Archive | Demolition

Judge quashes demolition non-notification

An Auckland Council duty commissioner told council staff an application to demolish a 90-year-old Remuera house should be notified – then, 3 hours later, issued a decision not to notify it.

Other commissioners went on to approve the house’s removal, although it’s in a group identified for demolition control.

But, in a ruling last Friday, Auckland High Court judge Mark Woolford quashed the notification decision, and consequently also quashed the substantive decision.

Marche Ltd (Chris Lord) and a neighbour of the Seaview Rd property, Jocelyn Armstrong, sought judicial review of the 2015 notification & demolition decisions, which were in favour of planning consultant Gary Deeney, in his role as a developer.

Mr Deeney sought to remove the house built in 1926 at 48 Seaview Rd. Justice Woolford didn’t go into the merits of Mr Deeney’s application, but focused on the uncertainty & errors apparent from the notification commissioners’ correspondence, and particularly on the failure to give any reason for non-notification.

The judge’s decision is especially apt this month, as a campaign builds to get the council to withdraw revised zoning maps it provided in December to the independent panel hearing submissions on Auckland’s proposed unitary plan.

Justice Woolford released his decision on the last day of a fortnight of evidence to the unitary plan panel on pre-1940 & heritage housing, which rezoning opponents say is under siege in the council’s drive to enable more intensive development on the isthmus.

The unitary plan hearings panel chair, Judge David Kirkpatrick, declined to reopen submissions on the council’s proposed zoning changes, saying in directions issued in January that accepting new submissions on the recent council proposals would very likely mean the panel would miss its 22 July deadline for delivering recommendations on the unitary plan to the council.

Opponents of more intensive development on the isthmus and of loosening of the ability to demolish houses over 70 years old are likely to have their input more severely curtailed under the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill introduced last November, though there will still be scope for judicial review.

In the Seaview Rd ruling, Justice Woolford said he would express no view on whether the application should be notified, but said the council or independent commissioners would have to make a fresh decision: “The fresh decision should make reference to the evidence considered & the key factors taken into account and explain why the particular decision is made.”

Council planner Harry Halpin had recommended Mr Deeney’s application be refused, but commissioners David Hill (chair) & Richard Knott approved it last August. Duty commissioners Mark Farnsworth & Cherie Lane had approved non-notification in May.

The duty commissioners wrote in their decision: “Having read the application, supporting documents, specialist comments & the council planner’s report & recommendations on the application, I [both commissioners] am satisfied I have sufficient information to consider the matters required by the Resource Management Act and to make a decision under delegated authority on notification. Under sections 95A, 95B & 95C of the RMA, this application shall proceed without public or limited notification because:

  • Rule 4.3.2.6 of the operative district plan enables the application to be considered without the need for public notification or either obtain the written approval of affected persons or notify them
  • There are no protected customary rights groups or marine title groups in the region affected by this proposal
  • Having regard to the general discretion to notify under section 95A(1) and whether there are any special circumstances under section 95A(4), we find that there are no relevant reasons to warrant public notification.”

Justice Woolford said the plaintiffs before him alleged that the commissioners made a number of errors of law, failed to take relevant considerations into account, had regard to irrelevant considerations and failed to have regard to natural justice considerations & the right of members of the public to be heard.

Mr Farnsworth wrote in an email to council staff member Celia Chan hours before issuing the non-notification decision: “All of the houses, with the exception of the [neighbouring] house at 46 Seaview Rd, are well maintained and contribute positively to the special character. We came to an initial viewpoint that the demolition of the house 48 Seaview would incrementally detract from what we consider the obvious special character of the area and therefore should be notified.

“In terms of section 95 we are considering whether ‘special circumstances exist’ which would provide grounds for notification.

“The complicating issue for us is the clause in the Auckland district plan which exempts this type of application (the demolition) of buildings in Residential 2C from notification; does this clause ‘trump’ section 95 special circumstances? We are seeking clarification on the above matters.”

Ms Lane commented in another email exchange that a workshop for commissioners would be helpful: “Was good working with Mark on this one. But it was a bit of a tricky one… We found the rule that such activities (demolition in the residential 2 zone) not be notified, to be particularly vexing!… Hope this sort of forum can be organised soon – would be really appreciated.”

