Editorial: Conservatorium

Opponents of the proposed conservatorium of music at the Christchurch Arts Centre have received a severe setback with the Attorney-General's careful and well-reasoned rejection of their complaints against the Arts Centre trustees.

A lawyer for the opponents dismissed the Attorney-General's report as just one opinion, the conclusions of which could be contested.

That is, of course, true. But it is an entirely independent and impartial opinion made by an authority to whom the opponents themselves turned.

It was made, moreover, after they had put their best arguments to him. These arguments have now been comprehensively rejected and the Arts Centre trustees' actions vindicated.

The essence of the opponents' argument was that the Arts Centre trustee board's approval of the conservatorium proposal was an improper exercise of their powers under the Arts Centre's trust deed. This was because the trustees were purporting to act, so the opponents alleged, under changes made to the deed, most of them some time before the conservatorium proposal arose, that were invalid, and the original deed did not permit developments of the kind proposed.

The Attorney-General has found not only that the changes to the trust deed that were made were ones the trustees were empowered to make and therefore were valid, but also that even without them the original trust deed allows developments like the conservatorium to go ahead.

That is an important finding. It appears plainly from the trust deed and makes sense. The donors of the Arts Centre property could hardly have intended it should become an expensive white elephant, frozen for all time, with no scope for change or development as circumstances changed. In particular, developments to cater for appropriate commercial activity to support the site must be allowable.

Provided such developments are ancillary to the charitable purposes of the trust, which include the maintaining and preserving and reconstruction of the existing stone buildings, they must be permissible. And, as the Attorney-General concludes, the conservatorium meets that requirement.

As the lawyer for the opponents observed, the Attorney-General's report is not necessarily the last word on this point. The opponents have also challenged the trust board in an action in the High Court. After this report, however, the opponents should consider whether continuing this line of attack continues to be worth pursuing. The report deeply undermines it. The opponents would be wiser to abandon it and concentrate on more substantive matters.

The opportunity for that will come when the merits, or otherwise, of the proposed buildings must still be assessed in a resource consent hearing due to begin on February 15. That is the proper forum in which to argue over the proposal.

As the Attorney-General notes, the opponents have genuine concerns about what is proposed. But as he also observes, the proposal has already been revised in the light of some objections that have been made and it is open to further revision as the project continues. Whether these are sufficient should be determined at the hearing.

- © Fairfax NZ News