Click photo to enlarge
These buildings in Princes St, Dunedin, are one step closer
to demolition. Photo by Peter Mcintosh.
A group of Dunedin buildings may be demolished after a
Dunedin City Council hearings committee indicated it was "of a
mind" to give approval to developers.
An interim decision on the Princes St buildings has been
criticised by heritage advocates.
•
Poll: Should the historic Princes St buildings be
demolished
Christchurch developer Luke Dirkzwager has been told by one
councillor to go back to Christchurch and "desecrate that".
While the final decision on demolition of 372-392 Princes St
has not been made, an interim decision from a resource
consent hearings committee said it was "of a mind" to grant
consent if Mr Dirkzwager's company, Prista Apartments, came
up with a new design "more representative of the character of
the precinct".
Mr Dirkzwager has been seeking approval since 2008 to
demolish the buildings and replace them with 15 apartments,
with space for retailing on the ground floor.
The development is a non-complying activity under the
council's district plan, as the area is in a protected
townscape precinct.
It attracted strong opposition when first proposed, with 260
people signing a petition, and opposition from the New
Zealand Historic Places Trust.
Last year, the developer was asked by the committee of city
councillors, Colin Weatherall, Richard Walls and Fliss
Butcher, to come back with a new proposal, but its modernist
design has not been accepted.
An interim decision released yesterday requires the developer
to provide an alternative design by July 1.
A final decision on the consent, followed by an appeal
period, would follow, and until that time, no work could
start.
Cr Weatherall said the advice to come up with a design more
representative of the area's character was the only advice
the committee would give the developer.
Mr Dirkzwager could still come back with a design that kept
the facades, but during the hearings, Mr Dirkzwager argued
that was not economically viable.
The buildings are owned by Copthorne Holdings.
The New Zealand Companies Office lists its directors as Mr
Dirkzwager, and Dunedin men Kingsley Kung and Geoffrey Yee.
Mr Dirkzwager said yesterday he would return with a new
design, and "time would tell" if he could find something
acceptable.
Heritage advocate Elizabeth Kerr, who presented submissions
during the resource consent process, said the building was
supposed to have protection under the district plan.
It was too soon to consider whether to appeal the decision
before the Environment Court, she said.
Historic Places Trust Otago Southland area manager Owen
Graham said there was little to comment on until the final
decision, and the committee's reasons, was released.
The councillor who said...
"go back to Christchurch and desecrate that" to Dirkzwager must be one of the four or so good ones we have. Well said.
Philistinism of this sort ruined much of Christchurch, piece by piece, through the late 80s and 90s, from the demolition of the iconic Edmonds 'Sure To Rise' building to the catherdal Square's United Services Hotel. Keep it at bay here as much as possible.
Shame
The thinking of the DCC is even more antiquated than these beautiful and historically significant old buildings. Sadly, when it comes to built heritage, philistinism and short term thinking have become hallmarks of the DCC.
Maybe one day they will follow the advice of heritage experts. In the meantime we lose irreplacable 150-year old structures. We need more than our architectural showpieces to maintain our reputation as a heritage city, and the environment so many of us enjoy.
Clarification and comment
The report says: "Elizabeth Kerr...said the building was supposed to have protection under the district plan."
This should properly read: "the facades (372-392 Princes St)" have protection under the district plan.
In light of my formal submissions on the application I have demonstrated my full understanding that there is more than one building threatened with demolition and that not one "building" in the group has district plan protection.
Let me clarify:
The subject buildings - plural - threatened with demolition are 372-392 Princes St, and 11 Stafford Street. The Princes St buildings have their facades protected only, through inclusion in Schedule 25.1 of the Dunedin City District Plan. The Schedule states exactly what that protection is.
Section 13 Townscape of the District Plan describes the townscape character; it includes precinct values that must be met for proposed changes to townscape appearance. The introduction to this chapter also emphasises the importance of built heritage as it provides townscape character.
Further, one of the comments I offered the reporter for publication on the interim decision, loosely went like this:
It is unclear where submitters would sit in light of any new design presented to the hearings committee. No process has been indicated in the interim decision for submitter input.
Another was, loosely:
It would have been preferable if (facade) design matters had been resolved prior to the application being lodged with the Council - that is, in the pre-application stage.
The current drawn out process for the applicant developer, the council and submitters might have been mitigated if the council had been in the position to convene an independent urban design panel, to provide scrutiny and recommendations to inform the applicant's conceptual process and proposal as a whole, and the council's formal planning processes.
Urban design panels are utilised effectively by a number of local authorities around New Zealand. Our near neighbour, Queenstown Lakes District Council has adopted this process, for the better.
The previous calls on Dunedin City Council to adopt an urban design panel process, have become mired in political procrastination.
Facades should stay
This looks like another (potential) instance of the Council failing in its duty to preserve the city's architectural heritage for all its citizens.
The commercial zone from the corner of Rattray Street/Princes Street south has seen some spectacularly misjudged decisions over the years: demolition of the Exchange area; the gratuitous destruction of the Century cinema (for a parking lot); the abandonment and decay of the former Chief Post Office; recent removal of historical commercial buildings at the bottom of High Street.
One gets the impression that this Council is completely unconcerned with maintaining and preserving one of this city's unique - and irreplaceable - features: our architectural heritage.
As an aside, it is difficult to see how this decision could be justified in 'economic' terms. Messrs Dirkzwager, Kung and Yee wish to put up apartments. Apart from the very short-term construction opportunities, just how are these structures supposed to provide a long-term economic benefit to the city? Rental proceeds will presumably flow to Christchurch or finance other property ventures.