City Strategy and Delivery Committee

different to the names that you've got in your list, and even the addresses are different. So Tonks Avenue— Tonks Grove, for example, you've got, whereas Heritage New Zealand, which is not us, we're the advocacy group, we're an NGO, I might add, not the government thing. The government thing calls them Footscray.

The cake was very yummy, and you told me it's 8 eggs in that cake. I think I got 3 of them already. So, uh, thank you to you all. Now we go to, uh, agenda item 2.2, engagement on heritage listing. And this is paper bringing back what we have asked previously, directing officers to bringing feedback from owners and stakeholders on the impact of heritage protection.

It highlights a clear tension, which is strong support for heritage as part of Wellington's identity alongside real concern about cost constraints and property rights.

Kia ora everyone. Look, today is the latest step on a slow process to allow a degree of common sense within our planning system on heritage regulations. Firstly, I want to thank officers for the survey and the analysis in providing a really good piece of policy work, which I do hope will give heritage advocates who were, some were quite in opposition to it being done in the first place, an appreciation of its validity and actually provide assurance that even if you had a voluntary heritage regime, you would see most owners continue to retain their heritage status. Great outcome. What I've put in front of councillors today, I've been very careful not to take a position on the validity or otherwise of those 61 single owner property and 38 multi-owner properties where owners have indicated a preference for having their heritage listing removed. It's not my job, I'm not qualified to make that call. What I've asked, what the paper asks, is for your approval for the Mayor and I to advocate for those owners to have a fair process to contest their designation. And I could use my own words about why, but I want to just actually read an email from someone that the Motu Kaurangi councillors will be well acquainted with. I'm writing respectfully to request your support in removing the heritage designation from my property, of which I'm the current owner. Approximately 15 years ago, we were approached by the Historic Places Trust regarding the potential listing. At that time, we chose not to pursue this option. I was not aware a council could proceed with a designation without my consent. We were contacted again in 2022. While I did receive correspondence in that time, I was my mother's primary caregiver, and she sadly passed away in 2023. Due to these circumstances, I was not in a position to respond and unaware that any decision could be made without my input. A recent building LIM report has identified serious concerns regarding the property's structural integrity and its likely performance in a seismic event. There are multiple cracks evident in both the external and internal walls. Whilst the dwelling does not have an official earthquake rating, the presence of unreinforced walls assess it would likely fall below 34% of the NBS. I recently obtained a LIM report and was surprised to discover the property has been designated as a heritage building. I acknowledge the personal significance of the home having been in my family's 56 years, I do not believe it holds architectural or heritage value of broader public significance. I'll skip a little bit just for the brevity of this debate. As a result of these factors, feedback from my real estate agent confirms that prospective purchasers are assessing the property based on land value alone. The dwelling itself is not considered a viable renovation prospect, particularly given the challenges associated with ensuring a structurally compromised concrete building. Despite these challenges, I had secured I had secured a purchaser and conditional agreement was in place. However, the heritage classification has introduced significant uncertainty and caused the purchaser to reconsider proceeding, placing me at considerable financial disadvantage. So, and I've spoken to that lady as well, and I'll just give you some more of her— that's the professional version, but I'll give you the, you know, the actual quotes. It's in such a state, cracks everywhere. It is not fit to rent or for anyone to inhabit. The last purchaser went to a heritage architect and withdrew their offer because of the economics of any cost of restoration. So she's trapped in a property, paying rates and other outgoings, because Section 4 of the Resource Management Act says that her house's heritage listing is a matter of, quote, 'national significance.' That owner has experienced something manifestly unjust, and this is where my view of the world sharply diverges with the likes of some of the heritage advocates. There should be some legal leeway to appeal that injustice. That is natural. That is fair. And what I have done though, I have accommodated the wording of some of those advocates into this amendment because I am completely comfortable with things that are pragmatic where we can provide support within the confines of the RMA for heritage owners. That's what clause 5 is. I desperately, I'd like to see the heritage advocates apply a similar lens of pragmatism over their advocacy. At the end of the day, the decisions on whether buildings are heritage or not were made by people at a point in time. People can make mistakes. We're infallible. Values and circumstances can change, and the law should provide mechanisms to appeal the judgments, and that's what the paper in front of you asks for the Mayor and I to advocate to do today. Thank you.

