In a decision released today, the Archway Lecture Theatres and 128 other buildings will be given greater protection from demolition or modification without consent under changes to Dunedin’s district plan.
At hearings in May, university vice-chancellor Grant Robertson had asked the panel — consisting of commissioners Rob van Voorthuysen (chairman), Cr Sophie Barker and Cr Jim O’Malley — that the theatres not be protected.
Mr Robertson said since 2010 the university had considered demolishing the theatres — possibly replacing them with a formal garden space, which would enhance nearby Gothic buildings.
The Archway Lecture Theatres represented the "poorest quality" of tiered lecture theatres on campus and were not part of the university’s future needs, he said.
Mr van Voorthuysen accepted the university’s evidence and recommended the building not be protected. However, Crs Barker and O’Malley did not — their majority finding formed the panel’s decision.
In the decision report, Crs Barker and O’Malley said the building’s architectural value was worthy of heritage protection.
The Archway Lecture Theatres were built in 1974, designed by notable Dunedin architect Ted McCoy, and won an Enduring Architecture award in 2020.
"Its presence is less negative on the Gothic revival heritage value on Union St than its loss would be to the record of late 20th-century teaching architecture," the councillors said.
In his dissenting view, Mr van Voorthuysen said not protecting the building would allow the university to operate more efficiently.
"Its intended formal garden space proposal will have greater benefits for the city’s heritage values than would scheduling the theatres, primarily as that would enhance the aesthetics of the existing scheduled Gothic buildings," he said.
A further 17 properties were removed from the proposed schedule, including the Lookout Point Fire Station.
Patersons planner Kurt Bowen, working with Fire and Emergency New Zealand, told the panel the site needed to be upgraded and a new building was the best option.
The panel agreed protecting the existing building based on its design significance would hamper Fenz’s operations which had a "high degree" of public benefit.
In a statement accompanying today’s decision, Mr van Voorthuysen said the panel accepted, in some cases, high maintenance costs, low public benefit from protection and existing demolition approval for certain buildings outweighed the benefits of heritage protection.
"In all other cases, we consider the benefits of protection outweigh the arguments against it.
"We think we’ve got the balance right."
Submitters can appeal to the Environment Court within 30 working days of today’s decision.
