KEY POINTS:
When thousands of home-owners get a form letter from Auckland City Council proclaiming their beloved villa or bungalow is officially a pile of crap and no longer worthy of official protection, is it any wonder there's a backlash? Across the inner suburbs, people are rising up, demanding the
city rediscover its backbone and start defending the new conservation controls developed in 2005.
It comes as little surprise that the bureaucrats first tried to water down this brave new world in secret. No doubt it would have been embarrassing to have to admit that once again they buckled at the sound of a loud boo from a glass-tower lawyer or two.
What were they afraid of this time?
In her confidential report of 21 January 2008 to councillors, recommending they give in, planning chief Penny Pirrit wrote that "the appellants have stated that if the council does not accept the proposed terms of settlement they will contest the entire plan change". Those "proposed terms of settlement" were, in summary, to abandon the new requirement that pre-1940s buildings in residential zone 2 could not be demolished without a permit.
Unbelievably, the officers' big fear was that the new stricter conservation controls wouldn't stand up in court. Not only would legal action be "extremely costly", said Ms Pirrit, but there would be "a risk that the Environment Court could find in favour of the appellants and delete all or a large part of the plan change ... "
First, is it too much to expect that with all the in-house experience and outside consultants at its disposal, the largest territorial authority in the land could have produced a plan change as major as this, and get it right? Second, if they did get it right, why play chicken at the first sign of trouble?
In recent years there's been growing disquiet in the gentrified inner suburbs like Ponsonby, Herne Bay and Parnell that developers are ruining the ambience and character of a whole street of villas or Victorian cottages, by bowling one or more and replacing them with a discordant concrete-block monstrosity. Unlike inner Wellington suburbs like Mt Victoria, Thorndon and Newtown, where a permit is required to demolish or remove any pre-1930s house, in Auckland City there was nothing. Plan change 163 was Auckland City's belated attempt to play catch-up.
Demolition controls were introduced in Residential 1 zone to protect the historic form, buildings and streetscape established in the late 1800s and early 1900s in places like Parnell and Ponsonby, and in Residential 2, the interwar "garden" suburbs like Mt Eden and Epsom.
It's the Residential 2 controls that the opponents want relaxed or removed, and they're threatening to challenge the Residential 1 controls in court as well if they don't get their way beforehand.
No doubt this sort of strutting and chest-puffing is a common negotiating ploy in the world of pin-stripe wheeling and dealing. But I'd like to think the people on white chargers representing the heritage of the city can puff right back with the best of them tossing off witty ripostes like "see you in court".
It's not as though the plan change was a spur of the moment thing.
There were lengthy hearings, before a team of experienced commissioners, chaired by David McGregor, a senior partner at law firm Bell Gully. In their decision, Mr McGregor pointed out that the Resource Management Act does permit possible restrictions on what people do with their private property without compensation, where justified. He wrote, "Our view ... was that the conservation of the heritage/landscape qualities of identified residential areas was justified."
As to criticism of the "blanket approach" of the new restrictions, he argued that "these special character zones" were considered "in the context of the whole spectrum of residential zones in Auckland City and [we] were satisfied that a range of development opportunities and densities ensures a balance of opportunity for all forms of residential living within the city."
The council's heritage manager, George Farrant, was involved in the development of the 2005 plan change but says he is "too busy" to work on the revision. He refuses to say what he thinks of the planned changes because "it would put me in clear opposition to other people in the organisation".
What sort of organisation is it that sidelines the expert for obviously telling them the truth?
The council has asked for public feedback by Thursday, August 7. If you want to stop the destruction of Auckland's heritage, now's your chance.