Justice Woolford said the email exchanges showed an element of confusion or misunderstanding on the part of the commissioners. He said clause 4.3.2.6 of the district plan specifically provided: “’Except as provided for in section 95A(4) of the act, [demolition or removal] will be considered without public notification or the need to obtain the written approval of or serve notice on affected persons.’ It is inappropriate to refer to that clause as trumping section 95A(4) special circumstances. The provisions sit side by side. One does not trump the other.

“Secondly, it is difficult to understand Mr Farnsworth’s reference in his email of 2:11 pm to proceeding on a non-notified basis ‘as long as the application is amended as per rule 4.3.2.6’.  Rule 4.3.2.6 does not deal with the amendment of applications.

“Ms Lane filed an affidavit setting out her qualifications & experience and the documents she had before her when making the notification decision. She also confirms that she visited the site the day before with Mr Farnsworth and discussed her initial impressions with him, but does not elucidate her reasons for making the decision not to publicly notify the application. We are left then with the decision itself.

“However, the notification decision itself presents further difficulties. It states that the commissioners had regard ‘to the general discretion to notify under section 95A(1)’. Section 95A(1) is, however, not applicable to the current application. It enables a consent authority, in its discretion, to decide whether to publicly notify an application for a resource consent. The application was, however, to be dealt with under sections 95A(3) & (4).

“In this case there was a rule which precluded public notification of the application, that being rule 4.3.2.6.”

Summing up, Justice Woolford said: “I am unfortunately unable to discern the reasons for the decision. The finding of ‘no relevant reasons’ raises more questions than it answers: What factors were considered by the commissioners? What weight was given to the factors considered by the commissioners? How was the decision on relevance reached?”

Justice Woolford was curious about the reference to marine title groups – given Seaview Rd is well uphill from the harbour in the middle of Remuera – and found “almost exactly the same wording was used in non-notification decisions by commissioners on 31 October 2014 & 23 December 2014 in relation to applications by Ports of Auckland Limited to extend Bledisloe Wharf, where a reference to marine title groups may have more relevance.

“A template can be beneficial to good decision-making, but care must be taken to ensure that it is appropriate to the case at issue.”

Earlier stories:
10 February 2016: Petition heads to Parliament over late recommended changes to unitary plan
1 February 2016: Haynes wants council to turn out-of-scope changes into post-unitary plan proposal
15 January 2016: Unitary plan chair says panel would miss deadline by opening proposed changes to new submissions18 December 2015: Filipaina says zone maps show Auckland housing to stay mostly 1-2 storeys
27 November 2015: RMA reform introduced

Attribution: Judgment, RMA, Council hearing decisions.

Continue Reading

Propbd on Q Th26Nov15 – Council on demolition dogs & the north; auctions, Goodman settles, PFI pleased

Council action on heritage demolition, dog access, northern breakaway, Kaipara Harbour
5 apartments sell at Ray White auction
14 “intensive living” units, 2 sections & a showroom sell at Barfoots
4 apartments & a farm sell at Bayleys
All 4 sell at City Sales auction
Goodman settles 2 Addington sales
PFI pleased to exit Cavendish Drive property

2.40pm:
Council action on heritage demolition, dog access, northern breakaway, Kaipara Harbour

Auckland Council’s governing body:

  • Will get a report back in February on a proposal from Orakei board member Troy Churton seeking amendment to governing body resolution regarding the process for determining notifications for demolition of pre-1944 buildings
  • Agreed today to change the dog access rules in the Albert-Eden ward (since 2013, local boards have been able to use different summer times or seasons from the standard bylaws, which required governing body approval), and
  • Endorsed a response to the Local Government Commission on a proposal from the Northern Action Group for a North Rodney unitary council (the commission sought views on impacts, not a view on the action group’s proposal); Cllr George Wood added a number of extra difficulties the proposed unitary council might encounter.

The council also considered a memorandum of understanding on establishing a joint working party on the Kaipara Harbour in the confidential section of its agenda because of some confidential information from the Government, but expected to release its resolutions publicly.

