Save Our Arts Centre today challenged the City Council to be "even-handed and transparent" and the University of Canterbury to "come clean" on the matter of the Vines Report.

SOAC understands:

The Vines Report is a section 42A report commissioned by the City Council as part of its responsibility as the authority in charge of the Resource Consent process. Ms Vines is an internationally respected heritage expert based in Adelaide, Australia; and was contracted by the City Council as an independent expert on heritage matters, for the Music school proposal.

The Vines Report has been months in preparation and has involved at times queries by Ms Vine and responses provided by and through the City Council, during that period, as would be usual in such a significant expert report.

The Vines Report was being prepared for the Resource Consent hearing [before two independent commissioners] due to commence on 7 December. The Vines Report, along with other material was due to be circulated to submitters on about 26 November, 5 working days before the hearing on 7 December.

During the early part of the week of 16 November, the Vines Report [we understand completed] was forwarded to the City Council, in time for release on 25 November. It was reportedly very critical of the Music School proposal, from a heritage perspective.

The thrust of the Vines Report was immediately conveyed to representatives of the University and the Arts Centre Trust Board [who are the joint applicants] by the City Council. We believe a copy of the Report, or most of it, was also transmitted to them.

The University then announced that it had requested a postponement of the December hearing because there were submitters who needed "more time". It is true that the hearing procedure was being rushed through, with insufficient time allotted to hear from submitters. But it now seems more likely that the real reason for the postponement was to give the University and the Arts Centre Trust Board time to quickly re-design the building, in an attempt to answer the criticism which the Vines Report contains.

Knowledge of the Vines Report and its expert views soon became relatively widespread. A number of approaches have been made to relevant Council staff, including by Councillors, asking for a copy of the Vines Report.

The Council staff's reasons for refusal to do so include a description of the report as "partial" [ie half completed], a description of the report as "a draft", a claim that draft reports are not available as " a matter of policy", and a claim that the report "contains errors".

However, Council staff have now to explain to the public of Christchurch how the essence of a report that is partial/draft/with errors/and which is not available "as a matter of policy" has been given to the representatives of the University and the Arts Centre Trust Board. Every participant in the resource consent process should be given the same information. We are equally entitled to know the contents of the Vines Report, including any criticism of the proposed School of Music building which it contains.

The University also needs to "come clean" and explain that its somewhat unctuous claim it was taking advantage of the postponement it had obtained to look at "elements of design", having "listened to the community views" is not the full story. The fact is that the University needed the postponement of the hearing to attempt to re-design the Music School building, because of the critical response in the Vines Report. Save Our Arts Centre Inc is extremely concerned at what is happening on this matter. We require the City Council to be even-handed and transparent, as the authority organising the Resource Consent hearing, and not favour the applicant. We expect the University [and the singularly silent Arts Centre Trust Board] to be open in its communications with the citizens of Christchurch. And, we expect the City Council to give us, and others, the Vines report now.