Naming Games

It appears from the resource consent application, that the Arts Centre has undergone a name change.  It is no longer referred to as the Arts Centre or the Arts Centre of Christchurch but the Arts Centre Campus.  Who authorised this change?  Is it an Arts Centre Trust Board policy? Where was the public discussion of the issue?   I wonder how the non-university tenants of the site feel about this name and were they consulted?   Does the Trust Board really want the Arts Centre to be seen as an outpost of the University, as the name suggests?  Taken alongside the claim which has been made and not refuted,  that the University has been granted first option on areas which become vacant within the complex, it strongly suggests a desire on the part of the University to reclaim the site, aided and abetted by Arts Centre management.  

This impression is reinforced by the recent renaming of the Great Hall as the College Hall. This of course, was its original function and not surprisingly Mountfort's plans give it this rather prosaic name.  The architectural model Mountfort was calling upon was the Medieval Great Hall and the building has long been known by this name.  Why the sudden change as evidenced in a recent Arts Centre advertisement?  It makes no sense today.  We no longer have colleges of a single University of New Zealand.   It looks like an attempt to downgrade the status of the building, which, let us not forget,  also contains an important war memorial window.  College Hall does not have the same resonance as the Great Hall, which is entirely  consistent with the apparent aim of the Music School building to subvert the heirarchy of the site, as I have pointed out in an earlier discussion.

All in all these changes are not reassuring. Added to the name changes, we have the recent, non-notified subdivision of the site, which allows the University to make the spurious claim that there are no heritage buildings on the proposed music school site, because these will now be on separate titles.  It is easy to see the subdivision as a precursor to further redevelopment on other separate titles.  A picture is beginning to build up of a Board and management which is intent on completely changing the nature of the Arts Centre as originally conceived.  If this is necessary in order to protect the heritage buildings, then they have totally failed to bring the public on side.  The Board and management of the Centre act secretively. They dismiss the legitimate concerns of those who value the Arts Centre.  Tenants complain of poor and disrespectful treatment by managment and unwillingness on the part of the Board to listen to their concerns and now we learn that their rental agreements are to contain a gagging clause. We also hear that many existing tenants including music teachers, and many community groups which have formerly used rooms at the Arts Centre,  have been pushed out by excessive rent increases or hire charges. Even the University itself has mentioned the high costs of hiring the Great Hall as one reason for a decline of concerts at the Arts Centre.

Does this drive to force out the smaller tenants alongside the renaming campaign signal that the  Trust Board  is aiming in the longer term to have just one large institutional tenant, the University, with the exception, perhaps, of the Court Theatre, for they would surely not be so foolish as to  try to push that out?  Or does it plan to go even further, and transfer control to another entity?

Car Parking Questions.

At various times we have been told there will be 78 car parks associated with the music school site and that the Council would have 40 of these.  Now it seems there will only be 41 parks, directly under the building.  The area under the quadrangle contains no parking spaces according to the plans lodged with the Resource Consent Application. The exits from the parking area appear to be internal even though a ground plan shown on the University website indicated a basement exit close to the Court Theatre building.  Where, then, are the mysterious parks for the council to go? Have they been abandoned or will they be in the space under the quadrangle? If they are to go there, they would surely need to be constructed at the same time. Can we be given an assurance that if a car park is to go under the quadrangle any resource consent will be notified?

The car park also raises equity issues. Where will existing tenants with parking spaces in this area be  able to park? Will they receive rent adjustments to reflect lack of associated parking if that is the consequence of this building? And what of staff and students of the university? Given that most of them will be travelling between the Arts Centre and the campus, will the usual campus parking fee cover both locations? If not, this imposes an extra costs on the staff and students of the school. On the other hand, if it does, then other staff and students of the university are being asked to subsidise the construction  of a very expensive underground car park.