5 apartments sell at Ray White auction

5 of the 8 apartments auctioned at Ray White City Apartments today were sold under the hammer. Auction results:

Chatham, 70 Pitt St, unit 502, sold for $260,000 + gst, Aileen Wu
Waldorf Bankside, 8 Bankside St, unit 10E, sold for $261,500, Judi & Michelle Yurak
Tetra House, 85 Wakefield St, unit 508, sold for $265,000, James Mairs
Focus on Anzac, 99 Anzac Avenue, unit 3H, passed in at $460,000, Ryan Bridgman & Mitch Agnew
Grey Lynn, Méditerranée, 10 Crummer Rd, unit 1A, sold for $400,500, Leo Zhu
Westmount, 23 Upper Queen St, unit 1A, passed in at $350,000, Damian Piggin, Daniel Horrobin & Simon Harrison
Eden Terrace, Memphis, 9 Charlotte St, unit GA, sold for $210,000, James Mairs
Uptown Apartments, 14 Upper Queen St, unit 6A, passed in after one bid at $380,000, vendor indication at $400,000, Krister Samuel

14 “intensive living” units, 2 sections & a showroom sell at Barfoots

Of the 32 “intensive living” properties on yesterday’s auction list, 12 were sold at the auction, one prior and one post.

2 sections targeted for their land were sold, one on Point View Drive above Flat Bush and the other in Mt Roskilll, and a showroom/warehouse property in New Lynn was sold. Auction results:

Tower Hill, 1 Emily Place, unit 11D, one-bedroom apartment, sold for $623,000, Livia Li & Alan Guo
Remuera, 16 Belmont Terrace, unit 5, one-bedroom apartment, sold for $434,000, Sarah Garlick & Estee Zeng
Lorne St Lofts, 4 Lorne St, unit 2G, one-bedroom apartment, sold for $442,500, Rita Herceg & Alastair Brown
207 Federal St, unit 406, passed in, 2-bedroom apartment, Stephen Shin & Yasu Ka
Parnell, 26B Takutai St, sold for $1.4 million, Silvia Poletti
Harbour Green, 11 Union St, unit 807, 2-bedroom apartment, no bid, Livia Li & Alan Guo
Glendowie, 43 Karaka Park Place, cross-lease, passed in, Grant Marshall
Glendowie, 123 Riddell Rd, unit 3, cross-lease unit, sold for $710,000, Margot Torrance
St Heliers, 91 Long Drive, unit 2, cross-lease unit, no bid, Helen Clelland
Parnell, 22 Windsor St, cross-lease, passed in, Jill Jackson
Hobson Gardens, 205 Hobson St, unit 8H, apartment, auction postponed, Stephen Shin & Yasu Ka
Meridian, 11 Howe St, unit 1F, studio, no bid, Stephen & Leo Shin
Waldorf Celestion, 19 Anzac Avenue, unit 1305, apartment, no bid, Jason Buckwell
Silo Apartments, 23 Emily Place, unit 9J, studio, no bid, Annie Xu & Sean Zhang
Fiore, 152 Hobson St, unit 408, apartment, sold prior, Stephen Shin & Yasu Ka
St Johns, 6 Lush Avenue, unit 5, cross-lease unit, passed in, Mike Dolan
Mt Wellington, 11 Burt Rd, unit 2, cross-lease unit, no bid, Jane Wang & Dragon Zhou
Grey Lynn, 199 Surrey Crescent, unit 504, apartment, sold for $910,000, Mike Dolan
Meadowbank, 44 Hawkins St, cross-lease, sold for $900,000, Maree Church
Mt Albert, 55 Sainsbury Rd, unit 5, withdrawn from auction, Duane Mullooly
St Heliers, 20B McArthur Avenue, cross-lease, no bid, Sharlene Huang
Mt Wellington, 172 Ireland Rd, cross-lease, no bid, Mike Dolan
Mt Wellington, 12 Motu Place, unit 1, sold for $610,000, Alex Wu & Ben Feng
Avondale, 316 Blockhouse Bay Rd, 9 units, sold for $2.32 million, Sue Allan & Aken Yuan
Mt Eden, 22 Normanby Rd, unit 44, apartment, sold for $662,000, Ryan Harding & Matt O’Rourke
Grey Lynn, 29 Scanlan St, unit M2, apartment, sold for $615,000, Neil Dayal & Louise Stringer
Onehunga, 10 Inkerman St, unit 2, sold for $635,000, Dennis Law
Mt Eden, 101 Balmoral Rd, unit 3, passed in, Alex Yang
Grey Lynn, Turing building, 2 Ariki St, unit GO7, apartment, no bid, Thornton & Felicity Scott
Epsom, 116 The Drive or 41 Empire Rd, unit 2 either way, withdrawn from auction, Robert Thompson
Remuera, 90 Remuera Rd, unit 18, apartment, sold post-auction, Rick Thevenard & Leonie Stabler
Remuera, 90 Remuera Rd, unit 16, apartment, passed in, Rick Thevenard & Leonie Stabler

