The resource consent granting the right to bring in the bulldozers comes despite the area being a protected townscape precinct, despite heritage advocates arguing there was no need to demolish any of the facades, and despite both the Dunedin City Council's consultant architect and its planner recently arguing the facade of 386 Princes St, at least, should have been saved.
Developer Luke Dirkzwager yesterday said he was "obviously pleased" with the decision, but because of the recent earthquake in Christchurch, had not had time to read it in full or consider when work might start.
His next step - after a 15-day appeal period - would be to consider when and how the work would be done.
Heritage advocate Elizabeth Kerr, who presented submissions during the resource consent process, said the decision was not surprising, "given the way each of the hearings and the interim decision have been tracking".
"What is surprising is the Dunedin City Council going against the protections of [its] district plan to allow demolition of four listed building facades in Princes St.
"I believe the integrity of the district plan is undermined by the decision."
The majority decision to allow the demolition of 372-392 Princes St, and 11 Stafford St, and replace them with a development of 15 apartments with space for retailing on the ground floor, came from a hearings committee of Crs Colin Weatherall, Richard Walls and Fliss Butcher.
It followed an interim decision in February that said the committee was "of a mind" to grant consent if Mr Dirkzwager's company, Prista Apartments, came up with a new design more representative of the precinct's characterThe response was a new design of facades replicating the originals, which, while generally well received, did not stop criticism of the demolition.
The consent came with a demand for a $350,000 bond before demolition, so "mitigation measures" could be taken if the new facades were not built directly after demolition.
The decision, signed by Cr Weatherall, said the buildings represented a period of rapid expansion during the gold-rush period, and were a tangible link to noted architect William Mason, but a heritage assessment did not identify any significant person, business or event associated with the addresses that meant they had heritage values "worth preserving at all cost".
At an August hearing, the New Zealand Historic Places Trust argued brick bread-ovens on the site were of national significance, but the decision said that was not supported by evidence, and was given little weight.
While work on the facade of 386 Princes St was possible, the committee was not convinced the cost was justified "when taking into account the likely return on the investment".
The Princes St commercial area was "struggling to function", and the new buildings would contribute to the area "in a way the existing buildings currently do not".
The consent did not create a precedent, the committee said.
"Each and every application, should there be others, will be assessed purely on its own merits."
NZHPT Otago-Southland area manager Owen Graham could not be contacted yesterday afternoon.
Historian Peter Entwisle, who also presented submissions during the process, said it was interesting the committee appeared to suggest if the development did not proceed, "those buildings will simply fall over".
The committee members were all councillors, and could have been more active in finding alternative solutions, he said.
Mr Entwisle said he expected an appeal would be lodged with the Environment Court.
