KEY POINTS:
City zoning changes introduced in 2005 to preserve Auckland's old neighbourhoods were made with the best of intentions. Public sentiment, aroused by the bulldozing of many of the city's finest older homes, clearly favoured the placing of a higher priority on heritage.
Unfortunately, worthy ambition was not matched by worthwhile policy. The council adopted a blanket approach which dictated that resource consent would be required for the demolition or removal of any house built before 1940 in the zones named Residential 1 and 2.
Broad-brush policies are rarely practical. Nor, in this case, was it likely to withstand legal scrutiny. This has caused a council rethink and what appears to be a reasonable compromise.
The council proposes that houses worthy of heritage protection must meet a 'garden suburb' test. This means there must be at least 60 per cent of pre-1940 homes visible to their street, or a minimum of three "distinctly original" homes in a group.
Homes that do not meet the criteria can be demolished without a resource consent. A council planner and architect have reviewed the zone to see which streets, or parts of streets, warrant heritage protection. A council map based on their analysis suggests protection of pre-1940s homes will virtually cease in St Heliers and Kohimarama, and demolitions will be possible across large areas of Remuera, Herne Bay and Epsom.
The key development in this is, finally, the introduction of a case-by-case approach. It was always somewhat absurd to say that every house built before 1940 deserved protection. That is equivalent to suggesting all houses constructed before that date had special value or merit. In fact, homes built before 1940 were, as at any time, a mixture of the good, the indifferent and the ugly. It is ridiculous, for example, to suggest state houses warrant protection. Equally, the horse has already bolted in suburbs such as St Heliers, where most high-quality heritage buildings have disappeared.
Such points were emphasised by three Remuera lawyers who challenged the council's policy. Earlier this year, they hatched a secret deal with the council to allow demolition within a group of up to 7600 houses in heritage suburbs. While this was thwarted by a last-minute intervention by the mayor, John Banks, the legal difficulty raised by the inconsistencies in the council's policy remained. A court challenge would threaten not only the Residential 2 zone but inner-city Residential 1 zone suburbs, such as Ponsonby, Grey Lynn and Mt Eden, which are much different in character from the likes of St Heliers. The proposed compromise reduces that risk while placing the Residential 2 zone on a more rational basis.
Heritage groups will not see it that way, of course. They will talk of sellouts, and question whether the garden suburb test will be treated with disdain by developers and council officers alike, and soon be evaded with ease. But such concern underestimates a change in public sentiment over the past few years.
People have become increasingly aware that Auckland has already lost too much of its heritage. It is also widely recognised that the dynamism of city development need not entail the destruction of older neighbourhoods. Only an extremely cavalier council would try to ride roughshod over this emerging consensus.
Refining the city's planning rules to pay due regard to that sentiment while also establishing a legally robust structure has not been straightforward.
Now, however, it appears a suitable framework is within reach. Each house would be assessed on its own merits, not protected by an arbitrary device. When warranted, houses will be protected. When not, they can be replaced by something better.
