Arrowtown ‘Noleaf’ claims do not tally

IT’S ‘‘a highly inappropriate proposed development, and contravenes the longestablished and long agreedupon rules for the historic part of Arrowtown’’. So said Simon Oates, acting chairman of the Noleaf Incorporated Society, at a public meeting about Otago architect Fred van Brandenburg’s design for a multipurpose building (known as the ‘‘Olive Leaf’’, because its roof resembles one) for parish and community use, beside St Patrick’s church in Arrowtown.

Objections were raised when the plans were made public nearly two years ago, because the design was different in style from that of the church, and other historic buildings in the town. Wayne Hulls, who lives near St Patrick’s, founded the society last year.

Now that a resource consent application has been accepted by the Queenstown Lakes District Council, and voluntarily notified for public submissions, the society is asking residents to submit objections to the project.

It’s making leaflet drops, has a Facebook page, and has erected ‘‘NO LEAF BUILDING in ARROWTOWN’’ signs around Arrowtown, with highly misleading pictures showing the site with and without the ‘‘Olive Leaf’’.

For a fair comparison, the two scenarios should be viewed from the same viewpoint. The posters show the church as it is from street level, but the church together with the ‘‘Olive Leaf’’ from an aerial, angled viewpoint which falsely makes the ‘‘Olive Leaf’’ appear to dominate the church, despite a perfectly good artist’s impression from street level being available. That dishonesty alone should make residents wary of the society.

But the society’s arguments, too, are specious. Its Facebook page claims that the design contravenes parts of the Queensland Lakes District

Council District Plan, specifically Objective 3.4 of Section 7.1.2 (‘‘To ensure the external appearance of buildings reflects the significant landscape values and enhance a coherent urban character and form as it relates to the landscape’’) , and Objective 1 (‘‘. . . to retain or enhance the general character and avoid any adverse effects on the amenity values of the area’’), Policy 3 (‘‘To control the form and location of buildings in such a way that the buildings do not detract from the character of the Residential Historical Management Zone’’), and Implementation Method 1(a) (viii) (‘‘Ensure new buildings are constructed in a manner sympathetic in scale, materials, and finishes to their surroundings’’) of Section 7.4.3.

Comparing the design and location of the ‘‘Olive Leaf’’ with those requirements suggests that, contrary to the society’s assertion, it matches them pretty well.

It’s sunk into the ground, and intended (in the architect’s words) ‘‘to appear to be subservient to the church building, yet to have a character of its own’’. That, with its stone external finish, and the stone wall between it and the street, mean that it will indeed be ‘‘sympathetic in scale, materials, and finishes to [its] surroundings’’, and fulfil the aims of Objective 1 and Policy 3 of Section 7.4.3.

‘‘It’s not the building itself, it’s the shape. It clashes with everything around it’’ says Mr Hulls. But doesn’t a leaf shape, in a town famous for trees, ‘‘reflect [its] significant landscape values’’ (Objective 3.4, Section 7.1.2)?

The society rages that Arrowtown ‘‘must not have a dominating chunk of modernist architecture thrust on its heart’’. It’s hard to see how a naturebased design, mostly sunk into the ground, dominates its neighbour. And why ‘‘modernist’’ (according to architectural historian Charles Jencks, modernist architecture died at 3.32pm on July 15th, 1972, when some buildings in St Louis were dynamited)? The ‘‘Olive Leaf’’ doesn’t even vaguely resemble the stark, rational appearance of Modernist buildings, but is imaginative, naturebased, and sensitive to the natural and built environment of Arrowtown.

It won’t just provide a useful addition to the religious and community facilities of the town, but will enhance the appeal of its built heritage. Sympathy with the past doesn’t require mindless imitation.

The QLDC needs lots of positive submissions by next Thursday’s cutoff date, to counter the spurious claims of the Noleaf Society.