Vestment of Our War Memorial Park Back to ‘Home Page Index’

Bill Parry. Minister of Int’ Affairs
1935 -‘49

“give up any idea...of bricks and mortar”

A Subsidised Memorial Community Centre Vested to Council for Permanent Functioning.
See Min' of Int' Aff' W.E Parry's Conditions for Subsidy
A Park, Planned, Funded, Built, Vested and Dedicated as a Government Approved WW2 District Memorial.
See Waipa Council's Policy for Memorials

The Waipa District War Memorial Park was funded from community donations with a pound for pound government subsidy under the Memorial Community Center Scheme (with conditions)
The Memorial Park was built majorly with voluntary efforts that were also subsidised. To qualify for subsidy, guidlines were given.
See 19.2.47 W.E Parry Minister of Int' Affairs visited Te Awamutu:
He had made a “pretty big battle for Community Centres” and saw in them better war memorials than statues etc. “There could be no finer war memorial than a community centre raised in the name of the fallen where the youth of the nation could be uplifted physically, morally, and spiritually”
Mr Parry confirmed that trees could be embodied and even suggested: “that they give up any idea of building a memorial of bricks and mortar, but have a living thing...that would galvanise the youth.. physically and spiritually” and that memorials needed to “fit in with the needs of the nation”
See 21.2.47 Warburton Editorial. “It will certainly register public desire that priority of attention be given to the provision of a war, or rather a Peace Memorial, and in that respect Mr Parry has offered very helpful advice...All that need be done is to improve the natural endowment of a stream to preserve the ideal of memorial...”
Gibbs’ Memorial proposal of Sep’ 47 via Te Awamutu Chamber of Commerce, epitimised the memorial guideline given by Minister Parry and met the needs of the community. It involved a larger area beyond the ‘park proper’ from Arawata st to Racecourse rd, including ‘taking in’ the site of the old Borough Nursary, recently given permission to become the Basketball Courts.
18.10.48. In order to have the application fit within the scope of their subsidy policy, Int’ Affairs requested information on what community facilities Te Awamutu had, also noting that a community centre (Basketball Courts) was planned next to the memorial site and proposed adopting this as the Community War Memorial.

25.1.49 The reply included a comprehensive list of civic facilities and also clubs with and without accomodation, including mention of “part of the proposed Memorial Park...available for Basketball and Tennis.”
The proposal for a War Memorial Park was then approved 22.2.49. But in March ‘49, resevations concerning provision of a community facility (building) was again raised, recomending re-investigation before giving advice of the subsidy having been approved in February.
So despite Minister Parry's permmisive guidlines, the Int’ Affairs Dept’ did in the end prefer memorial prposals that included a building.
See 13.4.49 Int’ Affairs visited Te Awamutu to discuss an amendment to include a suitable building. It was suggested that the Basketball Courts could be referred to as “part and parcel” of the Community Centre Memorial scheme.
See 5.8.49 Int’ Affairs again visited Te Awamutu. "without buildings it is difficult to see how it could function... as a community centre..."
See 7.9.49 Frustration mounted as the War Memorial Committee waited for approval. To be in good standing with subsidy guidlines the Non-Sectarian quality had became a philosophy of the parks formation, in keeping with Minister Parry’s suggestions and community adoption of Gibbs’ beautification plan.
“there could be no mistaking the desire for a park as the accepted form of memorial...It could not allow of sectional use or advantage, must be non-sectarian, and have no exclusive features.”
See 30.11.49 (Election Day; Labour to National) Int’ Affairs explaned that delays for approval were due to bringing the proposed memorial within the scope of the term ‘Community Centre.’
Recognition was given to the kind of memorial desired by the people and that every effort was made to bring the project within the government poicy. “The location of the park in relation to existing and proposed cultural and recreational facilties.” was considered. In this way the memorial could be seen as “part of a wider Cmmunity Centre Scheme” and so the approval was communicated as granted.
Thus to misapropriate the memorial for use as a Maori Culture Park is contrary to the District's Memorial’s Philosophy Objective and to Subsidy Conditions.

The Vestment of Waipa District War Memorial Park for its Permanent Functioning.
See 20.10.52 “...as a park it can be shared and enjoyed by all...a beautified, restful area, open at all times for all people.”
Mayor F Parsons even apologised for the playground. “Nothing has been done for sectional use or benifit...The nearest approach to use-purpose is the provision of the childrens playing area...If there be any use benifit, who would begrudge such a playing area...”
See 10 Feb’ 54. Harrold Babbage prepared a maintenance report to be submitted to the Borough Council.
See 15 Feb’ 54. Borough Minutes: Council received the War Memorial Committee’s report for future park maintenance. To be discussed at a Council meeting of 22 March 54.
See 24 March ‘54. Harrold Babbage and Arthur Warburton of the Waipa District War Memorial Committee presented council with a plan of costs and tasks for the maintenance of the memorial as it was soon to be vested in council care.
“To some extent the full maintenance of the park in a well-kept state would depend on the pride and interest the citizens themselves showed.”
“It was not considered that the planting of flower beds or plots came within the scope of the construction of the park, whereas trees, shrubs, and lawns, which were of a permanent nature, did.”
“When the park was completed and formally vested in the council it would then become the responsibility of the council to ensure its adequate maintenance.”
See 11 May ‘55. “Foremost...is the future maintenance of the park which is a memorial...to those who fell overseas in battle.
The Park Committee is to meet with the Borough Council Parks Committee on the site this week to discuss the matter.”
See 27 May ‘55. A new committee for the control of future maintenance of the Memorial Park would consist of six members:
The minutes show that 5 eventuated. Park designer Harrold Babbage as chairman, two councilors-A. G Freeman and G Donaldson, M. H Williams of Te Awamutu’s Beatification Society, and Mr Gower of the RSA.
“The park has been vested in the Borough” “they could not allow it to deteriorate...the park was a unique one of its type and it was essential that it should be maintained”
30 May ’55. “We cannot afford to let this park slip back”
“The ratepayers will...be proud to accept the responsibility of maintaining the memorial to sacrifice in a state worthy of those men and women who gave their lives.” “now it is at a stage where it has been handed over to the borough some clear policy should be evolved to ensure sufficient finance to maintain it”
Mr Babbage...has proved that he is a master of the situation. But what will happen if, and when, he resigns from this task? Is there any guarantee that a successor will be found who will... effectively cover all operations?
 See 21 March ‘56. As he was moving to Auckland, Mr Babbage resigned from the War Memorial Committee and also as Chairman of the Maintenance Committee, at meetings for both committee's held in the park on 14 March ‘56. He would continue on with the Maintenance Committee with Mr A.G Freeman initially as Chairman, followed br G R Carter.
At some point after May ‘58 the Maintenance Committee Dissolved and Council's Vested Maintenance Continued Alone.

