KEY POINTS:
Auckland City Mayor John Banks spells out his compromise plan to save character homes
Auckland has a patchy reputation when it comes to protecting our architectural heritage. We have often equated progress with knocking things over and replacing them with so-called modern, sometimes inappropriate and too often crass developments.
This has to stop.
I'm no expert, but like many of you, I recognise a fine character home or building when I see one.
One of the great Auckland architects, Horace Massey, designed my category II Historic Places Trust home. I have also owned, restored and cared for numerous properties in our most protected areas, such as Franklin Rd in Ponsonby,
I'm also sensible enough to know it is not fair to property owners to demand that their old homes lapse into total disrepair and fall down around their ears before they are allowed to demolish and rebuild with something sympathetic to the neighbourhood.
That's the harsh reality of rules under Plan Change 163 brought in by the last council.
These rules, designed to protect pre-1940s heritage properties in Residential 1 and character homes in Residential 2 zones, were well-meaning, albeit blunt, modifications to the district plan. But, as is all too often the case, the devil is in the detail and in the practical application.
Aspects of Plan Change 163 relating to controls on demolition and new buildings in Residential 2 areas are facing legal challenge in the Environment Court by three Remuera lawyers, Derek Nolan, Brian Latimour and Tim Burcher.
And if it wasn't for the vigilance of journalist Bernard Orsman at the New Zealand Herald alerting me to an eleventh hour deal, we wouldn't even be having this debate. The rules on Residential 2 would have been surrendered to those lawyers.
Auckland City Council's lawyers have advised us we are on very rocky ground defending the blanket application of those controls. Independent legal experts like David Kirkpatrick concur.
I do not agree with the three Remuera lawyers. They are, of course, entitled to take this legal action. It was always on the cards, given the blunt instrument fashioned by the previous council which is neither sound nor sensible and arguably not legally sustainable.
Everyone I have spoken to believes there is room for a compromise. As prominent planning lawyer Richard Brabant concedes in the Herald on July 29 "some houses did not meet the standard for demolition or removal". That's why the council officers sought to recommend changes to the Residential 2 rules. They believe that in some Residential 2 streets demolition controls should be lifted. Some have called the criteria we used to make these assessments too "fine-grained". That's fair enough - and this sort of informed and passionate debate is healthy for our city.
I have listened to the comments reported in articles and expressed in letters to the Herald.
While the council has given Aucklanders until August 7 to make their views heard, I have a few suggestions I would like to add to this important public debate.
We are listening and open to any sensible and legally sustainable changes to the council's proposals. In addition, we could extend the list of character properties that should retain the Residential 2 demolition controls. We could consider partnering with existing homeowners to protect specific properties.
We can also look at a better set of assessment criteria against which to consider such applications. None of us wants to commit people to living in houses that are falling down.
In any case, new buildings would still be required to meet assessment criteria to ensure they followed good urban design principles and were sympathetic to your streets and suburbs.
After consulting with you, the Environment Court expects us to arrive at something fair and workable that protects the character of Auckland and recognises the rights of individual property owners. That's why we need to find this balance between heritage character and private property rights.
Let me make it clear: I am for the protection of heritage character homes. I am against seeing beautiful and historic homes consigned to a wrecking ball. However, I recognise that common sense must prevail if we are to settle on a robust set of rules that are not open to further legal challenge.