Land sales:

East Tamaki, 67 Point View Drive, lot 1, 800m² section sold for $1.005 million, Robben Li & Peter Young
Mt Roskill, 14 Invermay Avenue, 1930s bungalow on 828m² section, sold for $1.54 million, Repeka Lelaulu

Commercial:

New Lynn, 26 Portage Rd, unit 1, sold for $975,000, Neil Wooldridge & Peter Jeromson

4 apartments & a farm sell at Bayleys

4 of the 7 apartments auctioned at Bayleys yesterday were sold under the hammer.

A Kaukapakapa farm with a range of potential conversions, including subdivision, was also sold. Auction results:

Grey Lynn, 45 Millais St, 3 flats in bungalow, sold for $1.5 million, Blair Haddow
Hillsborough, 80 Carlton St, cross-lease, passed in, Chris Reeves
Ellerslie, 32 Michaels Avenue, flat 2, cross-lease, sold for $495,000, Lisa Smyth & Helen Byford
Stamford Residences, 26 Albert St, unit 1209, apartment, no bid, Blair Haddow
Matakatia, 64A Matakatia Parade, cross-lease, passed in at $1.01 million, Sue & Charles Donoghue
Parnell, Stonemasons, 27 Falcon St, unit 2B, apartment, sold for $565,000, Chris Reeves
Scene 1, 2 Beach Rd, unit 611, leasehold apartment, sold for $95,000 at mortgagee auction, Tony Bayley

Rural:

Kaukapakapa, 158 Hellyer Rd, 400ha farm, passed in at $4.2 million, Karen Asquith & Graeme Mann

All 4 sell at City Sales auction

All 4 apartments auctioned at City Sales yesterday were sold under the hammer. Auction results:

Takapuna, Spencer on Byron, 9-17 Byron Avenue, unit 312, sold for $216,000 at mortgagee auction, Gabrielle Hoffmann
Sapphire, 76 Wakefield St, unit 303, sold for $271,500, Chris Bell
The Quadrant, 10 Waterloo Quadrant, unit 1112, sold for $425,000, Maryanne Wong
Eden Terrace, 3 Ngahura St, unit 15, sold for $445,000, Jake Hayward & Iona Rodrigues

Goodman settles 2 Addington sales

Goodman Property Trust’s manager, Goodman (NZ) Ltd, confirmed yesterday that the $33.2 million sale of the amenity & IAG buildings at 12 & 14 Show Place in Addington, Christchurch, to local investors has been settled.

PFI pleased to exit Cavendish Drive property

Property For Industry Ltd said yesterday its sale of a non-core property at 85 Cavendish Drive, Manukau, for a gross $10 million was due to settle on 31 March 2016. General manager Simon Woodhams said the sale, to a neighbouring investor at a Colliers auction last week, concluded a long-term strategy to sell this property, and it was above the December 2014 book value of $8.65 million.

Earlier story:
18 November 2015: Cavendish Drive property sells $750,000 above June book value

Attribution: Council, auctions, company releases.

Continue Reading

Orakei proposal to change heritage demolition process

Orakei Local Board member Troy Churton has proposed a way to overcome a conflict in considering demolition of heritage buildings.

He has proposed a motion for the board to consider on Thursday, to change some process requirements in the determination of notifications of resource consent applications relating to demolition of pre-1944 buildings. If approved, it would go to the governing body for its support.

