Derelict Christchurch mansion Antonio Hall loses heritage protections

Thursday, 18 September 2025

A derelict mansion in Riccarton which has been damaged by multiple suspicious fires has finally been stripped of its heritage protections.

A derelict Christchurch mansion damaged in several suspicious fires has been stripped of its heritage protections, paving the way for demolition.

The Christchurch City Council has agreed to remove Antonio Hall in Riccarton from its schedule of heritage buildings.

The decision was mostly aligned with a recommendation by an independent hearings panel, as part of the heritage Plan Change 13.

Antonio Hall has been unoccupied since the 2011 earthquakes, not including the dozens of cats which have reportedly moved in.

The council and panel disagreed on whether the hall’s chapel should retain its protections - the panel believed it could be repaired, based on expert evidence - but the council decided to remove the listing entirely.

As for the hall at large - a third of which had already been destroyed in a 2019 blaze - the path is clear for demolition, should the owner pursue it.

Antonio Hall was built between 1904 and 1909 and used as a Catholic seminary for about 30 years.

Antonio Hall was once described as “one of the finest” buildings in the city.

The Riccarton Rd property originally had 279 rooms and was once described as “one of the finest” buildings in the city.

Wellstar Co Ltd bought the property in 1993 but it has been unoccupied since the 2011 earthquakes, not including the dozens of cats which have reportedly moved in.

The owners - the overseas-based Chiu family - also owned the former saleyards on Deans Ave under the company Neowell Investments.

That land, opposite Hagley Park, was once labelled one of the city’s eyesore sites. Part of the land has been sold to Growcott Freer as part of a $100 million housing development.

CORRECTION: This story originally said Antonio Hall’s chapel might retain its heritage protections, as the panel recommended keeping it but the council disagreed. This was due to confusing the PC13 and PC14 legal process. Assuming there are no appeals, the council’s decision stands. (Amended 3.40pm, September 18, 2025)