A decision which will determine whether the Teschemakers Chapel's altar can be moved or if a resource consent process will be needed to do that will not be known until October.
Yesterday, the Environment Court finished hearing legal submissions on the issue, which arose last year when it was revealed the ornate Italian marble altar was to be dismantled and moved to Holy Name Church in Dunedin.
Yesterday, the court was also told the altar was worth "well in excess of $100,000" and, if it could not be moved, someone would have to pay compensation.
Judge Jane Borthwick, along with commissioners Charles Manning and John Mills, said that, because of other commitments during next month, a decision would not be available until October.
The issue the court has to decide is whether the altar is a chattel and can be dismantled or a fixture which may need a resource consent in order to remove it.
Fr Mark Chamberlain, Holy Name Parish priest, applied to set aside an interim enforcement order made by Judge Jon Jackson on August 9 last year which stopped removal of the altar and required an application for a resource consent to the Waitaki District Council.
A second application has been filed by Susie Scott - granddaughter of Peter McCarthy who, in 1911, gave the homestead and property for the Catholic girls' boarding school - to make the interim order final.
Appearing for Fr Chamberlain, Naylor Love Construction and Trustees Executor Ltd was Paul Cavanagh QC and Michael Nidd and, for Ms Scott, Trevor Shiels and Phil Hope.
Mr Cavanagh said the onus was on Ms Scott to show the altar had ceased to be a chattel and was now a fixture.
The evidence was the altar was not physically attached to the chapel structure. Rather, it was its weight which kept it in place.
It was also significant neither the Waitaki District Council nor the Historic Places Trust had shown an interest in the present court proceedings, despite both having statutory obligations in relation to heritage items. Both had taken the view the altar was not protected under the Waitaki district plan.
The altar could be removed with minimal damage to the chapel which could be made good.
He said that, while no formal valuation had been made, the altar could be worth "well in excess of $100,000". If it could not be moved, someone would have to pay compensation for it.
Mr Shiels, in his closing submissions, said the sole legal issue for the court was whether the altar was a chattel or was part and parcel of the land.
"If it was the latter, a resource consent was needed," he said. "If the altar was a chattel, then no resource consent was needed."
On the evidence, there was nothing to suggest the altar was ever intended to be there on a short-term basis or to be anything other than a permanent feature.
It was quite clear the chapel was built to support an altar because of the concrete mass beneath the floor on which it sat.
Even if the court considered the altar was attached to the land or building by its own weight, it was intended to be part of the building which was part of the land, he said.
The altar, donated to the Teschemakers by the Hart family, was imported from Italy and assembled in 1926.
When the property was sold in 2000, the Dominican Sisters retained ownership of named chattels in the chapel, which included the altar.