In an outline of his proposal, Mr Churton said: “The incidence of applications to demolish character pre-1944 buildings, particularly in Remuera & other Orakei Local Board suburbs, has increased and will likely continue. Examples range from iconic institutional buildings such as the Hannah Block at King’s Prep to character large bungalows within a consistent streetscape context such as 48 Seaview Rd, Remuera.

“There is little evidence of due regard or ability in the planning process to assert the effect of cumulative effects of these sorts of demolition as ‘adverse’ & ‘more than minor’ on the overall values & amenity of a suburb either.

“Where a board planning spokesperson has submitted relevant localised comment about the application and about notification, and backed up with objective & professional support from an established local heritage society as we are fortunate to have in Remuera & St Heliers, and the board member comment is not adopted by a council planner, the resulting conflict should therefore be dealt with enabling the board member to elect advocacy before a duty commissioner and not on papers alone. Alternatively those cases should default to limited notification.

Attribution: Agenda.

Continue Reading

Update – panel change: Panels appointed to hear Queens Wharf artwork & Takapuna boating hub applications, plus others

Published 3 June 2015, updated 4 June
As often occurs, membership of one hearing panel appointed on Tuesday had an immediate change.

The panel to hear the Takapuna application for a marine activity hub had Lisa Whyte (Hibiscus Bays) named as local board member on the panel, however she declined the role. No replacement has been named yet.

Committee chair Linda Cooper told me & Ms Whyte in an email today: “It seems that a reporter who was at the meeting has legitimately posted this on social media before our hearings staff were able to confirm availability in person with the commissioners. It is very common for proposed commissioners to be unavailable or occasionally have a conflict therefore frequently I am asked to approve an alternate commissioner. This means resolutions on the day are sometimes not accurate by the time the hearing occurs.”

Almost like an accident, except I was sitting at the media table in plain view at an open meeting. It used to be normal for council staff to ensure before the meeting that proposed commissioners were going to be available for a hearing – in which case they also learned of conflicts.

Auckland Council’s hearings committee appointed commissioners on Tuesday to hear 5 resource consent applications, including the council application to place a public artwork on Queens Wharf and the proposal to establish a boating hub on the Takapuna camping ground.

The committee also:

  • designated 12 independent hearing commissioners as duty commissioners
  • resolved to recruit more commissioners, and
  • began a review of the process for determining demolition resource consent applications in the isthmus residential 1 zone.

Commissioner appointments:

Queens Wharf, public artwork at wharf end (application already publicly notified, submissions closing Monday 8 June): Leigh McGregor (chair), Robert Scott & Bill Kapea

Takapuna Beach, 22 The Promenade, Takapuna Beach Holiday Park site, application by Harbour Access Trust for resource consents for community marine activity hub: Karyn Sinclair (chair), Rebecca Macky, Melean Absolum & local board member Lisa Whyte (from Hibiscus Bays)

, appointment of 3 independent hearing commissioners; the 1032 submissions were split 528 for the marine centre, 499 against, 5 neutral

Remuera, 14 Rangitoto Avenue & 19 Ara St, application by BeGroup NZ Ltd for retirement village in 3 wings of 1-3 storeys containing 27 independent living units, 68 aged-care suites, basement parking, on the former Rawhiti Bowling Club site: Robert Blakey to decide on notification and, if notified, to hear the application along with Pamela Peters, Rebecca Skidmore & local board member Graeme Easte (from Albert-Eden)

Waiheke Island, Sandy Bay, 92 Coromandel Rd, application for resource consent for a single-storey house straddling a wetland area: Barry Kaye to decide on notification and, if notified, to hear the application along with Bill Kapea

Te Atatu Peninsula, 543 Te Atatu Rd, former BP Oil (NZ) Ltd service station site, application by Vaco Investments (Te Atatu) Ltd (Antony Arnerich) to vary conditions of consent to allow 24/7 drive-through McDonald’s fast-food restaurant: Les Simmons to decide on notification and, if notified, to hear the application along with Ian Munro, Philip Brown & local board member Catherine Farmer (from Whau)

The list of duty commissioners includes 3 who are new to that role – Richard Blakey, Robert Scott & Dave Serjeant.

