KEY POINTS:
Blunt instruments rarely deliver acceptable results. So it is with the district plan changes introduced by the Auckland City Council in 2005 that required resource consents for the demolition or removal of houses built before 1940 in the city's residential 1 and 2 zones.
This delivered an
almost mystical significance to the year 1940, even though it was not a date synonymous with a spectacular decline in architectural innovation or building standards. In one swoop, houses built before that time were decreed to have special merit and value.
This makes little sense. In any period, a mixture of good, bad and indifferent buildings are constructed. They should be considered solely on that basis, and they should be considered case by case. No bad or indifferent house should warrant special protection.
It seems inconceivable that in 60 years there will be public support for the notion that all houses built before 2008 should be protected. Over the past few years, as in any era, much dross has been erected, as well as a number of architectural gems. Only the latter will deserve special attention.
Given that, it is hardly surprising that a group of lawyers wants to leaven the impact and inconsistencies of the district plan changes. According to the council, they are prepared to contest the entire plan change in the Environment Court if a settlement incorporating their recommendations is not reached.
Quite justifiably, the method of reaching that settlement with senior council officials - behind closed doors and without consultation with either the public or Mayor John Banks - has been criticised. Unfortunately, however, that has detracted from the worthiness of their case.
This, among other things, questions the rationale for protecting state housing in the residential 2 zone and seeks a review of the extent and location of that zone. Both are legitimate points. State houses, however sturdily built, hardly qualify for heritage status.
Futhermore, there seems little point in offering special protection to a suburb such as St Heliers when the vast majority of high-quality heritage buildings have been bulldozed. It bears no resemblance in character to inner-city suburbs such as Grey Lynn and Freemans Bay, which are part of the residential 1 zone.
The lawyers' deal also proposed continued controls to prevent the spread of a mish-mash of styles, the product of a period during which too many of the city's finest older homes disappeared under the jackhammer. New buildings would have to be built in sympathy with existing houses in character streets.
Equally, it would be reasonable to expect external renovations and alterations to be in tune with their surroundings. That, however, is a long way from imposing strict conditions on property owners simpy because their homes were built before 1940.
This, regrettably, is not an isolated case of such arbitrariness. Another example claiming the council's attention is Building 5 at Green Lane Hospital, which the Auckland District Health Board wants to knock over to establish a carpark.
It was initially dated 1915 by the council. That pre-1916 status garnered crucial points towards the warranting of heritage protection. When, later, it was deemed to be a 1917 building, it became ripe for demolition.
There is no rhyme or reason for this. Building 5 should be assessed on its individual merit and value. So should all buildings, and that should be the starting point for a refining of the city's planning rules.
Protecting grand landmark houses is a worthy ambition but the swingeing approach of the previous council is not the way to achieve it.