Received by mail this morning, the Decision for the resource consent application (LUC-2014-203) to paint John Wickliffe House in The Exchange.
Phil Page (legal counsel) represented the applicant, Nick Baker of Baker Garden Architects, consulting architect and agent for the Plaza Property Trust.
The final consideration of the application, which took into account all information presented at the Hearing, was held during the public-excluded portion of the Hearing. The Committee reached the following decision after considering the application under the statutory framework of the Resource Management Act 1991. In addition, a site visit was undertaken during the public-excluded portion of the Hearing. The Committee inspected the site and some other buildings referred to during the hearing and this added physical reality to the Committee’s considerations.
That, pursuant to Sections 34A and 104C and after having regard to Part II matters and Section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991, The Dunedin City Council declines consent to the restricted discretionary activity to paint John Wickliffe House on the site at 265 Princes Street, Dunedin, being that land legally described as Section 6 Block XLIV Town of Dunedin held in Computer Freehold Register OT 18A/1024.
Right of Appeal — In accordance with Section 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the applicant and/or any submitter may appeal to the Environment Court against the whole or any part of this decision within 15 working days of the notice of this decision being received.
█ Download: John Wickliffe House LUC-2014-203 Decision 12 11 14
Related Post and Comments:
17.7.14 John Wickliffe House – application to paint exterior
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
*Images: Baker Garden Architects – proposed paint scheme; deltapsych.co.nz – John Wickliffe House, existing surfaces
34 responses to “John Wickliffe House, 265 Princes Street LUC-2014-203 | Decision”
Good decision: “The Dunedin City Council declines consent to the restricted discretionary activity to paint John Wickliffe House “. Now don’t flip-flop at the Appeal!
That’s two in a row that Phil has lost. Does he work on a money back guarantee ?
A demolition order would have been nice. A hideous building.
Aw shucks Peter, it’s not that hideous. It’s just another generic checked-shirt style of big building. They’re much of a muchness, but some are uglier than that one.
Much better then that it’s not turned into Darth Vader.
The information produced at hearing and provided here is public domain.
I thank construction manager Russell Lund for agreeing to act as expert witness at the reconvened hearing on 23 October. I acknowledge and appreciate Russell’s generosity of time, research, industry expertise and targeted networking, and the quality of his consultation and analysis brought to task.
█ Download: Statement of Evidence Russell Lund 23 10 14 (PDF, 2 MB)
[text as follows]
Sikagard 740 W – 04.12 repl 11.11 – PDS
Panel Specification (Hocken Collections. Ref: MS-2759/017)
Miller White & Dunn aggregate precast panel details
Drawing No. 1249 | Sheet Nos. S24, S25 and S26
Dalziel Architects Collection — Hocken Collections (File Ref: ARC-0520)
For assistance to Russell Lund’s evidence: special thanks to Archivist David Murray for supplying the panel specification and informal reference shots of the wider series of large drawing sheets held at Hocken Collections.
Grateful acknowledgement to Stephen Macknight (structural engineer) for the expertise, scope, applicability and directness of his independent oral submissions to the Hearings.
The independent submissions of Michael Findlay and David Murray to the first hearing strongly reinforced and were complementary to the views of all opposing the application; the written submission of Rosemary McQueen, opposing, is also acknowledged for clarity of message.
Awaited, any notice of appeal within the next 15 working days.
DCC’s building fix refusal disappoints
The owners of John Wickliffe House are livid the Dunedin City Council has declined their resource consent application to repair and paint the building.
Plaza level detail to John Wickliffe Square – prior to trial painting (in black, appearing plasticised) of the support columns nearest the building entry; the photograph also shows the two panel alignments for the building as a whole. The building is clad in aggregate (stone) precast panels.
John Wickliffe House, 265 Princes Street
[DCC Webmap – aerial Jan/Feb 2013]
The decision of the DCC panel to refuse the John Wickliffe House owners a consent to repair and paint the concrete facings of the building seems somewhat hypocritical to me. I understand that many purists believe that a building should remain true to its original design concepts in perpetuity as a matter of integrity. But the owners have a maintenance problem to deal to and it seems a reasonable expectation that they be allowed to do this in an effective and cost effective way. It should not be that a panel of inexpert people can foil these aims. The building is relatively modern so it is hard to accept that it need comply with historical considerations. This more-so as precedents have already been set. The Forsyth Barr building comes immediately to mind. Then there is the DCC itself, seriously compromised with its own Civic Centre building constructed in ‘fair faced’ concrete exterior which has been painted. Then there is the Central Library building also constructed in ‘fair faced concrete’ outer facings. These have been garishly painted in red and black tonings on the Moray Place frontage which is probably a far greater departure from the original concept than that envisaged for the John Wickliffe. I would think that the owners trust would have every right to challenge the ruling on the basis of consistency if nothing else.