Council resolutions team manager Rob Andrews said the council reduced its pool of hearing commissioners from 65 to 49 a year ago and there was now a need to supplement the pool in certain skill areas.

Along with changing the faces on hearing panels, the council has produced a performance development framework for commissioners, including reviews of performance, supporting development and dealing with under-performance.

Earlier stories:
11 August 2014: Pencarrow enters upmarket retirement village development with Rawhiti site
25 May 2009: 8-storey Te Atatu building turned down
3 August 2008: Malaysian group plans 10-storey Te Atatu Peninsula development

Links:
Committee agenda, including item details
Online petition opposing Te Atatu 24/7 outlet

Attribution: Committee meeting.

Continue Reading

Mt Eden residential 1 notification goes to hearing, though staff don’t think it needs to

Auckland Council’s hearings committee has appointed commissioners to decide whether an application to demolish a pre-1940 house at 59 View Rd, Mt Eden, should be non-notified, although a rule in the current isthmus plan makes all such applications in the isthmus residential 1 zone non-notified unless there are special circumstances.

Council planners advised the committee on Wednesday there were no special circumstances.

Council resolutions team manager Rob Andrews said that, from the history of demolition applications in the residential 1 zone, this application might be considered contentious so it was taken to the committee instead of being dealt with by staff.

In his report, he said: “The existing dwelling has been significantly modified, as have surrounding buildings, and therefore does not have the special qualities identified in the guidelines. The building is not scheduled, and is not listed by the Historic Places Trust.

“The council has no knowledge of members of the public or interest groups having raised an interest previously in relation to the building. However, it is noted that consents of this nature – demolition & new builds in residential 1 zones – do have an element of public & media interest, therefore public interest cannot be discounted.”

Mr Andrews told the committee the building had been a resthome, but was converted into an 18-bedroom boarding house. Demolition would be followed by subdivision of the site into 4 lots.

He said all the weatherboards were plastic palisades and very little remained of heritage or special character value. A block of sausage flats was next door and the neighbourhood was mixed.

Independent Maori Statutory Board member Glenn Wilcox told the committee: “The board has maintained a position that these applications should be at least limited notification to keep the neighbours on board.”

However, Mr Andrews said limited notification wasn’t really an option because of the council guidelines.

Cllr Penny Webster questioned Mr Wilcox’s stance of not voting for non-notification, suggesting discussion to establish the Maori board’s position or to get legal advice, but board chairman David Taipari said board members had voted for non-notification before.

When Cllr Cathy Casey said the council should have a rule to notify every residential 1 demolition or removal application, regional & local planning manager Penny Pirrit referred her to the non-notification rule.

This would change under the proposed unitary plan but, in the meantime, it left Cllr Casey asking: “In that case you have to wonder why we have a committee at all. What’s not in this report is the number of changes in that street, how it feels as a street and the tipping point between residential 1 old and residential 1 new.”

Committee chairwoman Linda Cooper, sensing the very common council practice of debating principles, brought matters back to the appointment of commissioners, but not before responding to Cllr Casey’s view: “I think we’re straying. I think they’re really good questions, but I don’t think we’re here to deal with that right now. When you look at the whole street, although it’s got some beautiful homes, the character of the street has been altered quite significantly.”

The essential point for the notification application is whether there are special circumstances. It will be heard by the duty commissioner of the week plus a heritage commissioner, selected from Cherie Lane, John Hill & Richard Knott.

Attribution: Council committee meeting & agenda.

Continue Reading

Council slams demolition bans on Canvas City & Ranchhod buildings

Published 5 April 2011

Auckland Council issued notices of requirement for heritage orders on 2 central city buildings today – the Wong Doo building (also ex-Canvas City) at 164-168 Hobson St and Ranchhod Chambers (ex-Mining Chambers & Gilfillan’s Store) at 95 Queen St.

The heritage order requirement allows for no demolition of any part of either building. Submissions on the notices of requirement close on Thursday 5 May.

The Wong Doo building is scheduled category B on the council heritage register and the Historic Places Trust issued a notice last week to schedule Ranchhod Chambers. The council said both buildings were under threat of demolition.

