KEY POINTS:
The fight to save century-old Building 5 at Green Lane Hospital from the wreckers has received a major boost with the Auckland Regional Council's decision to join the appeal against the demolition permit granted this year.
Until now, it's been left to a gallant band of health workers
to stand between the Auckland District Health Board's bulldozers and the grand plan to turn this heritage building into an asphalt carpark. But it's been a lonely struggle, not helped by Auckland City officials who bowed to ADHB's protests and removed the building from its list of proposed new scheduled buildings.
In a confidential report that swayed councillors, ARC staff are claiming the building is worth at least one-third more points than the fail mark of 49 Auckland City heritage staff gave it.
Sandra Coney, chairwoman for parks and heritage, says the points allocated were "woefully" under what they should have been, particularly in the areas of historic context and social importance.
She says the old buildings at Green Lane should be regarded as an asset to the hospital, not a burden. The 1890 Costley Home for the Aged Poor and the adjacent 1907 male infirmary ward - now blandly known as Building 5 - represent the days when private citizens provided hospital and health care through philanthropy.
More recently, says Ms Coney, the very assertive white deco structure of the early 1940s was built at a proud period of social provision, where the state went out of its way to create a healthy, prosperous egalitarian society.
She says the old buildings are not purpose-built for the kind of clinical delivery we have today, but the City Hospital is there for that.
She points to the redevelopment of the downtown Britomart precinct as an example of making a feature of the old which is attractive to potential users.
The ARC is somewhat of a late entrant into the business of protecting our built heritage, but better now than never. Ms Coney says the regional body has obligations under both the regional policy statement, and the 2003 amendments to the Resource Management Act deeming the protection of our historic heritage as "a matter of national importance".
Despite the furore, the health board continues to cry poor, claiming it's broke when it comes to old buildings. Alarmingly, a report in last week's Central Leader suggests the protected Costley block's future also looks grim.
Last week Associate Heritage Minister Judith Tizard issued a school-marmy press release telling Auckland councils that "local council must be the lead agency in protecting heritage buildings". But when the barbarians are poised to destroy, we need more than a pep talk from the only agency with power to muscle the health board into line.
A good start might be for Ms Tizard to send Labour's friend, board chairman Pat Snedden, a copy of her department's "Policy for Government Departments' Management of Historic Heritage 2004". It was released with much hoopla on August 31 of that year accompanied by a statement from her good self headed: "Government to lead by example in care of heritage properties."
It begins: "The Government has adopted new standards to ensure its historic heritage properties are well cared for. Government departments have a large number of heritage properties in their care. It is important that we set a high standard in the maintenance and upkeep of these properties."
She hoped "this initiative will provide a useful model for other owners of heritage property, such as local government, public institutions and the private sector".
No doubt it will be argued that the health board isn't a true government department. But given it is fully funded by government, if it isn't a government department, it's the next worst thing.
Mr Snedden has been shamed by the public outcry into stalling the destruction for two years while he seeks a "middle way". Ms Tizard should send him a copy of the 2004 policy and tell him he's supposed to be setting an example ... or else!