See Below Left: According to this 1948 news article, Council remains obligated for Maintenance and Upkeep of the Memorial Park and for its Permanent Functioning as a Community Centre War Memorial.
See Below Right: An example of a Subsidy Payment for Memorial Features, from December ‘54. Type of War Memorial: PARK. Approved 22.2.49 (Gibbs) and 21.7.53 (Babbage)
Stonework of the Sunken Cross is completed. Two of its (three adjoing) Sunken Gardens, the Lily Pond and Fermery, Footbridges and other features in various stages of completion.

See Approved Conditions for Subsidy

Subsidy for Dec’ 54. Type of Memorial: PARK. Sunken Cross. Two Sunken Gardens; Lily and Fernery, Footbridges. Many other Features.
Other Memorial Features approved before and after Dec’ 54 are also subject to:
Perpetual Maintenance and Functioning as Components of a Government Approved War Memorial.

Waipa Council’s Memorial Policy 4.4.4 "Once approved and installed, memorial structures will be maintained by Council"
Policy Objective
Council periodically receives requests from residents and groups within the community who want to acknowledge a past family member, friend or resident through the planting of a tree, the placing of a seat or some other structure in a public place administered by Council.
A policy for responding to such requests is appropriate to ensure a consistent approach.
Policy
Council wishes to make provision for memorials, but of a type and in a way that maximises flexibility, such as readily able to be relocated, should development plans for an area change.
Council’s preference is for memorials to be structures, such as seating, that provide a practical benefit to the community, and allow the attachment of a dedication plaque or similar acknowledgement.
Such structures will be consistent with the relevant reserve management plan or development plan. Approval will be subject to such conditions as may be determined by the Parks and Reserves or Road Engineer (Maintenance) Team Leaders as appropriate.
Memorial structures will normally be fully funded by the applicant. Once approved and installed, memorial structures will be maintained by Council.

Thus with reference to Waipa Councils own policy on Memorials, sec 4.4.4:
The Park does provide a practical benefit to the community, being “a memorial for both the district and the town to those who fell overseas in WW2.”
In mid-March 1954 council received a request from the War Memorial Park Committee, who wanted to acknowledge family members, friends and residents with a Memorial Park they had developed, to be vested into council care as Government's subsidy had also required.
In May ‘55 council representatives met the Committee on site at the park to discuss future maintenance.
There was no issue of the park being inconsistent with the reserve management plan or development plan. With all things considered; in May ‘55 the council approved being vested with the memorial.
sec' 4.4.4 “Once approved and installed, memorial structures will be maintained by Council.”
Council is obliged by their own policy for memorials to maintain the memorial, being a park that was planned, funded, built and dedicated as a War Memorial.

The hiring of a development firm to Re-Concept the memorial is contrary to the founding objective for the memorial and also to councils own memorial policy.
Council received public feedback concerning the central footbridge (commemorating the Airforce) and the Peace Fountain in the park in June- August 2018. It was clearly about valuing and retaining such features, let alone the theme or concept of the park.
For Council to then respond in Oct’ 18 by financing a Re-Concept for the memorial was in opposition to that expressed public need. Instead, a co-ordinated and staged approach to implement the destruction of the memorial has resulted.
At no point was there an opportunity to refuse, advise or contribute to such a plan. Nor was there an announcement that such a plan was afoot.
Signs that were erected at the footbridge in 2018 were without scope and without detail. Public were then as now, surprised to disbelief at just what ‘Concept Plan’ was to involve:
Destruction of the Entrance Arch-Ways, the Scenic Drive-Way, the Sundial, the Water-Way and Waterfall, the Car Park, the Rockery, the Semi-Sunken Garden, the Fernery, the curved half of the Pergola Colonade, the Peace Fountain, the Play Ground, the Stone Footbridge, paths and Stone Stairs, the Lake, and non-native trees.
While referring to itself as: “A concept plan to identify, protect, restore and enhance the values associated with the reserve, and to provide a co-ordinated and staged approach to implementing the plan.”

The staged process did not include the required public consultation with stakeholders etc.
Public were then faced with the futile option of having to make submissions, as part of a “staged process” where amendments might be made prior to implementing a finalized plan for the destruction of the park.
Council then resorted to referring to the public submission stage as consultation. When in fact the submissions were a public effort to claw back at the planned destruction. The amendements are said to amount to half of the planned destruction going ahead.

Back to ‘Home Page Index’