The Timaru District Council has granted its holdings firm consent to demolish a row of buildings in Timaru’s CBD together with the previous Majestic Theatre accomplished in the Nineteen Twenties.
Timaru District Holdings Restricted (TDHL) common supervisor Frazer Munro launched paperwork to The Timaru Herald on Tuesday, exhibiting the consent had been granted on Monday.
In August, TDHL utilized for consent to demolish the buildings at 101-107 Stafford St, which it bought in September 2018 as half of a $1.7 million buy-up of properties in the world.
The heritage worth of the buildings prompted Timaru-based city design professional Nigel Gilkison to ask the council to put a stop to the demolition plans before it was too late.
Gilkison mentioned the buildings have been an essential half of the city and needs to be “integrated as an integral half of the present CBD regeneration plans”.
It’s been every week because the council was requested to launch paperwork referring to the appliance to demolish the buildings. It’s but to take action.
The Timaru Herald has requested the council for a replica of the consent software, and any correspondence referring to the consent.
That request was made on October 3.
Two days later, a council spokesperson replied saying the request “is now being handled as a LGOIMA (Native Authorities Official Info and Conferences Act)”.
In acknowledging the request, they mentioned: “We’ll endeavour to answer your request as quickly as potential and in any occasion no later than 20 working days after the day your request was acquired.
“If we’re unable to answer your request by then, we are going to notify you of an extension of that time-frame.”
All such requests for data from the council are robotically lined by the Act, and a council should launch any data it decides to make public with out “undue delay”.
Given the council has had the consent software since August 15, and has confirmed it has the extra data it requested, the Herald questioned why it couldn’t be launched instantly.
On Friday, the council gave no cause for the delay, however mentioned it could be capable to present a response early this week.
It’s not the primary time the Herald has needed to wait for solutions over the matter.
On September 15, the council was requested whether or not it had acquired any consent functions for demolition or development on the properties, and if it may present any particulars. It took six days to reply.
The request was made simply after 5pm on a Friday, so a response was not anticipated instantly.
The council responded the next Monday, advising it could be capable to “present the data you have got requested for on Wednesday”.
It gave no cause for the time-frame, however didn’t meet its personal deadline.
When chased for a response, a council spokesperson mentioned the data sought by the Herald had been offered by TDHL common supervisor Frazer Munro.
Munro issued a statement outlining TDHL’s plans for the site earlier that day, and responded to questions the Herald put to the corporate the day earlier than.
Pointing this out, the Herald requested the council to “please present a response from the council”, because the authority charged with issuing consents.
The next day, six days after the preliminary request, the council confirmed it had acquired the appliance greater than a month earlier, on August 15.
When requested why it had not responded sooner, a spokesperson mentioned: “We at all times strive our greatest to reply promptly to enquiries.”
Most individuals suppose of councils as roads, garbage and charges – however what do they really do, and why do councils matter? (First printed October 2022)