Elim Group has applied for consent to redevelop a central city site where a 103-year-old Edmund Anscombe-designed house, most recently used as a real estate company office, stands in Stuart St, and also remove a protected lime tree on the site, so it can build a multi-storey complex with about 30 residential units.
The plan has outraged tree-lovers and heritage advocates alike, attracting 34 submissions so far — 33 opposed and one neutral.
While Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga said the house’s demolition would result in "the irreversible and wholesale loss" of significant historic heritage value to Dunedin, most submitters were concerned about the loss of the tree, which is on the Dunedin City Council’s register of significant trees.
Submitter Andrew Simms, also Mosgiel Community Board chairman, summarised what were many similar submissions, saying there was no point in the council having a significant tree register "if it folds to every developer who wants to remove such trees to build flats".
Mr Simms said the company was manufacturing risk — the company says the tree will become unsafe when the retaining wall beside it is touched — to justify cutting down the tree.
The tree was in perfect condition, posing no risk to anyone, and only became a safety issue if the retaining wall was interfered with, Mr Simms said.
Another submitter, Sarah Cottle, said significant trees should not be mulched for a developer "to make big bucks out of high-density housing".
There were also those who were concerned about the loss of heritage from the demolition of the house.
Submitter Paul Jeffery said the destruction of the character building "for insipid glass and steel" was a sign of increasing heritage demolition in the city.
Nichola Ferguson was concerned about tertiary students who "lack any sense of environmental integrity for this area of Central Dunedin" possibly living in the apartments and bringing rubbish and vehicles with them.
Daniel Williamson said the property had "proven itself by its surviving age to be soundly built and constructed out of the highest quality materials only to be replaced by a cheap-looking alternative, which looks like another leaky building disaster, and if it manages to stand for longer than 10 years, a future slum".
While not on the New Zealand Heritage List nor the District Plan heritage schedule, the house had significant heritage value and its demolition would result in "the irreversible and wholesale loss of those values".
The streetscape strongly contributed to by the arts and crafts-influenced house and its neighbour, the protected former King Edward Technical College opposite, would be negatively impacted.
The design of the new building did not mitigate the loss of heritage and was not in keeping with the design of the immediate environment, she said.
Planner for the applicant Cubitt Consulting director Allan Cubitt did not respond for comment when contacted.
In its application, the company said the development aligned with the council’s objective to produce high quality, inner-city dwellings.
A street-facing retaining wall needed to be removed to stabilise the building, which had become entangled with the tree’s roots.
"While the loss of the scheduled tree will have a negative effect on streetscape and amenity values, this will be offset by removing a safety issue posed by the retaining wall", it said.
"We consider that the proposal will end up contributing to a positive outcome for the city."
Council arborist Mark Roberts stated in the application he could not envision an option for the build that would retain the tree "without creating an unacceptable level of risk to people and property".
Submissions on the application close on Thursday and will be tabled at a meeting at a later date.
tim.scott@odt.co.nz , PIJF cadet reporter
