KEY POINTS:
Auckland City's leading elected representative is, it seems, regarded by senior council staff as something of a disposable irritant. The officers do not want Mayor John Banks debating and possibly disturbing their important decision-making. Better to keep him in the dark about deals hatched behind closed doors, revealing nothing to either him or the public until the decision is signed and sealed.
The technique, as evidenced by a secret agreement that would have allowed the demolition of 7600 homes in heritage suburbs, makes a mockery of the normal local-government precepts of consultation and transparency. Quite understandably, Mr Banks has reacted with anger and disbelief.
The officials' arrogance might be explained by the revolving door that has been the Auckland mayoralty. Three-year terms have been the norm of late, a feature that may have encouraged a belief that, in the interests of continuity, officialdom should assume command. Added sustenance for that notion might have been supplied by the idea that the mayor is little more than a figurehead. The real work is done by the dominant party and council officials.
Even that reasoning can hardly excuse the heritage debacle, however. This was not a case of continuity, but a drastic shift from an initiative of the Hubbard mayoralty. However dubious the notion of protecting all pre-1940 homes, city development general manager John Duthie had been told by the last council to resist efforts by a handful of property owners opposed to the heritage preservation in suburbs zoned Residential 1 and 2.
Now he would be effectively bowing to many of their demands by apparently striking a compromise that would have seen the controls on demolition in Residential 2 areas overturned to maintain controls in Residential 1. It seems not to have occurred to Mr Duthie or the majority of Citizens & Ratepayers councillors on the city development committee, who gave him the go-ahead, that the previous council's policy on heritage homes had popular support.
Whatever the deficiencies of Mr Hubbard's mayoralty, there was no doubt about the widespread unease over the bulldozing of many of the city's finest older homes and the failure to preserve character neighbourhoods. The public consultation that preceded the new rules confirmed as much. Mr Banks has obeyed that sentiment. "We could have seen hundreds of beautiful pre-1940s homes across this city being demolished and replaced with crass modern architecture," he said when the Herald alerted him to the deal.
Clearly, given the widespread interest, this was a subject that demanded public disclosure and consultation. Equally clearly, Mr Banks should have been in the loop. He is not the type of mayor who restricts himself to cutting ribbons and acting as a cheerleader for the city. It may be that he was kept ignorant of this deal because he was considered likely to oppose it and rally the inevitable opposition.
Then again, it may be the officials' usual mode of operation. Certainly, Mr Hubbard was on the receiving end of this, none more so than when he had to step in to save the suffrage centenary memorial in Khartoum Place after women's groups and several prominent dames expressed outrage. Nor is taking council staff to task over heritage matters a novelty for Mr Banks. Earlier this week, he criticised them for allowing a historic Green Lane Hospital building to be marked for demolition for a carpark.
He needs to keep complaining until the city's senior staff understand they are not a law unto themselves.
