Crackdown on teacher-only days labelled a "kick in the guts", prescription rates for puberty blockers under scrutiny and excitement grows for F1 as Kiwi Liam Lawson joins the grid.
Legal proceedings over an attempt to demolish a 1920s Californian-style bungalow in Epsom are headed for the High Court next year.
A decision this month from the Environment Court’s Justice Jeff Smith said the matter would proceed because of an appeal so although consent was granted, no workcould take place in the meantime.
Clair Connor, represented by Russell Bartlett KC, owns the Crescent Rd bungalow near Cornwall Park.
Auckland Council lists the home and land value as $3.8 million. She wants to demolish it and build a new home for herself and her ageing parents and went to the Environment Court.
Opponents of the demolition of 22 Crescent Rd, Epsom, from left to right, Character Coalition member John Burns, and residents Susie Wolf and Claire Colbert. Photo / Sylvie Whinray
Up against her are many of her neighbours, two of whom have hired a specialist resource management litigator Bronwyn Carruthers KC.
Heritage New Zealand, the Character Coalition made up of 60 heritage and community groups and the heritage team at Auckland Council have been involved in the proceedings.
In a decision dated September 12, Justice Smith in the Environment Court granted consent to demolish the old home and build a new home but said that could not occur until the High Court heard the appeal against it.
Sally Hughes, coalition chairwoman, said today after the decision was issued that her group was appealing work at the Crescent Rd site because of the precedent it could set for other homes in special character areas.
Clair Connor's 1920s bungalow she wants to demolish to build a new house. Photo / Sylvie Whinray
Her group was relieved that action had been temporarily stayed. That means Connor can’t go ahead and demolish “but only because we applied for that”, Hughes said.
Many people bought in special character areas because that’s where they want to live, Hughes said.
“People have had to go through huge consent processes to make modifications for homes in such areas.
“But if people can just bowl a house, it will erode the special character area. A new building is not in keeping with existing houses in older areas.”
Hughes anticipates the High Court hearing early next year.
The coalition’s John Burns said demolishing a fine example of a California bungalow and replacing it would devalue the special character of the area.
Burns said the September 12 decision contained conditions but the more substantive decision was issued in August.
He was particularly concerned about one paragraph in the August 12 decision which said: “This application was properly dealt with by council as a non-notified application in the first instance and the consent was properly granted.”
Burns said the basis of the coalition’s appeal to the High Court was that that wasn’t the case.
The Herald’s Bernard Orsman reported last year how Connor had sought resource consent to demolish the single-storey home with a 1990s extension and replace it with a two-storey “carefully designed” home with bungalow-period architectural features, a swimming pool, pool pavilion, and a three-car garage with a loft bedroom for her parents.
Her planning application said remediating and renovating the house is cost prohibitive and replacing it was the only feasible option.
A heritage assessment for Connor said the new house related to neighbouring properties and enhanced the streetscape character.
Connor has previously refused to discuss the case, sending a statement via her lawyer.
Instructing solicitor Peter Spring said his client Clair Connor had no comment to make about the situation at this time.
Anne Gibson has been the Herald’s property editor for 24 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.
