Hutt residents win battle against council's 'sham' heritage listings

Saturday, 26 August 2023

To most, they look like regular middle-income family homes.

But in the eyes of the Hutt City Council, a group of properties dotted around Petone, Moera and Wainuiomata hold significant historical value – despite not being heritage buildings.

Now, after concerns raised by residents, an independent panel has described the council’s proposal as “dubious”.

The Voluntary Heritage Group, worried about the possible impact on home values and maintenance costs, said the report showed the proposal was a “sham”.

Laws to allow more intensive housing are going through planning processes around the country and many councils are trying to soften the effects through character protections for suburbs — examples include Ponsonby in Auckland and Mt Victoria in Wellington.

Hutt City went one step further, attempting to designate hundreds of homes as “historical heritage precincts”. It was a higher bar to pass and the council was found “wanting”, the independent panel found.

The proposal would have increased the number of heritage properties from 90 to 440 – most in Petone. The council and its experts argued the areas had historic heritage value, even if none of the individual buildings were heritage buildings.

“We do not find this to be a particularly convincing argument as it appears to put the (historic) cart before the horse,” the panel found.

Voluntary Heritage Group welcomed the findings after a “long, hard slog” for the affected homeowners, campaign leader Phil Barry said.

“We’re happy that fairness and logic has prevailed. The council has been told in no uncertain terms that it went way too far.”

It was “unsurprising” the panel had not been convinced, because anyone could see the houses were just like any other middle-income family homes, Barry said.

Shayne Hodge submitted to the panel on behalf of his daughter, who lived on one of the proposed heritage streets in Petone. (She could not be named due to privacy concerns.)

“As is unfortunately normal these days the bank of mum and dad was required,” he wrote in his submission.

Late in 2021, soon after moving in, Hodge’s daughter received a letter saying her home was proposed as part of a new historic heritage area, but no final decisions would be made until public consultation was complete.

She paid $10,000 to get plans drawn up for a second storey extension of one bedroom, believing the existing rules would apply to her application for building consent.

But a few months later, there was what Hodge described as a “bombshell”. The new heritage areas would take immediate effect until the new plan was confirmed, meaning the extension could not go ahead.

“They basically froze you in time and then said no, you'll have to wait … We’ve been caught in limbo,” Hodge said.

Unusually compared to most heritage designations, the buildings in the proposed areas could be demolished.

The heritage listing limited development of the property to the footprint of the existing house, meaning no extensions or increases in height could be added.

“The fact that one outcome of this might be to maintain character (through height and density controls) rather than heritage building fabric to our mind betrays the underlying — or at the very least — unintended or unclear rationale,” the panel found.

Hodge said it was clear the heritage areas were a way to avoid housing intensification.

“The council was dressing heritage up as a means to avoid the intensification which had been brought in by central government.”

If the council had a problem with the laws, they should have fought it at a central government level instead of pushing the burden onto homeowners, he said.

“When I saw this happen to my daughter, as parents do, it gets your back up. This is not natural justice, this doesn’t make sense. We were being railroaded.”

Hutt City Council would not comment until the council decided whether to accept the panel recommendations. The report will be considered at a meeting next week.