Rudman's city: Judgment threatens old places' survival

When Robyn Langwell and Kevin Ireland took the Department of Conservation to court in March, all they wanted was an order evicting DoC from some old Army huts on the North Head Historic Reserve.

A month later, Justice Judith Potter gave them that, plus, say crown lawyers, a whole lot more.

Legal opinions now bouncing around DoC and Historic Places Trust offices have it that the 50-year-old Army huts are the least of the heritage industry's worries.

What Justice Potter has done is question the legitimacy of leases and concessions on historic buildings on reserve land throughout the country.

Two examples being highlighted are the old Auckland Customhouse, now an upmarket retail emporium, and Wellington's historic wooden Government Buildings, at present being used as Victoria University's law school.

Such is the concern that yesterday Conservation Minister Sandra Lee agreed to her department appealing against the North Head decision in the High Court. If that were to fail, the talk is of legislative solutions.

The case of the two Devonport residents was simple. In February 1999, DoC tarted up some abandoned naval barracks on North Head and occupied them as the department's Auckland headquarters.

Ms Langwell and Mr Ireland, local residents who thought the "eyesore" buildings would go with the departure of the Navy in 1996, challenged the occupation as unlawful.

Justice Potter agreed. She ruled that under the Reserves Act 1977, the right of DoC to occupy buildings on a historic reserve was limited to their being used "for the proper and beneficial management, protection and maintenance of the reserve."

In explanation of her judgment, she outlined the general purposes of the act.

These were to provide for the protection, preservation and management in perpetuity of areas and things possessing historic, cultural, educational, community or other special features.

She also pointed to the mandatory requirement "that historic reserves shall be administered and maintained that the structures, objects and sites illustrate with integrity the history of New Zealand."

She concluded: "It must be questionable that Second World War buildings comprising an NCO dormitory and officers' quarters will be preserved for the stated purposes if adapted and used as contemporary administrative offices."

Then comes the paragraph that has sent shudders through the heritage industry.

"The pragmatism which underpinned the decision to adapt the two buildings at North Head, while perhaps having meritorious aspects from the department's perspective, does not meet the purposes of the act."

The pragmatic approach to old buildings which Justice Potter finds unlawful has been a cornerstone of both DoC's and the Historic Places Trust's preservation policy.

Called "adaptive re-use," it is seen as the only practical and economic way to preserve the country's old buildings.

On North Head, short of letting the buildings out commercially, the only other option to DoC occupation was decay, vandalism and eventual removal. For Ms Langwell and Mr Ireland, the last option would have been fine.

But what about such examples as the old Customhouse and Wellington's old Government Building? The old Customhouse spent years as a decaying ruin until it was given a new lease of commercial life.

Crown lawyers are advising that Justice Potter's ruling implies that the only lawful role under the act for this building is to turn it back into a customs office. That or leave it empty.

The same goes for the former Government office building in Wellington. DoC insiders compare it, all spruced up and full of new charm, with the rundown and empty old High Court next door, for which no use has yet been found.

Another example is the old Taupo courthouse, built in the 1880s by the armed constabulary as a hall. In recent times it was given to the Historic Places Trust and moved on to a historic reserve nearby to make way for a new courthouse. Lovingly maintained, it's now a popular kohanga reo - a function that has nothing to do with the maintenance of the historic reserve it's on.

Sounds a bit crazy?

In a word, yes. After all, it's not as though the policy of "adaptive re-use" is a matter of controversy. How else are we to keep old buildings alive?

But it does seem slack that no one at the time this innovative policy was introduced checked - and duly altered - the legislation to ensure its legality.