Subdivision will lead to inappropriate development

Press Statement Friday 12 March

Save Our Arts Centre says proposed subdivision would lead to "inappropriate development"

Save Our Arts Centre today told the Resource Consent hearing that the subdivision into 6 lots proposed by the Arts Centre would open the door to "inappropriate development".

The primary thrust of SOAC's case was that the proposed subdivision into separate lots, some with no buildings on them, opens the door to wholesale development projects on what the Arts Centre Trust Board insists on calling "undeveloped land", but which is really heritage open space, explained Mr Sinke, Chair of SOAC and owner of the Dux de Lux.

"This application, if granted, will form a springboard for future development of the Arts Centre site. I believe that creating new lots with no existing buildings will send a clear signal to other parties that the Arts Centre site is ready and available to be developed. This situation should be avoided to ensure that the heritage values of the site remain properly protected from inappropriate use, subdivision and development", he said. Save Our Arts Centre did not wish to have to keep opposing more inappropriate development, year after year, he added.

Save Our Arts Centre's lawyers, Wynn Williams & Co today told the resource Consent hearing that the legal argument under the Resource Management Act was that the proposed subdivision of the Arts Centre Site "amounts to a significant adverse effect on the ability to protect those recognised heritage values which far outweighs any asserted positive effects of the subdivision. As such it would amount to inappropriate subdivision of this historic heritage site. "

Mr Sinke also told the Commissioners that Mr Franklin's evidence earlier in the week admitted that a second underground carpark was to be built under Market Square.
"I believe in the strongest possible terms, that this second car park is "carparking by stealth". If the Arts Centre Trust Board were acting in a transparent and forthcoming manner as proper stewards of this heritage site, they would have ensured this second car park application was in fact being heard now, before you, the Commissioners, as part of a connected application so that all of us - ratepayers, citizens, tenants - could have made submissions on the full scale of the proposed works.
As it is, this evidence of the existence of the second car park which we all know has been lurking in the shadows, has come out after the School of Music hearing and too late for any of us to do anything about.", said Mr Sinke.
"I also found comments about the Dux de Lux itself by Ken Franklin, Director of the Arts Centre, to the Commissioners self-serving and uninformed. Mr Franklin told the Commissioners that the activities of the Dux did not "fit" the arts and cultural role of the Arts Centre”. He forgets that cafes, restaurants and bars have been at the Arts Centre from the beginning, 35 years ago, as part of the facilities which attract people to visit, day and night. If the Dux doesn't "fit", with its live music, and craft beer brewing, then no cafe or restaurant or bar could ever "fit" on the site, under his management" said the businessman.

Adjunct Professor Alan Robb told the Commissioners that Mr Franklin's claims as to the costs of seismic strengthening needed examining. "In mid 2007, the Arts Centre Trust Board told the City Council that seismic strengthening costs were an estimated $15 million. At the same date, internal papers showed the costs were estimated to be $8.4 million. Two and ½ years later, a new estimate puts the same strengthening programme, minus work already done in that time, at $28 million - a huge increase in a small time. This bears questioning", he said.

ends