Plan to shift Deco houses 'an insult'

The Turua St buildings. Photo / Natalie Slade

The Art Deco Society has slated the Auckland Council's reasons for refusing to place a heritage order on three Spanish mission-style houses at St Heliers village which are threatened by a development.

It is calling for a review, claiming councillors were not fully advised about the council's rights as a heritage protection authority.

Society spokeswoman Dorothy McHattie also said the council's three alternatives - which included shifting some of the buildings to the village green - were an "insult to the intelligence" of more than 1000 petitioners and 250 residents who protested on site.

"How can the council protect the character of the village by moving some of it to a park," she said.

"Why would people give up their precious green so a developer could wreck the character of the street?"

On December 16, the council voted 14-7 against placing a heritage order on the houses in Turua St, as well as two Victorian cottages.

Mayor Len Brown and chief executive Doug McKay sought time to consider alternatives over the holiday break and developer Ancona Group agreed to suspend work on the 1930s trio.

The mayor, who voted against the heritage order, met Ancona Group representatives.

He said the company had a legitimate right to redevelop its land and people should remain realistic about the results of next week's talks between the council and the developer.

But the society, after consulting prominent environmental lawyer Michael Savage, said councillors were scared off by "inaccurate and incomplete" staff advice.

This was denied by Mr McKay yesterday.

Mr McKay said the council did not have a reasonable basis on which to implement a heritage order, which would give immediate interim protection.

"The properties have no heritage values identified and no evidence appears to be available to support a heritage order."

He said the council's legal advice was that the Environment Court would probably set aside a heritage order on appeal and award costs against the council on the basis that it had frustrated a previously issued valid demolition consent.

The society's legal advice, however, is that the council has the right to invoke its heritage powers without fear of being sued or forced to buy property.

Councillor Cameron Brewer, who voted for the order, said the six-year process deciding the fate of the homes had been "a debacle from start to finish".

For too long, he said, people had been promised protection of character and heritage values, only to have the likes of developers' private plan changes and the Environment Court move the goalposts.

COUNCIL'S OPTIONS

* Do nothing and let demolition go ahead.

* Relocate the buildings (estimated to be $2 million).

* Buy the site and buildings (estimated at $5 million, plus developer's costs)