Is this a heritage home?
The housing minister has major concerns about Hamilton City Council’s plan to expand heritage areas and their potential to kneecap new intensification rules.
State housing agency Kā inga Ora now wants the extra heritage areas completely scrapped.
In an email to Hamilton woman Jean Dorrell who, with her partner David Whyte, believes the jump in proposed historic heritage areas (HHAs) from five to 32 may be an attempt to curb intensification, Minister Megan Woods says she shares her concerns. The city council, however, rejects that, saying the heritage work was under way prior to the new housing rules.
Whyte is not convinced. He described the move as “a sneaky way of preventing three and threes”, referring to how those new rules can allow for three homes up to three storeys high on sections without a resource consent in Hamilton and other big centres. Whyte said the council could benefit from more HHAs because they might reduce demand for infrastructure to handle intensification.
Properties listed as being in a HHA under Plan Change 9 (PC9) will be protected from significant intensification, “inappropriate design” and restrictions on certain housing types.
In the email, Woods acknowledged the communication from Dorrell and concerns about extra HHAs being used to dampen intensification.
“I expect the use of historic heritage as a qualifying matter to limit the extent to which new housing is provided for under [the new rules] to be used appropriately, and not excessively.
‘‘I share your concerns about the approach Hamilton has taken with HHAs in PC9 and I am aware that Kā inga Ora has submitted on this, raising various issues with Hamilton City Council’s identification of the HHAs.”
Woods stressed the statutory test for heritage protection is high – it must meet the standard of relevant rules around “historic heritage” of “national significance”. Noting PC9 would be subject to “robust scrutiny” through the plan change process and that final decisions could be appealed, Woods said. “I am hopeful that a sensible outcome can be reached for the city – either through the plan change process or appeals if necessary.”
In a statement to Stuff, Woods reiterated Kā inga Ora’s concerns: “Any exclusions will have a direct impact on the ability of developers, including Kāinga Ora, to deliver denser housing, and will add substantial costs to its housing programme for Hamilton. Kā inga Ora, as well as other submitters, has concerns with the identification process used so it is appropriate it is carefully tested.”
It is not the first time Woods has stepped into debate over a council’s plans – in June, for example, she urged Auckland Council to reduce the number “character areas”, saying proposals restricted development in swaths of the city best suited for intensification.
Kā inga Ora, in its submission on PC9, opposed the new HHAs in their entirety, saying they did not meet the “national significance” test. “Historic heritage areas, if adopted, should be formed primarily to where places exhibit multiple examples of high integrity of historical features,” the submission said.
Noting that Kāinga Ora had substantial landholdings in some HHAs, it said the proposals could place ‘‘a significant constraint’’ on its housing development and urban regeneration. This was particularly the case in Fairfield
Enderley. The council’s planning unit manager, Mark Davey, said he would not respond specifically on the comments from Woods and Kā inga Ora, given public comment on PC9 submissions was open till Friday and hearings were due next year.
‘‘We are in a quasi-legal process now so I don’t want to be publicly passing judgment on people’s submissions at this point.’’
However, he rejected any suggestion from Dorrell and Whyte that the vastly expanded number of HHAs was aimed at slowing down Hamilton’s inner city intensification under the new rules.
‘‘It is just a baseless claim.’’
He said the only motive the council had was to protect heritage areas and the proposed HHAs had been selected using publicly available criteria.
Davey said another argument against extra HHAs being an ‘‘underhand tactic’’ to stop intensification was that the impetus for PC9 was a 2019 council resolution to do more to protect the city’s heritage, pre-dating the new national rules.
‘‘That is the genesis of this work.’’ Late last month, the council said a split of those for and against various proposals was not available.
But Davey said some submitters actually wanted more HHAs than proposed and for the size of the existing five to be made bigger. There were requests for an extra 3569 properties be identified as HHAs, including extensions to proposed areas. Also, people wanted HHAs for four new areas.
‘‘That actually sort of proves that people want more heritage and are engaged with protecting special character,’’ Davey said.
But Whyte said his initial analysis of the various submissions on HHAs indicated many people were against them, with most submissions on the majority of them being opposed and only four HHAs having more submissions in favour than against.
Whyte and Dorrell, meanwhile, say they will continue to raise a range of concerns about PC9 and the inclusion of Dorrell’s home in an ‘‘Oxford St (East) and Marshall St Railway Cottages HHA’’.
On the idea that the area was a railways workers suburb historically, Dorrell said: ‘‘It is completely fictitious.’’
Whyte said the situation for the property ‘‘raises concerns about the entire process and the integrity of the HHAs, particularly the new ones’’.
‘‘We are not going to let it go. We are sick and tired of people trying to push us around using unsubstantiated ‘facts’.’’
He was worried heritage assessments that would be required to get consents in HHAs would cost ‘‘way more than $2000’’.