Calvin – read Russell Lund’s astute evidence before you cause the applicant to fork out WAY TOO MUCH MONEY every 15 years to scaffold and paint the damn thing. It is more economical to do sympathetic repair (in like kind) for the medium and longer term (even though as the Commissioners state, cost is not an assessment matter).
The decision is an excellent one. If you won’t take heed of what Mr Lund says in detail, which is closely atuned to what Steve Macknight says independently, and what in principle every other submitter had stated to hearing – including (by report) Salmond Reed Architects – then I will believe the crap ODT printed today from the applicant/ ‘friends’.
I can get heated on this one for good reason.
Huh, “fork out WAY TOO MUCH MONEY every 15 years to scaffold and paint the damn thing” – and that’s in today’s conditions. Imagine what Health’nSafety regs may be dreamed up in the next 15 years! All scaffolding wrapped in plastic foam in case anyone bangs into any part of it or stubs a toe…. oh dear not plastic, it’s Not Sustainable. Wrapped in a special hi-loft wool wadding, perhaps.
It’s only “an effective and cost effective way” in the short term, it won’t stay tidily repainted. Painted buildings don’t. The alternative “invisible mending” won’t look shabby in a few years.
Har har, exactly !!
Hype certainly has a point. But then won’t the National Mortgage building, Steve MacKnight’s excellent restoration and the latest Stavely Building all be faced with the same dilemma? Again, whose right is it to dictate one owner’s obligation?
Calvin, buildings that have been painted, that may have been designed to be painted, will indeed have to be repainted, over and over. Between times, depending on the economy and fashion (currently heritage buildings are desirable and owners earn considerable kudos for fixing them up structurally and aesthetically) they may become awfully shabby, just look at the ratty old wrecks that have recently been re-loved. A few years ago they looked frightful and had been looking frightful for many years.
A building that was designed to be “naked” and hasn’t ever been painted is another matter, and it’s not just architecture, cityscape etc values. It’s commonsense. There are apparently not many panels that require mending, but because one mending technique would have been very visible the owners wanted to paint the whole damn thing. For now it would have been styly, but in 20 years? Would it have been repainted before it got to the shabby peeling stage, or would it have looked slummy and downgraded the rest of the ‘hood? It is not in the interests of the city to foster downgrading, there’s enough of it that happens anyhow.
Anyway, it’s not as if the very visible mending was the only, or best, remedy available. So why OK the most intrusive with the most adverse probable future effects? I think they were wise to nix that proposal.
Elizabeth – I know you get heated on these things architectural, I know nothing about these things, I was only pointing out the inconsistencies of the decision. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If it’s OK for the DCC to paint its own buildings then how can it stand in judgment? That the applicant may or may not have to fork out “WAY TOO MUCH MONEY”, is a decision that rests with the owners. It all smacks of “Big Brother” knows best. If it doesn’t impinge on the safety of the building or substantially change its integrity what is the problem? People with ‘no dog in the fight’ should butt out. Neither Mr Lund nor Steve MacKnight have any financial interest in the project, just opinions.
No no, Calvin. It’s about the construction of the panels and the correct methodology for building repair and maintenance. The council is the regulatory body that has to deal with the community-decreed district plan rules which have regard for townscape and assessment matters, the RMA, ICOMOS Charter (DCC is a signatory to the Charter), etc etc. I did not fight this on heritage grounds. Others gave that aspect some weight. I asked in the construction expert, who gladly took up the challenge and established some essential facts running counter to the applicant’s assumptions based on poor or no research.
Elizabeth, I don’t disbelieve you nor do I dispute your contentions. I’m simply pointing out the inconsistencies when the governing authority can do one thing but deny another from doing likewise. That is not democracy but bloodymindedness. The applicants are entitled to feel aggrieved.
Rubbish, Calvin. They want it black on a fashion whim and haven’t done their homework; they’ve relied on proprietary advice which is not independent and are prepared to offer that up as fact. They most certainly have no condition report for the building which was my contention from the start. Good building stewardship starts with a condition report from a suitably qualified structural engineer. The applicant’s consulting engineer, and their consulting architect, hadn’t even sourced the building specifications or plan drawings!
Until the evidence is read then the ensuing argument has no feet and is not grounded (since yesterday views have been rising steadily for the JWH post and comments, and the home page where it sits).
