Adios 43 Hackett Street
-
I live a few doors down from this 100? year old villa. 2 days ago the 'renovationspecialists' seemed to be demolishing it (by hand, no bulldozer). I asked how much they were saving and he responded "nothing, we're taking it all down to the floorboards". And by crikey, looking at it today that would appear to be exactly what they're doing.
But how can this be I wondered? It's a very old house, in a Res 1 street no less. Why you just need to look at the identical house next door to see it's heritage value ... and didn't Auckland City Council introduce new controls to prevent this sort of defacto demolition?
And how on earth did they get the non-notified consent? As a member of the public I don't know the answers to these questions, but if there are any journo's here on PAS maybe they can get to the bottom of it??
From the Auckland City Council website
The Auckland City Council has voted to adopt new planning rules which offer greater protection for the city's character suburbs.
The new rules introduce tighter controls for the demolition or removal of pre-1940s homes in residential 1 and 2 zones...
The residential 1 zone is intended to protect the built historic character of Auckland's early established residential neighbourhoods. Promoting the survival of the historic form of these neighbourhoods is the primary objective of this zone. The zone includes large portions of Ponsonby, Grey Lynn, Herne Bay, St Mary's Bay, Freemans Bay, and Mt Eden, with smaller pockets in Ellerslie, Onehunga, Parnell, Avondale and Otahuhu. These areas are dominated by a large number of villas and bungalows which contribute to their valued special character.
Hmmm, 43 Hackett Street seems to be covered by this, but I guess not?
4 Responses
-
How sad to hear of the demise of Number 43! We lived in Hackett Street when I was in my early teens, followed up by a couple of years in Ring Road. I can't recall the exact number but think it may even have been just next door at number 45. St Mary's Bay has a very special character, distinct from Grey Lynn and Herne Bay. What a shame that property owners who bought into the area precisely because of this special character are able to destroy it at the drop of a hat presumably all in the name of progress...
What is the Auckland City Council doing with all those staff if they can't even interpret and apply their own by-laws. Don't worry, they'll just approve a retrospective building permit so they won't have to sort out their own failing processes...
-
Evidently they're not __demolishing __it they're __renovating __it. But in order to do the renovation justice they need to reduce the house to it's floorboards and start building again.
It's the same way you get kids out of cults ... break 'em down and then build 'em up. It's for the better ...
What is the Auckland City Council doing with all those staff if they can't even interpret and apply their own by-laws. Don't worry, they'll just approve a retrospective building permit so they won't have to sort out their own failing processes...
Nothing retrospective about it. They already have a consent for their 'renovation'. Get this: __Due to the Governments onerous building code, the only way to prevent 'Leaky Building Syndrome' is to remove the walls and start again. __That way the new walls will meet the new building rules on cladding systems.
Heh heh heh .... Auckland!
-
(that's right up there with: The only way we can get out of Iraq is to send more troops in)
-
Ah, rather than the retrospective (non)application of by-laws, they're clearly being more efficient by not applying them at the very beginning of the process. Thereby saving themselves a spot of bother with the neighbours at a later date...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.