land, and gain secure tenure of it, that the society contribute to the over-all maintenance of “Mona Vale,” and that possible conflict of activities within “Mona Vale” be avoided. The team also recommended controls over the size and design of the horticultural building, the provision of a bus-turning circle outside the Mona Vale Lane gate, and the preparation of an overall landscape design for the project.

The team considered that the area behind the lodge was a better site for a large building, because a structure there would occupy a less prominent location, and could be integrated into the general parkland setting. The proposed hall site is bisected by the old Waymouth Drain, and the main doors of the proposed hall would be about opposite the existing bridge. As the drain is no longer functioning, it can be filled. The proposed structure would have a ground-floor area of about 1200 square metres, with a large exhibition hall downstairs and a small hall upstairs. A number of trees growing on the proposed site would have to be felled or transplanted, but there is among these nothing of any outstanding botanical or horticultural merit. Most are maples, which could be transplanted. A number of smaller shrubs in the area were planted as temporary “fillers.” Only three trees of substantial size would have to be felled; two of these are macrocarpas which have suffered severe storm damage, are poorly shaped as a result, and may well have to be replaced within a few years in any case. The third is a Mediterranean cypress which is bare on one side and is a poor specimen. A magnolia tree on the lawn behind the cypress would not be affected.

A covered way would link the Horticultural Hall to the lodge, which would in due course be developed as a kiosk and tearooms.

According to the horticultural society’s president, Mr John Taylor, the lodge site, while not the society’s preferred option, offers exciting potential for development, along the lines of famous English gardens such as Kew or

Wisley. Wisley, he says, has a similar kiosk at its gate, and at Kew mellow brick walls are a notable feature of the garden design. At the site last week, just before he left to deliver a paper to a conference in Japan, Mr Taylor spoke enthusiastically of the possibility for redevelopment, with the Mona Vale Lane gateway becoming the main entrance to the garden and brick walls, old and new, major features of the approach. The Railways Corporation, he said, had declined to sell the 0.25 ha strip alongside the brick wall, but had offered the society five 20-year leases, with a right of review after the fifth period. This would, in effect, give the society secure tenure for a century. If the project were approved, the society would build a new brick wall, of similar design to the existing wall, along its boundary, which would be five metres from the middle of the railway line. A group of native species could be planted at the narrow end, by the Okeover Stream, and the brick walls could provide a cosy home for collections of clematis, climbing roses, and other plants. Near the main gates, the existing brick wall could be lowered for part of its length, to create a visual link between the “Mona

Vale” landscape and the complementary landscaping of the adjoining girls’ high school grounds. The hall building, said Mr Taylor, would be of brick and the architect would be asked to create a design complementary to that of the homestead.

The outcome of the proposals is, at this stage, unpredictable. The joint management committee may make a decision within the next month or two, or may decide to call for further submissions. It must also consider whether to ask its constituent councils to pay the $llO,OOO the Railways Corporation is reported to be asking for the 0.13 ha area between the gatehouse and Waimairi Stream.

While the Corporation has declined to sell the area wanted by the horticultural society, it is apparently keen to sell the second area, which lies in Waimairi District and, under its present zoning, could be used for town houses. At present the area is treated as part of “Mona Vale.”

Whatever the result of these deliberations, one thing is certain: the decision, for or against a hall, will arouse considerable public controversy. The history of “Mona Vale” since the first steps were taken towards its acquisition to public ownership more than two decides ago makes this inevitable.

“Mona Vale,” the Christchurch garden owned jointly by the city and Riccarton Borough, caused one of the biggest controversies of the 1960 s in Christchurch before it was bought, largely with money contributed by the public, to secure its future in public ownership. Twenty years on, “Mona Vale” is once again in controversy — this time because of a proposal by the Canterbury Horticultural Society to build a new horticultural hall within its boundary.