Building consent costs prove inconsistent

Email
Print

Wed, 27 Apr 2011 7:00p.m.

Where do you draw the line be drawn between preserving heritage, and modernising buildings?

Last December the Auckland City Council allowed the complete destruction of historic buildings in St Heliers.

But try and add a garage to your house in Freeman's Bay and it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars - with no guarantee you'll get the nod.

So are small property owners being blocked while big developers get the go ahead, and what price should protecting heritage cost?

Watch Lachlan Forsyth's report

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

28 Apr 2011 06:45p.m.

Julian wrote:

This is a group of three cottages whose frontages are worth maintaining, the proposed garage is ugly, way to big, destroys the roof-line of the house and is in no way in-keeping with the house. A garage may remove cars from the road but it will also remove parking spaces on the road so that the garage can be accessed.

28 Apr 2011 06:35p.m.

Windsor wrote:

Who owns the property? The City council or The current owner? Do local rate payers have a say on who, what, when, why and how city counselors administer their affairs regarding their properties? In my opinion it's unfair for the council to dictate how one manages ones property especially when they don't have all relevant data pertaining to the sale of the property prior to purchase. I bet the current owner wouldn't purchase the property without firstly researching the property i.e. it's historical status. It looks like the council shifts the goal post when necessary.

28 Apr 2011 04:26p.m.

Nick wrote:

I think there is clarity in the guidelines, what you're missing is possibly why the neighbours got consent. Mr Campbell said at the end of the video last night that the neighbours already had consent for a carport from a previous council decision. They were then allowed to convert the carport to the garage.

The owners say they were given advice from a heritage architect early on that their design wouldn't be accepted. They chose to proceed anyway, you can't say they weren't warned.

28 Apr 2011 04:20p.m.

Hadley wrote:

Would a garage even fit in the front of this house? It looks really close to the road.

28 Apr 2011 01:34p.m.

G.W wrote:

To jo, nick and LM, who are probably emailing from their desks in the Council.....To me the real issue is consistency in the approval process, why had the neighbors recently had approval for the same garage... but not the Davies. If there was clarity and firm guidelines I suspect the Davies and countless others would not waste their time and money applying for approvals.

28 Apr 2011 10:51a.m.

jo wrote:

The issue is about gaining a resource consent as they want to break the rules -these rule relate to maintaining heritage value in this particular area.
Visual amenity related to heritage is a characteristic recognised in the statutory process to have high value. It creates sense of character, place and liveability; it can also link the community with its history. To negate the importance of this particularily in an area specifically noted to have this value would result in a devaluing of all of the forementioned not just for this generation but for the generations to come.
The area is also located close to the CBD and other amenities where walking routes and bus services are easily accessible. Why reduce the amenity to mearly cater for completely unnessesary car use? These factors are also taken into account when heritage zoning is being considered for an area.
Freemans Bay is a heritage gem full of pockets of turn of the century working mens cottages, and it tells us alot about why we are Aucklanders today. If you want a garage in your frontyard go buy a place in an area that suits the need. There are plenty of subdivisions zones and cul-de-sacs down south for the car enthusiasts amongst us.

28 Apr 2011 10:29a.m.

Nick wrote:

Ok, so not heritage listed, but: "The Residential 1 zone provides for the survival of the historic form, buildings and streetscapes in Auckland's earliest established residential neighbourhoods."

You saw from the neighbours garage that it obliterates the historic streetscape. Yes the detailing might be in keeping with the house, but it doesn't preserve the original form of the house at all.

28 Apr 2011 08:20a.m.

Dianne wrote:

This house is not heritage listed - it is in Residential one area which means that to do any alterations you have to get a resource consent approval from the council. You are allowed to do alterations as long as they are in keeping with the original form and detailing of the existing house - which is what has been proposed in this case.

28 Apr 2011 06:45a.m.

LM wrote:

I'm totally with the heritage planner on this one. Perhaps an easement over the neighbour would give space for a car down the side of the building which wouldn't totally destroy the look of the building. I'm sure the "no onsite parking" was reflected in the price of the property purchase. For future reference- hand drawn plans are also the way to go on this kind of thing as they look much less harsh than a computer drawn model. Most designers should still be able to provide this service.

27 Apr 2011 09:50p.m.

Nick wrote:

The difference between this house and the St Heliers houses are that they weren't heritage listed, but this house is. If I'm allowed to whack a garage onto the front of a heritage listed building, then heritage protection is pointless. Heritage conservation is there so the public has a living history of New Zealand's buildings. They shouldn't be drastically changed on the whim of an owner. The building has been around for a lot longer than they have.