John Wickliffe House is a dump that stands out in the historic surrounding area like a sore thumb whether it is painted or not. In fact, it would probably look more stunning, and interesting, painted a shocking pink.
Remembering the old stock exchange building doesn’t help. Now THAT was a real delight, but it “went unfashionable” and wasn’t worth maintenance, at the time. I suppose JWH was clean, modern, uncluttered, practical, and at the time a style leader in the mouldy-oldy area. If we’d been Auckland and prosperous at the time of Chase Corporation, when mirrorglass was widely believed to be a key indicator of Progress…….
Peter, try looking at JWH as a flaw in a genuine handmade rug, reminding us of how beautiful the other surroundings are and how much we should give thanks to Allah, the local economy, those visionaries who weren’t bandwagon’d to New Is Best, Old Should Go (irrespective of quality). Give thanks to the building owners who face big challenges because they see worth beyond quick returns and are prepared to make the sacrifices. Give thanks to Dunedin for being slow. The slow movement is catching on – food, lifestyle, using time to gain quality. Instant gratification isn’t going to become naff everywhere, Never mind, there are hundreds of thousands of IG environments for them as wants’em. Dunedin, boutique city for people with other priorities, that’s a nice niche to encourage.
I take both your points. I have taken the time to read Mr Lund’s submission. Slept on it, and this morning will go and look at the building as it is. I see what is implied about the intent of the structure and its design factors. Yes, it would somewhat change its presence to be coloured in any way other than the natural polished aggregate as constructed. That, of course is only my opinion from looking at it objectively. That is the problem with buildings, it exemplifies the maxim that truly, ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’. Peter’s comment this morning makes that abundantly clear. It seems that the owners, for whatever reasons, have been convinced by their advisers that the most economical and practical approach was to patch and disguise, thereby changing the presence of a very substantial structure. Whereas Mr Lund has pointed out quite clearly that it needn’t be so. I guess on balance that the panel has weighed up the pros and cons and come to what may well be the correct decision. More by good luck than by any expertise I might add.
Calvin, it is a hard building to like. Most will agree. Nevertheless it is tenanted; and has need for capital repair (noting the deferred maintenance).
I removed some of my comments last night but have now restored them.
It’s better to save energy for any appeal and thus dealing to points of law.
Bravo, D. P. Pedersen.
Noticed activity around this post lately. Specifically the decision. Let’s see what surfaces.
ODT 25.11.14 (page 8)
“The professional advice received….” as if there is only one way of achieving the desired result – repair of the panels.
Perhaps this time it’s true.
Alternatively, there are several different products and procedures that could be employed but for some reason it has been deemed desirable to present only one as if it really is The Only One.
‘Scuse cynicism. It’s been one of those weeks, already.
The building owners have yet to survey and assess the aggregate precast panels requiring repair, to determine the scope and type(s) of repairs required. We wait, and we wait. However, any further business around the Decision itself – if on appeal – will be weighted to analysis of District Plan requirements, RMA matters and case law precedent. I’m not sure Mr Offen has a personal feel for that, but the building owners and their counsel may.
So where did JW House owners’ representative Tony Offen get his info from, Nanny Whipp’s Ouija Board? He’s giving out like he knows all the answers already.
Good question, supposedly a combination of loose thinking/discussion via the owners’ architect (Baker Garden), their engineer (Heenan), Titis Waterproofing, and Equus. But that’s not enough, not for the surfaces of this building or its contextual relationships in the precinct.
Fortune 500 cookies won’t help Mr Offen now, nor will page flicking at Wikipedia.
Plaza Property Trust v Dunedin City Council – John Wickliffe House
Notice of Appeal to Environment Court (dated 2.12.14) against decision on Resource Consent, received by mail this morning from Mr Page for the appellant.
Why are we not surprised.
█ Download: Notice of Appeal 2.12.14 – John Wickliffe House (PDF, 872 KB)
Elizabeth Kerr and Steve Macknight have independently registered as RMA s274 parties to appeal.
Recently, the parties were set a date for mediation, to be held in late March.
### ODT Online Wed, 18 Mar 2015
Mediation move over paint dispute
By Vaughan Elder
The owners of John Wickliffe House have appealed a Dunedin City Council decision to decline their resource consent to paint and repair the building. […] The next step was for the parties to meet for court-assisted mediation at the end of this month. If mediation was unsuccessful, it would go to a hearing.
ODT 7.1.15 (page 14)
John Wickliffe House
Building Stories: Documenting the Modernist buildings of Dunedin