Stay of execution for building
The fate of a 115-year-old Christchurch building sitting on land wanted for the new stadium is still up in the air – and the fight to save it looks set to go to trial.
Land Information New Zealand (Linz) gave notice in April the NG building on Madras St – the last privately-owned building standing on the site planned for the new stadium – was to be compulsorily acquired using legislation designed after the Christchurch earthquakes.
But owners Sharon Ng and Roland Logan want it saved, and went to the High Court in Wellington to try and halt the forced acquisition earlier this month.
Justice Andru Isac’s decision was released yesterday.
Isac granted an interim order to stop the legal title changing to the Crown, which would have become the legal owner of the building on May 4, until the case goes to trial. He set a date for a more substantial court hearing on August 21-22.
Logan said they would take the case to trial if necessary, but hoped the Crown and council were ‘‘willing to negotiate a resolution to this issue’’ – either by incorporating it into the stadium design, or allowing them to shift it to another site at their own cost.
‘‘All we’re trying to do here is save one of the last heritage buildings left in Christchurch. We are seeking a win-win scenario for the successful building of the new stadium, and the retention of an important iconic heritage building.’’
The NG building at 212 Madras St, built in 1905, survived the Canterbury earthquakes and was one of the last remaining buildings on a large parcel of land bordered by Madras, Hereford, Barbadoes and Tuam streets.
But that area has been earmarked for a $473 million, 25,000-seat roofed stadium and multi-use arena, to replace the old Lancaster Park damaged in the earthquakes.
The NG building’s owners previously said the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (Cera) had promised in 2013 the stadium would be built around their building – an agreement that Linz said it was not aware of.
In the judicial review heard earlier this month, Ng and Logan’s lawyer, Tiho Mijatov, told the court the decision to acquire urgently was based on ‘‘lop-sided’’ advice to the land information minister.
Contestable information was presented as fact, including the estimated cost to move the building.
The minister was told it would cost $5.7m to relocate the building, whereas Logan had quotes that suggested relocation might cost $1.8m or $1.9m.
The earthquake strength rating of the building was also disputed, and Mijatov said Linz refused an offer to negotiate with Ng and Logan to try and to incorporate the building in the new stadium design.
But Crown lawyer Harry Ebersohn said incorporating the old building would compromise the functionality of the stadium design. He said the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act was designed to support the city’s regeneration.