Dae Ju Housing Co Ltd got demolition consent for the Wong Doo building in 2005 and was granted a new 5-year consent in May 2009 after a hearing. The company built the Fiore apartment building on the adjoining site, after originally intending to build an apartment building across both sites, but faced a concerted campaign to prevent demolition of the 120-year-old building on the corner of Hobson St & Mayoral Drive.

Mayor Len Brown said today the Auckland Council was actively focused on preserving the region’s built & natural heritage: "We want to send a strong message that the council & the public are serious about stopping the loss of our heritage and the loss of our identity.

"When there are opportunities for the council to take proactive & practical steps to preserve our region’s heritage, we will take them. We are open to working with developers to find win-win solutions to heritage issues and to see if we can come to a positive outcome.

"There are circumstances when the council’s hands are tied because of decisions made in the past, but we are doing everything reasonable in our power to better protect heritage in the future.

“Game-changing developments such as the Britomart precinct show how functional spaces can be incorporated into heritage buildings and deliver positive economic opportunities. We need to promote that kind of thinking around the region.”

The chairman of the council’s parks & heritage forum, Cllr Sandra Coney, said this represented a new direction & determination by the council to actively protect heritage: "The council will use devices such as the Auckland spatial plan to protect our built heritage because the public understands the importance of preserving the uniqueness of our city.”

Earlier stories:

5 April 2011: Historic Places Trust proposes scheduling for 3 buildings

17 April 2009: Dae Ju revives Canvas City demolition plan as it puts Elliot Tower on hold & redesigns Star site building

3 January 2007: Council schedules 7, rejects economic disadvantage arguments

13 December 2006: Dae Ju can knock down Canvas City lean-tos, and escapes hefty bond

21 April 2006: Heritage campaigner battles on to save Canvas City from demolition for new development

27 March 2006: Office consent sought for Hobson St site – and heritage opposition continues

9 May 2005: Canvas City plan change somewhere in the system

5 April 2005: Councillors hold up Hobson St demolition with theme of “heritage capital”

Want to comment? Go to the forum.

 

Attribution: Council release, story written by Bob Dey for the Bob Dey Property Report.

Continue Reading

CBD preservation plan changes approved

Published 24 August 2007Auckland City Council approved 2 plan changes last night which tighten rules on demolishing buildings in the central business district.

Plan change 5 affects pre-1940 buildings in the Queen St Valley & Karangahape Rd precincts and plan change 8 affects specified other buildings in the cbd.

Reasons advanced for plan change 5, as outlined by planning & regulatory committee chairman Glenda Fryer, included:

The plan change is intended to maintain & enhance the built streetscape characterIt would assist the council in controlling the actual & potential adverse effects of the demolition of such buildings on the recognised streetscape character of the remaining pockets of the 2 precincts which exhibit valuable characteristics from Auckland’s pastAssessment criteria focus on the contribution frontages make to streetscape character rather than pre-1940 buildings in their entiretyAt the same time, the assessment criteria provide direction for the development of new buildings above & behind retained frontagesThe current controls, requiring restricted controlled activity applications, fail to provide properly for the contribution the street frontages of older buildings may make to the recognised built streetscape character, and therefore don’t properly serve to maintain or enhance important & recognised amenity values.

Plan change 8 also refers to the contributions the specified buildings can make to streetscape character, rather than to the buildings in their entirety, but also give direction on development & behind these frontages.

Buildings added under plan change 8 are, on the west of the cbd:

9, 13 & 15 Albert St, the collection Stuart Galloway aggregated, along with neighbouring building West Plaza, for a comprehensive development, subsequently sold to ASX-listed Valad Property Group83 Albert St (on the corner of Kingston St), owned by DIG Investment Group85 Albert St (Radco Trading Ltd)37 & 43 Victoria St West (CH & FN Liu Family Trust), the old buildings on Victoria St spared demolition when Chase Corp bowled the rest of the block in the 1980s to develop its Finance Centre complex, and103 Victoria St (Erica Eady Trust), the former pharmacy, now a bar, on the corner of Hobson St.