Playing with numbers

The University keeps telling us that the School of Music currently has 300 students ( or 119.4 EFTS).  This is completely misleading.  We have also been told that the stage 1 will continue to be taught at the university and anyone who has any familiarity at all with universities, knows that stage one courses have by far the greatest numbers of students. At a recent public meeting, Professor Strongman stated that the number of students studying at the conservatorium would be between 14 and 200, but probably nearer 200.  Are we really expected to believe that the University cannot provide  more accurate figures?   I find it astonishing that a University official can stand up in public and expect people to accept such a  statement. Their reluctance to reveal the current number of performance students strongly suggests that the numbers are not particularly favourable.  If  the City Council is being asked to finance the building based on the life the students will bring then the public surely has a right to know.  (It is perhaps worth noting here that CPIT has  230 EFTS in its music programme, yet where do we hear this department extolled for the vitality it brings to the city?)

A review report on the Music School in 2006 (available on the University website) showed that of 618 total students, only 250 or 40% were enrolled at stage 2 or above. The first thing to note is that between the date of the report and  now,  the total roll has approximately halved. Second, if we assume a similar attrition rate beyond  stage 1, then current enrollment for Stage 2 and above are likely to be around 120 students rather than 200.  Not all progressing students will be performance students and it is likely that purely academic courses such as music history will continue to be timetabled at Ilam.  Of course, it also needs  to be remembered that class sizes will be small so that at any given point in the day, the actual number of students present at the Arts Centre will be much fewer than the total roll.  In  2006, when as already noted the roll was greater than the 500 students they are aiming for, the average class size was only 10 students.  This dropped to an average of 6 students for courses above stage 1.  The largest class recorded above stage 1 level had 25 students.  It is time for the University to stop prevaricating and provide the public with the precise figures on numbers currently enrolled in performance programmes.  

The aim to create a "thriving programme in performance music with 500 students and 35 fulltime staff" (The Press, 29 /9/09)  is interesting, because earlier in the debate about the proposal, Dr Rodd Carr stated in a television  interview with Mike Yardley, that the University already has 550 more students enrolled than it is funded for by Government. The current funding regime is not likely to change in the foreseeable future.  Dr Carr observed  in  The Press  (29/9/09) that the tertiary sector is facing "the very real likelihood of minimal funding increases in the short to medium term".  I understand from sources within the University that in response to the funding situation, departments have been told that next year they will be charged $5000 for each student above a stipulated maximum. Unless Music is to be exempted from this requirement, student numbers are unlikely to change greatly from what they are at present.  If Music is to be encouraged to grow, could the University inform us which programmes are to be cut to allow for this increase?

Misleading images?

                                
Professor Ken Strongman, Assistant Vice-Chancellor ( Government and Community Relations) at the University of Canterbury stated in The Press (8/9/09) that a misleading image is being reproduced which is known to be no longer representative of the proposed building (see above). A new image was submitted which is said to reflect the street profile and incorporate refinements resulting from consultations with the Historic Places Trust.

This is rather strange because apart from the fact the new image is a perspective drawing and also shows the heritage buildings to the west along Hereford Street, it clearly incorporates no change to the design from what can be seen in an elevation of the Hereford Street facade, which has been displayed on the University website since June.  

 

It would therefore be very interesting to hear from Professor Strongman exactly what recent changes and refinements have been made to the design as a result of discussions with the Historic Places Trust, because they are certainly not evident.  We  know from the public meeting held at the Employers' Chamber of Commerce that the central stairwell and the elevation at the Dux De Lux end, as seen above, were modified as a result of discussions with the Historic Places Trust before the plans were presented to the public. (The previous design has never been made public.)

What is very clear is that the "new view" is a totally misleading one.  No-one will ever see this view unless all the buildings between Hereford St and Cashel St ( or even as far as Cambridge Terrace) are removed.  I defy anyone to stand on Hereford St and see the view as presented here.  The building will appear much larger and more dominating and the buildings to either side will only be able to be viewed obliquely   On the other hand the view which Professor Strongman claims is misleading is an accurate portrayal of the oblique view anyone will see walking down Hereford St from the Botanic Gardens end.  The accuracy of the view was challenged by the University when it was first made public, but the architects confirmed that it was indeed an accurate representation.  Though there is nothing about the "new drawing" to suggest the plans have changed in any way, if they have, then let us see them presented from the same angle as the disputed drawing.  It should be noted that this same view is still seen in the flyover video presented by the University on its website.  The flyover in itself is misleading because for much of its duration it represents the building from a birds-eye perspective rather than a pedestrian perspective and therefore downplays the scale of the building.  (For some reason the elevation and the perspective have a small dormer to the left of the tower which does not appear in either the flyover or the  South-west perspective, but this discrepancy has been present from the outset.)  We await with interest Professor Strongman's further elucidation as to the nature of the changes.

Capturing the passing crowd

The University in its publicity makes a great deal of the 800,000 visits made to the Canterbury Museum  and surrounding area each year by out-of-town visitors. We are  told  it is this passing crowd, as much as the citizens of Christchurch, that they want to expose to the talent within the music programme.  Apparently, this would not be possible with a building anywhere other than the Arts Centre.

In reality, turning the passing crowd into a fee paying audience is far easier said than done, as Elric Hooper, with years of experience in trying to achieve that for the Court Theatre,  can attest.  By and large theatre and concert performances do not capture an impulse audience.  The best way to display the talent within the school would surely be to provide performances in as wide a range of venues as possible, preferably for no charge or only a nominal charge.  The very successful National School of Music has a no charge policy for the majority of its concerts and it performs at a range of venues throughout Wellington.  The Music School does not need to build a costly auditorium at the Arts Centre to showcase the talent of their students within the cultural precinct.  Numerous potential performance venues exist, of varied size, acoustics and atmosphere. The possibilities are only limited by lack of imagination.

The first and most obvious one is the Great Hall. As the original home of the university and an outstanding heritage building, it surely has the gravitas Mr Carr desires.  A new auditorium at the Arts centre would directly compete with this venue, reducing the income stream for the Arts Centre Trust Board.  A second option, one entailing no additional cost to the University, would be the use of the SOFA gallery for intimate recitals or chamber concerts.  This would allow the audience to experience the talents of the Fine Arts Department at the same time.  In spring and summer outdoor concerts could be held in the quandrangles with the musicians seated under the arcading.   The Southern Ballet Theatre might also be willing to hire out its small and very intimate venue from time to time.  

What about an occasional concert in the McDougall Art Gallery?  That would certainly showcase the talent of the university to the passing crowd intent on making their way to the Museum and Botanic Gardens.  In the daffodil season,  performances in the Band Rotunda could add to the atmosphere for all those tourists who go to admire the daffodils in bloom.  The new visitor centre for the Gardens might provide another location.  The shelter near the childrens' playground  area could provide an opportunity to introduce music to young people. 

It has previously been noted that the atrium of the Art Gallery provides a wonderful opportunity to perform to a captive audience and there is also precedent for using the gallery spaces.  In addition there is a small auditorium.  From time to time COCA is also used for performances and this could provide another possible venue with mutual benefit to the gallery and the Music School.  A little further afield, but still within the cultural precinct, both the Provincial Buildings and the Cathedral offer further possibilities. Still within the Central City but beyond the cultural precinct there are of course places such as the Music Centre,  the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, St Michaels and All Angels in addition to obvious venues such as the James Hay Theatre for more formal concerts or opera performances.  In reality, there are innumerable possibilities for bringing the vibrancy and talent of the music students to the centre city while still locating the music building on campus. All that is needed is the will to do so.

A response to Mr Ballantyne

I am sure that no-one would disagree with Mr Ballantyne's concern at the decline of the city centre and the need for greater commercial, social, and cultural activity to help ensure that derelict spaces are used more productively. Empty spaces blight too many areas of the city, particulary in the south-east quadrant. Yet it is difficult to see how introducing a new activity into an area which is already thriving and contains the majority of the special attractions referred to by Mr Ballantyne will have any significant spin-offs for the part of the city which has real need of revitalisation.  According to his own logic, if the School of Music is to return to the centre then it should be located somewhere in the vicinity of the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament and CPIT, the only two city attractions he lists where the surrounding areas can be said to have 'slipped'.   The Council's own policy documents all recognise the use of vacant space in this quarter of the inner city as a priority.  A location here would help build on the impetus already being provided by the very worthwhile lane developments, as well as being in proximity to the Jazz School with which the University Music Department has an association. Mr Ballantyne is surely not suggesting that the site of the proposed music school is derelict. The present carpark may not be the optimum use of the area but the space  allows the heritage buildings to breathe.  It is not essential or even desirable to fill the site with more buildings. The move to Ilam by the University saved the area from precisely this fate.  Had it stayed in town, the Arts Centre precinct would have been destroyed.  It is unfortunate that the University now seems intent on re-staking its claim to the site with emotive appeals about a return to its original home.   

Like other proponents of the scheme, Mr Ballantyne argues that the Conservatorium will be a major boost to the central city, socially and economically, adding positively to its life and vibrancy. He harks back to what he sees as a golden age of the 1950's when students and faculty added vitality to the life and commercial activity of the city. However, the number of students studying in town in 1956, before the first students began moving to Ilam, was 2480 (A History of the University of Canterbury 1873-1853).  Today there are in excess of 30 tertiary institutions (including language schools) operating within the central city and CPIT alone has 30 thousand students enrolled, though not all of these will be based at the main campus. Even if only half those enrolled are based on the town campus, it is clear that the combined number of tertiary students studying in the centre city must vastly exceed the numbers that studied at the University on its town site, yet the centre city is still in decline. The music school currently has 300 students according to the University, though we are told that some of the courses will continue to be held at Ilam. Therefore, perhaps only 175 to 200 students will be studying at the Arts Centre, but even allowing for 300, they are unlikely to have the significant impact imagined by promoters of the idea.  They all seem to be forgetting the term breaks and summer holidays in this rosy vision of bubbling life and vitality. But even in term time many will be practising for long hours.  Others will be dashing between the centre and Ilam to attend lectures on campus.  It is likely they will have even less time available than they have now to frequent the city.   In any event, the reality is that students have only limited discretionary spending power and one reason why so many of them are "invisible " to Mr Ballantyne is because they are busy working in their spare time to make ends meet. He is likely to encounter them as waiters and waitresses and baristas without recognising them as students. Dress codes have also changed over time so that students do not stand out so obviously.  The real reason for the decline of the inner city has nothing whatever to do with the move of the University to Ilam. The main reason is the proliferation and ever continuing expansion of the suburban shopping malls. The Council leaders, whose judgment Mr Ballantyne urges us to trust, have failed to control these developments, which have gradually sapped the life away from the centre.

It is possible to agree with Mr Ballantyne's view that the University has a public duty to be very much a part of the city and not an island, without supporting this particular project.  Indeed many members of the university already play such a role, contributing to public debate through the media, participating on Boards and Trusts, giving public lectures, performances or exhibitions, to give just a few examples.  It is certainly not necessary for the university to be physically located in the centre for members of the university community to fully participate in the life of the city. Indeed,  if staff (or for that matter students) are inclined to lead an isolated ivory tower existence, they can do it just as effectively behind the closed doors of a music conservatorium in the centre of town as they can at Ilam.

Opponents have been challenged to provide  alternatives which offer so many obvious benefits. For many of us the benefits seem far from obvious and vastly overstated, while the disadvantages are all conveniently ignored.   Has Mr Ballantyne or any other supporter paused to consider why the owner of the Dux de Lux should be so opposed to the project?  His opposition cannot be dismissed merely as that of a disgruntled business competitor.   If the proposal has all the benefits we are asked to believe then Mr Sinke's business is just the sort that could be expected to benefit from it and as a close neighbour and venue already popular with students and musicians he should be better placed to benefit than most.  Yet this astute and succesful businessman is concerned for the future viability of his business if the proposal goes ahead, not just during the inevitably disruptive stage of construction , but in the long term.

Any number of potential projects could bring greater benefits to the city without putting at risk those things which make the Arts Centre unique.  The concept of a National Museum of Architecture has been mentioned.  Here would be an opportunity for a genuine national institution which is not duplicated elsewhere. If the Council put its money into this rather than a music school which could and should be built at Ilam, it would do much more to enhance the city's cultural image.  The registry Extension at the Arts Centre would be one possible location. It has the advantage of close proximity to the Art Gallery, the Museum and Our City and is eminently in keeping  with the original concept of the Arts Centre.  Another possible location, more in keeping with the Council's revitalisation aims would  be a floor of the Tuam Street Civic building once it is vacated by the Council.  As a building of architectural interest in itself, it would be suitable and the interior could be readily adapted.  On the other hand a project of this nature could provide an ideal opportunity to sponsor a competition for the design of an iconic new building on one of the many vacant sites in the city south.  The University would have the opportunity to make a significant contribution to such a project by allowing more regular exhibition of the wonderful collection of architectural drawings held in the MacMillan Brown Library.  This could be a truly worthwhile partnership between the University and the City which would do more to attract tourists than a music conservatorium ever could.  What could possibly be attractive to tourists about a place of study?  Certainly, they might on occasion be attracted to performances, but as has been pointed out frequently, performances in the centre city are not dependent on a place of study in the centre.  In the past the music school has regularly performed in the city as well as on campus and should continue to do so regardless of where it is located.

Another potential alternative would be to build a student village on one of the many vacant areas south of Colombo Street in order to provide affordable inner city living for the thousands of students who already study in the centre at CPIT and other tertiary institutions.   Supporters of the music school believe it would attract students back to the centre to live,  but reasonable rental is the determining factor for where students live.   The creation of a student village might require some subsidy from the Council to keep rental at an affordable level, but it would meet the council's goals of increasing population in the centre and using vacant space.  The Council has shown no reluctance to subsidise more questionable ventures which support its aims for revitalisation.  A student village would surely do more to increase  vitality  than a building which will be under-utilised for large parts of the year and where students will be invisible (though perhaps not inaudible) for long periods in their practice rooms. During summer vacations rooms in the student village could  be rented to visitors to the city for a higher return, which would help to keep rents lower for students. It is a common practice all around the world for central city student housing to be rented to visitors outside term time.

Another more appropriate use of the Council's borrowing powers would be to facilitate the acquisition, seismic strengthening and restoration of the Odeon Theatre as a permanent home for the Christchurch Symphony  Orchestra,  Southern Opera and the various city choirs to rehearse and perform on suitable occasions.  This has an excellent acoustic, the fly towers necessary for a whole range of theatrical techniques and would provide the 400-500 seat capacity that Elric Hooper has identified  as lacking in the city.  The music school could stage its opera productions there. Not only would this be a more effective way of promoting and enhancing the strong musical traditions of the city, but it would also enhance the city's reputation for concern about its heritage buildings and would be fully consistent with its revitalisation policy documents.

I cannot share Mr Ballantynes confidence in the judgement of our city leaders, the University Council or the Arts Centre Trust Board.  All too often they have shown poor judgement. However,  I have faith that the citizens of this city, if given a genuine opportunity, are capable of coming up with many ideas for making it a better place to live and work.

Council Officer's Report: Analysis or Propaganda?

The report to Council on the University of Canterbury National Conservatorium of Music ( PDF downloadable from http://www.soac.org.nz/ccc-green-light.phpsee) makes disturbing reading and raises serious concerns about Council processes and the quality of the information on which its decision-making is based.  If we assume that the Council officer who prepared it was not incompetent,  then it appears it was either written under instruction to come up with the result wanted by the Council or that the officer knew the result required and wrote the report to fit.  It fails to address a number of important questions and is based on a whole series of unexamined assumptions. 

Is it a proper use of the the Council's borrowing capacity to fund a tertiary institution?

The report does not directly address this question.  It simply accepts that the project is beneficial and is aligned with certain council policies and glosses over the issue.  Yet it is important because the Council does not have unlimited borrowing power and it is also required by its liability management policy to keeps its borrowing within the limits needed to maintain its AA+ rating. Hence, there is an opportunity cost to any borrowing decision that is made, but nowhere in the report is this acknowledged. The report states that the University could fund the project itself. (para 8)  It has been explained elsewhere that one reason for involving the Council is because it can borrow more cheaply than the University.  But the fact that it can do so does not supply an answer to the question of whether it should do so, especially if borrowing to assist an institution able to fund itself  limits the Council's ability to borrow for some other project that might not only have greater and wider community value but also be fully dependent on Council funding, or if it prevents Council undertaking emergency borrowing without harm to its credit rating. The need for the recent $19.1 million  buy-out of a private waste disposal company to ensure the continued operation of the City's waste collections illustrates the importance of caution before committing to substantial borrowing for an institution that has the assets to be able to borrow elsewhere.

Many of the claims made for this project are highly contentious and a whole range of other potential projects could equally be described as beneficial and in alignment with Council policy. Before the question of whether the Council should borrow for this particular project can be validly answered there needs to be a much more rigorous discussion of any potential positives weighed against any potential negatives as well as an examination of whether the claimed benefits could be achieved equally well in ways that do not require Council borrowing.  There seems to be an underlying assumption in the report that the interests of the University and the Council are identical (see especially the Executive Summary), but that is not so.  The Council has much wider responsibilities and it needs to ensure its decision making reflects this.

The key reasons given in support amount to the following:

• Para 20 b  It 'will enhance the existing cultural activities in the area and the outcomes sought for the cultural well-being of the Council's district.'  (Curious wording, this.  You might expect city or inner city, but why Council's district?  Does this reflect a narrow interest in the Cultural 1 Zone with the imminent shift of Council Headquarters to this area?)  
• Para 31   It is aligned with the LTCCP  community outcomes of a city for recreation, fun and activity, a city for lifelong learning and an attractive and well-designed  city.
• Para 32  It is aligned with the direction set by the Central City Revitalisation project.  In particular: it adds visibility to the cultural precinct; it reconnects the historic town and gown link; it reinforces the centre as a place for creative young people; and it will assist in supporting more residential activity.
  
• Para 33  It will provide a basis for the Council to begin to address how it connects Ilam to the Central City and develop greater synergies between campus and downtown. 

No supporting evidence is provided for these statements.  There are many people in the city who believe that this project, rather than enhancing the existing cultural activities of the area, will, to the contrary,  have a directly harmful effect.  Given that performance students might well practise up to 5 hours a day, and that the Conservatorium will be an institutional building  closed to the public for most of the time,  claims that it will enliven the Cultural precinct seem distinctly spurious.  As a correspondent to The Press has correctly pointed out, the shift of up to 1000 Council workers nearby is likely to do much more to generate foot traffic and life in the area than this proposal ever could.  No-one would quarrel with the aim of seeing more performances by staff and students of the university in the cultural precinct but the Council and the University together could provide opportunities  for that to happen without needing to provide the place of study in the city. ( I have recently seen performances in the atrium of the Art Gallery, for example, and what about the forecourt of the new civic building when it is completed.) Further, if the City wishes to enhance performance opportunities in the Central City, it would be better to assist with creating an auditorium of the size and type currently lacking in the City, as identified by theatre expert, Elric Hooper, rather than backing the construction of yet another one of a size already well-catered for. There is no evidence that any attention has been paid to whether the auditorium will meet an actual need in the city and yet this is surely one of the obvious questions that the Council should be asking itself

The  statements in paragraphs 31 and 32 are equally unconvincing as a justification.  The features of the project which are said to align with the LTCCP would apply equally to a building on the campus. In addition there is widespread community disagreement with the opinion that the proposed building would contribute to an attractive, well-designed city.  No-one would argue with its visibility but that is unlikely to reflect credit on either the Council or the University. It is certainly insufficient justification for Council borrowing, as is the notion of reconnecting the historic Town and Gown link.  Besides, the University already has a visible presence at the Arts Centre in the SOFA Gallery, which is entirely in keeping with the aims of the Arts Centre and the desire expressed in the report to reinforce the city as a place for creative young people.  The shortcomings of the revitalisation claim have already been noted. Furthermore,  no justification is put forward for supporting revitalisation in a precinct which is thriving compared to the South of the City and the CPIT/Catholic Cathedral precincts which, according to the Council's own policy documents, are priority areas for redevelopment. The possibility that this project will assist in supporting residential development in the Central City is a very weak argument.  Students follow cheap rent and that is not to be found in the north-west side of the central city.  This argument might be more convincing if the music school were to be in the vicinity of CPIT and the Music Centre, where it would also assist in creating a concentrated hub of musical activity.

