Memory box
Hamilton’s mayor knows what developers know and community heritage advocates learn, that scheduling on a district plan does not protect a heritage building from demolition.
Plans just announced by Andrew King to create an inner-city river park will involve the demolition of a string of buildings on the east side of Victoria Street, including two that are on the district plan.
In Monday’s paper, the mayor was reported as saying of the two scheduled heritage buildings; ‘we [will] leave those two facades there and build behind them’.
The Victoria Buildings and the former Waikato Times’ building are both ‘B’ ranked items in the operative district plan. Demolition of a ‘B’ ranked item is a discretionary activity, meaning the council has the discretion to grant or decline the application, but one must be lodged by the owner.
The backdrop for such an application are the objectives and policies in the plan; in this case the relevant objective states that ‘significant buildings, structures, sites and items that define the city’s historic heritage are identified and protected’. The pertinent policy is worded thus: ‘The city’s historic heritage shall be protected from the adverse effects of subdivision, use and development’.
Demolition is defined in the district plan as meaning ‘dismantling, destruction and/ or removal of part or all of any building’, so reducing these two buildings to facades will constitute demolition according to the plan. What will potentially make an application for the substantive demolition of these buildings somewhat problematic for the owners will be this early statement of intent by the mayor; given that a commissioner or, potentially, an Environment Court judge will seek assurances that alternatives to demolition have genuinely been explored.
The same goes for the former Hamilton Hotel, concerning which it has already been announced that parts of this ‘A’ ranked building would be demolished to make way for the proposed theatre. Demolition of all or part of an ‘A’ ranking building is a Non-Complying activity in the district plan, meaning that there is a much higher threshold under the RMA to establish that the adverse effects will be minor or not contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plan.
And what of the commercial heritage buildings the mayor will demolish but for their facades? According to the council’s heritage assessments, Victoria Buildings was erected in 1915 to the design of local architect Charles Vautier. I wonder if it was built earlier, however, as in September 1916 William Gruar called a meeting of those opposed to an exchange of domain lands for a golf course at his office in the ‘Victoria (late Anzac) Buildings’.
Immediately to the south, the three-bay building surmounted by a single, large pediment, was erected in c.1917 for the Waikato Times. Errol Care-Cottrell later designed a new shop front for the building (c.1964/65) when it was occupied by R & E Tingey’s, painters and decorators.
Both of these buildings are scheduled for their historic, architectural and contextual heritage values, meaning that it is not just the facade of each that has heritage values which must be protected from inappropriate subdivision, development or use.
Incidentally, the RMA does not state that a building must be scheduled in order for its historic heritage values to merit protection under the Act. Given that Hamilton City Council has received a heritage assessment stating Founders’ Memorial Theatre has significant heritage value, that makes four inner-city heritage buildings whose partial or total demolition is being promoted by the council itself. Perhaps the mayor hasn’t read the city’s heritage plan, wherein the vision is that ‘the city celebrates its past by identifying, protecting and showcasing its heritage for future generations’. One of the actions contained within the plan is that ‘Council shows leadership in the conservation of heritage’. Facadism and demolition is possibly not everyone’s idea of heritage leadership.