Heritage zone build angers
Waimate North residents are calling for a large industrial style shed to be demolished, saying it breaches district plan specifications for protecting the area’s heritage.
The structure on Te Ahu Ahu Rd, is located within Te Waimate Heritage Precinct described in the Far North District Plan as a ‘‘preeminent historic landscape of national significance’’.
An action group has lodged a petition with Far North District Council. More than 50 people have now signed it.
Group spokesperson Paul Fieldman says they are now in the process of forming an incorporated society.
‘‘The district plan talks about guarding the landscape and protecting historic buildings and landscapes and a commercial looking industrial style building is completely inconsistent with the rest of the zone,’’ he says.
The building does not breach any height and size restrictions specified within the district plan, but fellow resident Gary Mills says it looks out of place.
The resource consent was granted for a shed for ‘‘storage purposes’’. Within an area of 500 metres, there is Te Waimate Mission House, St John the Baptist Church, the Old Store from the 1800’s and other significant sites.
Council spokesperson Dr Dean Myburgh says the council confirms due process under the Resource Management Act and District Plan was followed when granting resource and building consents for the property.
‘‘The resource applicant undertook consultation with Heritage NZ, which raised no objection to the proposal.
‘‘Since the council has no legal power to revoke the resource or building consents, Waimate North residents have been advised that a judicial review is their only option if they are determined to see the building demolished.’’
Heritage NZ Northland area manager Bill Edwards says it ‘‘would have raised concerns’’ if they had known the proposed height of the building.
‘‘We were unclear on the size of the building from the plans that showed floor area and not the height - the size and scale of the building isn’t in keeping with the neighbouring area. Our perceptions were wrong.’’
The owner of the property did not return calls for comment.