Tag Archives: Heritage Schedule 25.1

Dunedin’s existing building stock

Standard Building Before (Hazelton)1Standard Building Before

Standard Building March 2013 (Hazelton)1Standard Building March 2013 (Images: Glen Hazelton)

Email received.

—– Original Message —–
From: Glen Hazelton
To: City Planning ; EMT (Executive Management Team) ; Council 2010-2013 (Elected Members)
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 6:59 AM
Subject: Standard Building Update

Hi there everyone

For those of you who have not noticed this already – the scaffolding is down on the former Canton/Standard Building in Princes St. Externally, only the ground floor work to go now – inside is also starting to look just as amazing. See the before and after to see just how much you can transform a building perceived a few years back as having little value by many.

This work is a testament to the tenacity and passion of the owner (Ted Daniels) and also the skill and craftsmanship of Daniel Pollard, who unfortunately passed away without seeing the finished project. The project has also been proudly supported by the Dunedin Heritage Fund and DCC Heritage Rates Relief. A great example of just what can be achieved in our city when people put their minds to it.

Regards

Glen Hazelton
Policy Planner (Heritage), City Planning
Dunedin City Council

****

### ODT Online Tue, 2 Apr 2013
Buildings may be abandoned
By Simon Hartley
Spiralling earthquake-proofing costs could leave some Dunedin commercial property owners owing more on investments than the properties are worth. This raises the possibility buildings could be abandoned, that being the way to lose the least amount of money, a commercial property consultant says.

Dunedin has the third-largest concentration of pre-1976 buildings, about 3900, behind Auckland’s 19,050 and Christchurch’s 5000, according to Quotable Value and local body data collated in a consultation paper by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Dunedin last year had about 160,000sq m of office space, of which ”at least 10%” will be deemed earthquake-prone, Colliers International national director of research and consulting Alan McMahon said when contacted.

Dunedin City Council policy planner for heritage, Glen Hazelton, said 138 building owners had provided assessments. About 58 were less than 33% compliant and required upgrading. More assessments are expected when owners change use. Upgrades are expected at that time.

One [Dunedin] building owner, who did not want to be identified, said while the council had written to many building owners, many had not yet responded, as the deadline is July next year. Another source said far more assessments had been carried out than reported to the council and it was ”likely they don’t want the assessment put on public record just yet”.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

6 Comments

Filed under #eqnz, Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Innovation, Inspiration, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design

Expedience: Dunedin City Council’s blunt instrument to demolish listed buildings

Resource Consent Application: LUC-2011-567
191 King Edward Street, Dunedin

Senior planner Campbell Thomson addressing the Applicant on behalf of the Dunedin City Council as at 27 January 2012, writes:

[excerpt, page 1]
“Your application for land use consent for the demolition of an existing building listed in Schedule 25.1 of the District Plan and located within a townscape precinct, at 191 King Edward Street, Dunedin, was processed on a non-notified basis in accordance with sections 95A to 95F of the Resource Management Act 1991. The application was considered by a Senior Planner under delegated authority on 27 January 2012.

“I advise that the Council has granted consent to the application with conditions. The decision and condition are shown on the attached certificate.”

Under ‘Planning Assessment’, Mr Thomson states:

[excerpt, page 3]
Affected Persons
No written consents were submitted with the application. No parties are considered to be adversely affected by this proposal for the reasons outlined below in the section headed Effects on the Environment. It is noted that the New Zealand Historic Places Trust were consulted as a Statutory Body with an interest in the proposal. Their concerns will be addressed through the requirement for an Archaeological Authority which applies to the proposal. There are no special circumstances which warrant notification of this application. While demolition of heritage or townscape buildings generally raises issues of public interest, in this case, the structural condition of the building has reached a state whereby removal of the building façade has become necessary as a matter of public safety. The key environmental issue relevant to this proposal is how to mitigate the loss of the building.”

It is unreasonable and erroneous, in the context provided by the letter writer, for the Dunedin City Council to state that “the New Zealand Historic Places Trust were consulted”.

It is unreasonable and erroneous of the Council to claim “No parties are considered to be adversely affected by this proposal”, supported by following paragraphs that do not mitigate the wrongfulness of the unjust premise.

The letter granting consent carries other instances of pomposity and disregard for due process. Where does natural justice fit?

This forum isn’t the appropriate place to debate glaring technicalities, in light of what ‘affected party’ status requires as a burden of care on the part of the Dunedin City Council. Suffice to say, the Council is telling porkies.

Furthermore, the Dunedin City Council cannot hope to reduce or limit the work, powers and functions of the autonomous Crown Entity, New Zealand Historic Places Trust, empowered under the Historic Places Act 1993, to just that of regulatory responsibilities regarding archaeological sites — for the Council’s own undemocratic purposes.

Certainly, not by Mr Thomson’s convenient slip of the Council’s red pen.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

### D Scene 22.2.12
Opinion: Protecting heritage (page 7)
By Owen Graham
When is a heritage building protected, and when is it not? That question is one that deserves closer attention as the effects of building neglect become more apparent in our city. In the coming months more gaps will occur in our city heritage precincts, particularly with buildings in Rattray St and King Edward St being readied for demolition. They were not damaged by earthquakes, rather by successive owners who have opted to diminish their attractiveness, economic viability and historical significance in what ultimately results in demolition by neglect. {continues} #bookmark

• Owen Graham is the New Zealand Historic Places Trust area manager (Otago/Southland)

Register to read D Scene online at
http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/

9 Comments

Filed under #eqnz, Architecture, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Media, NZHPT, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design