The statements made in paragraph 33 are a good illustration of the problems with this report. They put the cart before the horse. The council should be looking at the synergies it wants to achieve between campus and downtown before deciding the proposal is a good thing.  Any departure from the long standing policy to base teaching at Ilam, if that is felt to be desirable, needs be looked at as part of a wider discussion which examines the pros and cons of a move within the context of a range of issues, including the social and environmental impacts, zoning implications, whether there is room for further expansion and its potential impact on traffic and transport policy. Given the trend towards developing links between tertiary insitutions (the Canterbury Tertiary Alliance) it would make sense to concentrate the University's town activities in the area of CPIT (which already has links with the Music Department) to allow easier and more efficient transport links to be developed between Ilam and town and to enhance the opportunities for meaningful relationships between both insitutions to develop.  It would also enhance the relationship with the Music Centre, a major training ground for future students of the Conservatorium.  

Apart from the unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims made in justification of the project, there are several glaring areas of omission which should be examined before the Council is able to reach a sound determination concerning its involvement.

Planning Issues

If the Council is to consider funding and developing a building for another institution on land it doesn't own then surely before doing so it needs to satisfy itself first that the proposal complies with the requirements of its own city plan.  Planning Consultant Malcolm Douglass has argued that tertiary education is not a permitted use within Cultural 1 Zone so this proposal is  a non-complying use  There is no evidence whatever in the report that this issue has even been considered. Nor has any consideration been given as to whether the design is likely to comply with the planning provisions for the zone, including shading effects.  The views of the University and the design panel as to the compatibility of the building are taken completely at face value.  Obvious questions need to  be raised about the impact of the design on the heritage values of the site and even more importantly, any potential impact from the construction process upon the heritage fabric of the existing buildings.   One would expect the Councillors to require  some evaluation of these issues in the report and to decline to make any decision in the absence of such assessments.  It is simply not adequate to state (para 20b)  that the social and environmental impact is considered to be at a low level. Given the vehemently expressed public opposition to the proposal this statement is difficult to sustain.  As a consequence, one would also expect to see some discussion of potential resource management expenses and discussion as to who should bear such  costs.  The document is silent on all these issues.   Where are the reports from the planning section or the heritage section of the Council?

Risk assessment issues

In addition to the unexamined risks relating to impact on the heritage buildings and the potential costs of resource management referred to above, one might also have expected the report to consider matters such as the following:

• How vulnerable is the project to external factors such as changes in government policy for funding tertiary institutions, changing patterns of student demand for the courses offered, changing interest rates,  or possible cost overruns through delays or unexpected difficulties as a result of the sensitivity of the site?
• How viable is the concept of a National Conservatorium given the already successful New Zealand School of Music in Wellington? The letter from the Director of the School quoted in The Press (5/8/09) reveals clearly that the University has supplied misinformation in its public advertisements concerning the status of that institution.  This illustrates the need for the Council to appraise itself of all the relevant information needed to make the decision.  It cannot afford to rely solely on input from the institution that stands to benefit from its borrowing.
• If at some stage in the future the University decides it can no longer afford to support the music programme and a building in town, will the Council be left with a useful asset or will it be too purpose-designed for any alternative use? (Music is a resource intensive programme requiring high levels of one-on-one tuition and expensive facilities. It is has been indicated to University staff that the project will be cross-subsidised by the whole university. If the proposed Conservatorium fails to live up to expectations it will become an obvious candidate for future cost cutting exercises.)
• What are the implications for the Council if the University falls behind or defaults on its payments?
• What are the risks that the council will need to undertake further borrowing for unforeseen reasons which will cause it to exceed it borrowing ratio and so place its borrowing ratings at risk.  If the situation arises, is there provision to increase the rate charged to the university and what impact would that have on the viability of the project?

