‘Smelly eyesore’: Neighbours and heritage experts want Auckland restaurant gone

Sunday, 15 March 2026

A Christchurch developer says he has revived an Auckland icon. Heritage experts and irritated neighbours say his tenant’s restaurant is a “smelly eyesore” that should never have been allowed there. Jonathan Killick investigates.

It was an outbreak of the bubonic plague in the colonies that prompted a fledgling Auckland municipal authority in 1905 to build the city a “destructor” furnace for burning rubbish.

Now, 120 years later, the council must decide whether a smoky grill in an unconsented restaurant has diminished that heritage site’s value.

A resource consent hearing was held in the Auckland Town Hall on Thursday to determine the future of Milenta, a “temporary” restaurant erected within the Victoria Park Market complex in the city’s CBD.

Submissions obtained by the Sunday Star-Times show the issue has been caught up in a body corporate dispute in which neighbours claim a developer has taken over a communal space by stealth.

Trapped in the middle is the restaurant’s owners who tenant the site, and say they have built up a burgeoning business over four years that now faces being displaced.

Landlord VPM Investments Limited applied for a two-year resource consent for the structure in 2020. But the application was withdrawn just before it was due to go to a hearing in 2024.

It later reapplied for permanent consent - and in the meantime the restaurant has continued trading.

But a submission from Heritage NZ calls it an “inappropriate development”.

It acknowledges that the restaurant hadn’t caused any “tangible destruction of heritage fabric”, but argues it has “negatively impacted the setting of the place by reducing its historic legibility”.

Several of Milenta’s neighbours have also sent written complaints to the council.

Ron Macrae of Mustang Properties called it “a smelly, noisy, rickety unconsented eyesore”.

“Black smoke is exhausted through the protected tree canopy line and fills the market with choking smoke on days where there is no wind,” he told the council.

Another neighbour, Russ Holmes of Highgate Trading, claimed there had been two fire service call outs as a result of Milenta’s wood-fire grill.

“The wisdom of having a wood fire discharge into a tree in a confined commercial area has to be questioned,” wrote another neighbour, Robin Capper.

Milenta’s owners dispute their grill has caused issues, telling the Star-Times they have installed a state of the art fan and filtration system.

“We’re not hurting anyone. In fact, we’ve created something beautiful,” says director Jaime Moreno.

But several submitters objected to the restaurant being able to trade while resource consent was outstanding.

Former America’s Cup sailor Warwick Fleury, who owns two units at the market, urged the council to order the applicant to remove the structure and return the site to its original condition.

Another submitter, Isa Seow of Asia Ventures, said the rights of other nearby units had been “overlooked”, while an “unauthorised business is effectively given a free pass… Council has failed to do its job”.

Grigori Koulanov, a Christchurch property developer is the sole director of applicant VPM Investments Limited. He told the council that Milenta had “revitalised” the historic market.

“Before its arrival, the courtyard was underused, often gathering rubbish and attracting rough sleepers,” he said.

“Now, it is a vibrant destination that has lifted the market’s profile and re-introduced many people who had not visited since the redevelopment.”

Ahead of Thursday’s hearing, the council received 85 submissions, and while 15 or so nearby occupants oppose granting retroactive consent, 69 submitters were in support.

Former TV personality Wilhelmina Shrimpton wrote that it had “boosted the vibrancy and culture of an area that was once neglected”.

“For the future growth and character of our CBD it’s so important that successful establishments like this are allowed to continue to flourish,” she said.

Submitted Lourissa Setu of Upper Hutt: “Just leave it be, damn it.”

Body corp stoush

Also at the heart of the consent decision is whether the restaurant has effectively taken up a publicly used space by stealth, with several submitters detailing an ongoing dispute within the complex’s body corporate.

In separate proceedings, the Tenancy Tribunal found that the body corp was “unusual” in that it did not have “common property”.

Instead, unit owners are guaranteed access to the courtyard through a land covenant - even though the courtyard itself is technically owned as a “principal unit” by a private company. Koulanov is a director of that company.

And several submitters say that the erection of the restaurant in the courtyard has caused controversy among unit holders.

“In summary, two owners support Milenta, but the majority of owners at Victoria Park do not,” submitted Baden Turley of Snug Harbour.

Turley wrote that the owners of VPM Investments own 50% of the units and therefore held a majority of votes under unit title law.

“It is through this unit majority, rather than the majority of owners at Victoria Park that the body corporate has appeared to support Milenta over the years,” he submitted.

Records show that various parties have gone to the Tenancy Tribunal to dispute aspects of the body corporate’s management.

“One of these minority claims is subject to an appeal in the District Court,” Turley said. “The basis of the minority appeal is that quiet enjoyment of the area has been removed from unit holders at the park.”

Auckland Council’s reporting officer appears to have sided with neighbours, citing many of their concerns in recommending to a hearing panel that retroactive consent be rejected.

“Given people are unable to walk through or convene in the courtyard, I consider that the space no longer functions as a courtyard as intended,” senior planner Avery Duckett wrote.

“The location of the building interrupts the layout of the site and obstructs views to and between historic heritage features.”

Duckett’s report said the markets had a “very high aesthetic significance as an Auckland icon and landmark, particularly the destructor chimney”.

In his opinion, Milenta’s structure used “incompatible materials and finishes” that “detract from special aesthetic values”.

Koulanov disputes that. He told council that Milenta “enhanced the appreciation of the historical setting”.

“It is neither attached to nor obstructing any heritage buildings … with the retractable roof open in good weather, visitors can enjoy the courtyard’s character and mature trees while experiencing the heritage space.”

The restaurant’s owners, meanwhile, aren’t party to the proceedings but say their livelihood has been caught in the crossfire.

“We are just sitting here waiting to hear the future of our restaurant. We’ve built it up and the thought of it being taken away from is really stressful,” says Ashleigh Kirkwood.

Director Jaime Moreno says after four years trading in a difficult economy he is desperately hoping the restaurant will be allowed to stay.

“The neighbours have the right to complain, but my opinion is that we’re not hurting anyone. It’s the opposite - we bring about 1000 people to the markets on a good week.”

However, that’s not the perspective of council’s senior planner, who told the hearing panel that “on balance, adverse effects are not appropriately avoided”.

“I do not consider that the positive effects on commercial viability, space activation and contribution to city centre vitality sufficiently compensate for the adverse effects,” Duckett concluded.

A decision by the independent hearing panel is expected by April 2 - one that could determine whether the smoke drifting through the Victoria Park Market courtyard is a sign of revival, or something that needs to be extinguished.