And, on the east of the cbd:

8 Elliot St (the former Building Centre), on the corner of Darby St56 & 60 Fort St (refurbished buildings, converted to offices), 81 Fort St, and1, 16-20 & 32 Anzac Avenue

Earlier story:4 September 2005: Council moves to stop pre-40s demolition on K Rd as well as Queen St Valley

Want to comment? Click on The new BD Central Forum or email [email protected].

Attribution: Council meeting, agenda, story written by Bob Dey for this website.

Continue Reading

Works of Nobby Clark to go on view

Published 25 January 2007


Auckland City Libraries opens a free exhibition of the works of social commentator & delver Nobby Clark on Friday 9 February.


Nobby Clark watched a half century of drastic change in Auckland, unearthed the past and illustrated his findings. They were always fascinating, particularly for the minutiae.


He emigrated from England in 1952 and worked for most of Auckland’s ad agencies & daily newspapers until 2000. In his newspaper work, always delightful & searching, he explored the relationships between people & places and captured the humour & atmosphere of Auckland’s recent social history.


Auckland City Libraries group manager Allison Dobbie said today: “His work is also an intimate & unique record of the city’s social & physical changes, of which the ‘boom & bust’ period of the 1980s is a great example.


“In his advertising work, Mr Clark created memorable campaigns for key brands such as Teal Airways, Lion Brown, Formica and Sanitarium and helped to develop the well known New Zealand characters ‘Ches’ & ‘Dale’ through early Chesdale Cheese campaigns.”


The exhibition features paintings, sketchbooks, design portfolios, book illustrations & many original New Zealand Herald drawings. All works are on loan from the artist, but Nobby Clark has also donated his design portfolios to Auckland City Libraries. His son, Simon, has curated the exhibition.


Minister for Auckland Judith Tizard will open the exhibition on Friday 9 February. The exhibition runs Saturday 10 February-Sunday 22 April, 9.30-5 Monday-Friday, 10-4 Saturdays, noon-4 Sundays.


Want to comment? Click on The new BD Central Forum or email [email protected].


 


Attribution: Library release, story written by Bob Dey for this website.

Continue Reading

Matson gets council to look at how it handles demolition legal requirements

Published 7 May 2006


Auckland City Council’s environment, heritage & urban form committee wants a report on how it’s handling its legal requirements on demolition of heritage buildings.



This move follows an appearance in the committee’s public forum on Friday by heritage campaigner Allan Matson, who said the council hadn’t been availing itself of the opportunity to get heritage assessments.


Mr Matson said: “I’ve contended that the law says applications to demolish any building should require an assessment of heritage value. I think all the heritage has been going over the last 15 years because it hasn’t been assessed.”


He said consent to demolish an unscheduled building was a restricted controlled activity and consent had to be granted, subject to conditions, but demolishing a scheduled building was a restricted discretionary activity so consent could be declined.


However, he said: “If a building is not on the schedule, that does not mean to say it has no heritage value. The heritage schedule is, by council heritage staff’s admission, incomplete and a comprehensive audit has never been completed.”


Mr Matson said the Resource Management Act required an assessment of any potential heritage value to be included in an assessment of environmental effects “but council has not been requiring it.”


The committee will get a verbal report on its procedures on demolition of buildings in the central area and whether they’re being met in practice.


Earlier stories:


12 March 2006: Parore & Ridge get consent to bowl over their century-old Arthur St home


5 February 2006: Parore describes how century-old house falling down round family’s ears


4 October 2005: Parore & Ridge proposal challenges new anti-demolition rule


4 September 2005: Council moves to stop pre-40s demolition


29 May 2005: Plan change 163 stops residential 1 & 2 zone demolition


3 April 2005: Specific Herne Bay request included in residential 1 review


24 October 2004: Galatea Terrace development gets council OK


17 September 2004: Money allocated for review of Auckland’s special character zones


15 September 2004: Herne Bay alarm at heritage villa displacement may be followed by stricter rules


14 May 2003: Councillors deal with array of issues on the develop/preserve conflict


19 March 2000: Extra value in St Marys Bay


18 March 2000: Which adds value: retaining heritage or the new townhouse style?


 


Want to comment? Click on The new BD Central Forum or email [email protected].


 


Attribution: Company statement, story written by Bob Dey for this website.

Continue Reading
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux