Council overreach
Some stories just have to be told and re-told.
The Earnscleugh homestead saga, where the owners restored a crumbling, uninhabitable building to its former glory is a tribute to unrelenting tenacity and vast overreach by the local authority.
In fact, the real story is not so much the restoration/rebuild but council decision to put the owners through the bureaucratic grinder by the public notification process, when even the Historic Places Trust agreed with the owners’ plans.
There were 98 submissions — everyone in favour of the owner’s restoration plans.
That is until the council’s paid consultant said "no”.
He or she wanted the unfinished look to remain.
Never mind the leaking walls and roof.
It appears the consultant even got the story behind the internal separation of the homestead wrong.
The costs blew out with the hearing alone costing the applicants $150,000.
The opportunity cost caused by council delay is massive.
Why did the council request public submissions if the council can willingly disregard public opinion?
Do not councillors represent public opinion?
I now call on the mayor to confirm the above information is correct.
Also, will mayor Tamah Alley now publicly apologise to the owners of the building and offer to compensate/refund the cost of the hearing as a gesture of belated goodwill?.
Response from Central Otago mayor Tamah Alley:
The Earnscleugh Homestead is, above all else, a genuine success story.
A Category 1 heritage building that was close to being lost has been restored and given a future.
Several claims in Mr Eckhoff’s letter are incorrect.
As a Category 1 heritage-listed building, any significant work required resource consent under the district plan.
The decision to publicly notify the application was not discretionary or political; it was a statutory requirement under the Resource Management Act after an independent heritage expert concluded the effects of the proposal, as lodged, were more than minor.
Public submissions are not a referendum.
Decisions are made by hearings panel commissioners applying the law and expert evidence.
Suggesting council disregarded public opinion fundamentally misunderstands how the process works.
Council waived its own processing fees in line with policy.
The $150,000 referenced relates to the applicant’s private hearing costs, not council fees.
The consent was processed within statutory timeframes, noting periods when it was placed on hold at the applicant’s request.
There is no basis for compensation.
The real story remains the outstanding restoration of an irreplaceable heritage building, for which the owners deserve full credit.
I am thrilled for Marco and Ryan and what they have achieved, not only for their own family home, but for the wider fabric of the Central Otago community.
