Central Leader - - Letters -

Given Auck­land City Coun­cil’s poor past record of dis­play­ing open con­tempt for any his­toric hous­ing or worth­while dis­trict plan reg­u­la­tions, I find it ab­so­lutely amaz­ing that it now wants its ratepay­ing pub­lic to rally to its own cause – given its own Plan Change 163 should have al­ways been ex­tremely ro­bust to with­stand any form of “le­gal chal­lenges” to same.

The sad, per­ti­nent fact is that res­i­den­tial 2 prop­er­ties are part and par­cel of what ac­tu­ally is our unique Auck­land city makeup. No­body ever shuld have any right to chal­lenge what is on­go­ing her­itage.

We look to this coun­cil for de­fin­i­tive lead­er­ship, not a buck­ling down of a le­gal chal­lenge by three “le­gal ea­gles”.

It seems strange that the same coun­cil re­quires re­source con­sent pro­cesses (read rev­enue) for al­most any im­prove­ment to your private prop­erty, but doesn’t re­quire it­self to go through the for­mal “en­durance test” it puts the private home dweller through.

All ar­eas need to have both rig­or­ous and also vig­or­ous plan­ning con­trol, oth­er­wise all the dis­trict plan is fur­ther able to be legally chal­lenged by any group or irate per­sons at any time.

Con­tin­ual mere lip ser­vice to what is her­itage and his­toric char­ac­ter­is­tics of whole streets homes by this coun­cil and its mayor are all sim­ply ap­palling. DR PETER BOYS

St Lukes


Her­itage cam­paign­ers: Mt Al­bert His­toric So­ci­ety chair­woman Mary Ino­mata, left, and Eden Al­bert Com­mu­nity Board mem­ber Pauline An­der­son are among those fight­ing to keep her­itage houses pro­tected.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.