Heritage ruling may halt project
A row has broken out over a heritage-listed 19th century cottage whose owner the Carter Group claims is in the way of a major central city housing project.
Carter Group head Philip Carter is threatening to abandon his development plans for the former Christchurch Girls’ High School block on Cranmer Square if he cannot demolish the building.
Called the blue cottage, the derelict dwelling dates from the 1870s. It has heritage protection with the Christchurch City Council as one of a group of early colonial houses in the area.
Carter, named in The Press Power List as the South Island’s most powerful person, this week accused the council of being “closed-minded” and said it could not tell his company what to do.
The cottage sits on the Gloucester StMontreal St corner of an otherwise halfhectare block that the Carter Group bought for $10.7 million in 2021.
The company has drawn up plans for a complex of 54 two-bedroom and threebedroom terraced homes bordered by Armagh, Montreal and Gloucester streets.
The company has asked the city council to remove the heritage protection on the cottage. There are also two protected trees on the property.
Previous owners of the block include the Arts Centre, Christ’s College, and Ngāi Tahu.
The land has been vacant since the old school block, later known as the Cranmer Centre, was demolished after the earthquakes.
As part of planning for the city’s growth, the council is holding hearings on proposed changes to its district plan.
The Carter Group and other individuals and groups have made submissions to the hearings on topics including heritage protection, building height, and housing density.
This week Carter told the independent hearings panel receiving submissions on the proposed changes that if the planned demolition is stopped, the rest of the development would be uneconomic and he would not go ahead, leaving the old house to deteriorate and the land sitting vacant.
“Carter Group have no intention of developing the wider site while the blue cottage remains.”
He said he was “disappointed” and the council was “ignoring the financial facts and the condition of the building”.
“The council cannot compel or dictate to Carter Group how and when it spends its money.”
Expert evidence presented to the panel on the state of the building differed. While Carter Group’s experts said little original heritage fabric remained and the building would effectively had to be rebuilt, council evidence said much of the original building remained and there was insufficient information to say it could not be saved.
Carter quoted a restoration cost of $1.6m to bring the building to a usable standard, which he said “no reasonable developer in their right mind” would spend as the finished building would be worth much less.
He claimed the council’s figures did not allow for risk and contingencies, and its evidence was based on the state of the building in
2015. He accused the city council of being “closed-minded” and said the heritage listing was in the way of a development that would enhance the area and the central city, and provide more housing. “The council have failed to acknowledge the site as a key development site for the city.”
Council evidence contradicted claims of the building being in a “terrible condition”, saying vandalism and lack of maintenance, rather than earthquake damage, was the main problem.
Carter refuted the council’s suggestion that he cross-subsidise the restoration with development on the rest of the site.
“This is not a commercial reality; it is not how development works.”
Others seeking removal of heritage protections include Christ’s College, which owns most of the city block opposite its school, and the owners of the damaged old Harley Chambers.
Following the hearings, which began late last year, the panel will make recommendations to the city council, which will then finalise the plan changes.