Supposing, after weighing all the issues carefully, it was felt that the Council should support this project, a position, which I would suggest is in fact untenable, a second equally vital question has been glossed over in the report.

Why should the Council set up a financial structure for  the development of this project which is in breach of its Liability Management Policy?

The Council's liability management policy requires loans to be recovered within a 30 year period but it is proposed in the report that this should be extended to a 50 year period "because the balance between repayment of the loan and the income required to meet that cost is best achieved by a 50 year term rather than a period of 30 years."   This is undoubtedly a desirable outcome for the University, but what are the consequences for the Council?  This is not examined in the report but at the very least it means that the delay in recovery of the debt will raise its borrowing ratio for longer and therefore impose yet another opportunity cost. It certainly does not assist the Council to maintain a prudent level of liquidity to meet planned and unforeseen cash requirements as required in its policy.  It seems very difficult to argue that the advantages to the City of this proposal are so compelling as to justify non-compliance with its policy.

Failure to properly examine the reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives of the decision.

The report considers that the Council's obligation  under s. 77 of the Local Government Act 2002  to examine all practicable options for achieving the objective of the decision have been met. It identifies the only two reasonably practicable options as funding or not funding. In order to meet the requirements of the Act it is not adequate for the report merely to state that exercising the option not to fund would probably result in the new music school being built at Ilam.  The benefits and costs of that option also needed to be examined and the extent to which community outcomes etc. would be achieved should have been taken into account.  

It is also completely unsatisfactory to discuss only the recommended funding and development structure. A range of permutations are possible. These include the Council simply borrowing and leaving the University itself to lease from the Arts Centre and build the building; the Council borrowing and carrying out the development itself; as well as the chosen structure of using an existing Council Company, CBL, to carry out the development and lease the building to the university.  The report needed to examine the costs and benefits of all of these methods and any other possible structures.   Amongst the issues that should have been raised and evaluated were the legality of a 'subdivision"  resulting from lease of part of an allotment for a term of more than 35 years, what forms of security the Council has as a result of the various arrangements, given that neither it nor the University own the land, and the question of why the Council (or Council Company) should be an intermediary in a relationship between the University and the Arts Centre Trust Board  and the implications of taking on that role.  It is surely not the appropriate role of the Council  "to manage the ongoing relationship with The Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust. (para 8)

Failure to consider issues of prudent stewardship and effective use of its resources.

It is one of the obligations of a local authority to ensure prudent stewardship and efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of its district and region. (s. 14 (1) (g) Local Government Act 2002.)  This report seems to have paid insufficient attention to this obligation or its own LTCCP outcome of managing public funds responsibly.  

One of the questions which has been totally ignored is whether it is prudent stewardship or efficient and effective use of Council resources to build at the Arts Centre when a music school could be built much less expensively on campus.  For example:

• There would be no need for to use the expensive materials required to fit in with the Arts Centre.
• Expensive monitoring to ensure there was no impact on the surrounding heritage buildings would not be required.
  
• An expensive underground carpark would not be needed.
  
• Resource management costs would be considerably reduced.
  
• There would be no need to pay a ground rental.
  
• Although it might still be desirable to build an auditorium of the capacity the city lacks (though this is not what is proposed at the Arts Centre), it would be unnecessary to build a library and the need for lecture spaces could be reduced by the use of  shared lecture rooms.
• The administrative and energy costs of a split campus would be avoided. 
  

Without taking these matters into account the Council can scarcely be said to have properly considered its obligations of stewardship and effective use of resources.

Given all the shortcomings of this report, it is disturbing that it should be accompanied by the advice that a formal consultative process is unnecessary because it would add nothing to the Council's understanding  of community views and those views will be taken into account during the resource management process.  This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of consultation.  

The LTCCP states that progress in achieving the outcome of a well governed city will be measured, among other things, by confidence in Council decision-making.  So long as the Council continues to make decisions on the sort of limited information and evaluations given in this report, then no-one is likely to feel great confidence in their decision-making.