Well, for a little while, I'll hold my peace. So interesting actually, yesterday I had two people approach me how could they get their houses heritage listed, so it just shows you that sometimes all publicity is good publicity or something. Anyway, most of you know that I really love our city's history and heritage, but I'm also a pragmatist and it is impossible or hard to justify protecting buildings that no longer have an economic purpose, and I'm thinking of those the Miramar storage tanks, or with its gas they had in them, the disused earthquake-prone churches, and the Hewitt former nurses' home. So I support, fully support, removing their heritage listing. But my issue with this list is that we have no idea about the owners' issues. Do they just want to make some minor alterations, double glazing, reinstating the original veranda, or are they working towards demolition? We just don't know. These are some of the buildings that on the list that really appall me. Catherine Mansfield's home, Chesney Wold, 372 Karori Road. Yes, it has been quite a lot altered over the years, but it is, as Ms. Wong said, one that she mentions most in her short stories. 186 Oriental Parade, It is one of the Joshua Charlesworth houses. You'll all recognise them in that sweep around Oriental Bay. One was demolished years ago for apartments. The other one is remaining. It would be a real tragedy to lose the second bookend for those very significant and much-loved and photographed houses. So those of you who read the paper yesterday will have heard my sort of fixation about Mother Aubert's crèche because it's already been moved once. It was moved 15 metres. Metres for the Arras Tunnel, but we don't know, the owners NZTA, whether they want to just move it another, shunt it another 10 metres, or whether they want to demolish it. We have absolutely no idea. So this was the first crèche in New Zealand dedicated to working class and single mothers, built for Susanna Bear and the Catholic religious order she founded, the Home of Compassion, who now run, amongst other things, the soup kitchen in Tory Street. So we don't know what they're going to do with it, But at the same time, in parallel, we know— well, certainly I know— that the Catholic Church in New Zealand is trying to, or is proceeding with, an application to make Mother Aubert a saint. Now this is Catholic mumbo-jumbo, I realize, but it's something with which I am very familiar. So Australia has one Catholic saint, and she is Mary MacKillop. It's quite a tourist attraction. I regard Well, pilgrims are the oldest form of tourism, so irrespective of what you think about the mumbo-jumbo, the thing is it would be a tourist attraction. So it would be a tragedy if anything was done to that building. I am particularly concerned about retaining the integrity of two of our most significant inner city streets, Cuba Street and Courtney Place. Courtney Place is possibly about to be renovated as part of the Courtenay Precinct project, and the last thing we want is someone to muck up with the buildings. But we don't know, I mean, maybe they just want to put in decent windows, maybe they want to put in a 12-storey building, we don't know. There are some other significant buildings, the Disabled Servicemen's Training Centre, a hell of a title, it's the Life Church now, a beautiful, beautiful building in Harnia Street, designed by Anskim, who was one of our leading architects a long time ago. Then the Elliott House in Kent Terrace, which has been mucked around by an owner who ignored the town planning rules in Wellington, but the house is still basically— it's a beautiful house. The problem with this list is it is a blunt tool. The Council relies on experts to identify buildings of significance, significant for myriad reasons, but now the owners, most of whom should have been aware of the heritage listing and its implications and now they say, oh, you just want to scrap it. So what's the point of asking experts for their opinions? I am grateful to the Deputy Mayor for incorporating my suggestions into the substantive. Some councillors have told me they have absolutely no interest in heritage, despite our role as guardians of the city. So I'd like to quote from a former mayor— this could be historic— Justin Lester. 8 years ago, when he was the mayor, Mayor, Council marked 125 years of women's suffrage with heritage plaques for 3 notable Wellington women, one of whom was Suzanne Aubert, and the plaque is in the ground. The unveiling of that one had the largest attendance of any of the 3 unveilings. Mayor Lester said, and I quote, Wellington is a city that takes great pride in its heritage, and the Council is a strong supporter of retaining and promoting this heritage for our people and visitors. Wellington's buildings are more than just concrete and steel, probably, and wood, but part of our city's living history and our people. So anyway, I support this, and thank you again to the Deputy Mayor.

Um, thank you, and I'll be supporting this. It's a shame we didn't actually have this in place 5 or 6 years ago when we were having to deal with our city library, our central library, because we— because somebody has slapped a Heritage One listing on it, a 30-year-old building that most people only wanted to protect the neko palms. We were essentially left with no option but to restrengthen the existing building, which cost us a couple of hundred million dollars. At the time, we were presented with an option that we just actually just rebuilt it. It would be roughly half that cost. And so, but we personally at that time, I voted to restrengthen it because I did not want to see a building in our civic square doing nothing for 10 years while we went through endless appeals like Gordon Wilson Flats. It would just become more of an eyesore in our civic square. So I do support this because we, the council, and our ratepayers have borne the brunt of what used to be the case with something that was slapped with a heritage listing, and we had little avenues to appeal that. So I will be supporting this. Thank you.