Submitter
Submission id number: 965439
Submitter name:
Jo Galer
Organisation
Southern Heritage Trust
Do you want to speak to Councillors at the hearings?
Yes
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submission
How are we doing? Is there anything you would like to tell us?
We would like to speak to this please.
The Council needs to act on heritage removal
As recent media stories attest this year alone, character-contributing homes and properties are making way for intensification in the new 2GP. Namely, four properties in Mornington and George St (one grand old home in the Heritage Precinct of George St and another 3 character contributing villas in Mornington), or simply being demolished for untested reasons (Union St, a significant two storey residence owned by the University), or 'built out' (one significant property in Manor Place).
The Trust is increasingly concerned that the 2GP is flawed in that a discarded heritage protection clause, that had been enacted to give this Trust the ability to comment on demolition permits, has been disallowed by the Environment Court ( The Patterson Pitts objection), which has now removed the only protection for heritage streetscapes that had been available in this new District Plan. There is a misstep here and this means that areas earmarked for intensification happen to be among some of our best heritage streets. Even the 2GP commissioners did not intend this to happen. It's a loophole.
This is so important because there are very small numbers of houses that have heritage protection under the 2GP, leaving the many more heritage homes and properties this council must know there are, bereft of any form of protection whatsoever. This leaves them all vulnerable to demolition. Despite the indisputable built character of these early hillside suburbs, many people would be surprised that in Maori Hill the grand total of buildings with heritage provisions or protection under the 2GP is just one. In Mornington, there are four. In St Clair, Two. In Mosgiel, three. Roslyn has an unusually high number of eight.
Our trust is deeply worried that developers see character in our city as fodder for their developments. We know there is demand for housing that is warm and dry but there will be other areas in Dunedin with fewer heritage values where developers can focus. There has to be another way, and we are hoping the DCC planners and politicians are earnestly looking at the problem and getting ready to come up with greater protection and more sensible planning. We don’t want to create a situation where so much is lost, no one wants to live here in the’new’ modern housing anyway because the city has become ugly and looks cheap.
Our Trust is seeking a 10-year commitment to, and urgent action on:
• Further heritage planning protections incorporated into the 2GP as a matter of urgency to protect these surrounding hillside character suburbs.
• Consider changing the zoning to allow intensification only in areas of low architectural merit; to provide for warm, dry and affordable family housing as per the original aims of intensification.
• Council resource (funding) allocated towards research required to ensure the many more worthy and meritorious houses have heritage protection on the district plan - this may not mean they are preserved, but it could mean that intending demolishers are subjected to greater tests if they wish to demolish.
• Council resource (a further position) to discuss alternative and heritage re-use plans with developers - a more discursive approach to development in areas with high existing heritage and streetscape values.
• Heritage values given higher status and importance in all DCC tourism and planning strategies and documents. The DCC needs to say out loud, and remind developers of this, that Dunedin has a rich heritage resource, and the idea is to re-use and renovate, rather than demolish.
Thank you for your time.
What other ideas should we be thinking about to include in future plans for our city?