There has been a lot of discussion lately about heritage listing of some Dunedin properties.
It is not a new topic — it was being discussed in the 1980s, ’90s and early this century when I was involved as a volunteer and then on the board of the Historic Places Trust. The arguments are the same now as they were then — restrictions on owners to use their properties as they wish versus the general public good of an attractive city which in turn helps to attract visitors.
I’ll start with the "rights" of property owners. These are already restricted in many ways, the most obvious being planning rules such as distance from boundaries, site density and height limits.
There is no protection for your views and, horror of horrors, you may have to set your garage back from the street.
If your area has been rezoned for higher density, you may have to put up with 10 townhouses on a section previously occupied by one old villa.
The next problem is, who decides what is heritage and what heritage is worth protecting? Heritage NZ, formerly the Historic Places Trust, has some very detailed criteria which are applied to each site or building proposed for classification on its list. These criteria and the properties listed are available to all to see on the Heritage NZ website.
Unfortunately, the criteria used by city and district councils seldom have this rigour. For some councils, "heritage" values are decided by elected representatives. Views often range from "that lovely old house" (worth keeping) and "that old dunger" (an eyesore to be got rid of).
When it comes to elected councillors, heritage value is often in the eye of the beholders.
Some years ago I had the privilege of living in our northern sister city, Edinburgh, for a year. Part of Edinburgh’s attraction to visitors and residents comes from the ultra-strict planning rules which have kept the heritage character of both the Old Town and the New Town.
I don’t recall hearing a word spoken against these rules by property owners or residents. They all understood the value of retaining the unique character of their city. Dunedin also has unique character, much of which derives from its heritage layout and buildings.
Here in Dunedin, the city council has its own heritage department. It is staffed by dedicated and knowledgeable people but, like Heritage NZ, it is limited in its ability to carry out the research required for listings.
This came into focus recently with the sale of a Stuart St property for redevelopment. There is no protection for the house, which appears to have heritage values, as it is not on the council’s list.
Rather absurdly, a tree on the property does have protection as it is on the list of protected trees. Neither the council nor Heritage NZ had listed the house.
What can be done?
Firstly, the issue of so-called "property rights". This particular dragon will never be completely overcome but can be appeased. Rates rebates are the obvious solution. Certain "community services", such as churches, already qualify for almost-total rebate of their rates.
Why not extend this to listed heritage properties? It would provide both compensation for foregone "rights" and incentive to get on the list.
I can already hear the voices of some councillors crying out that rates are high enough already, without the extra burden that would have to be carried by all other ratepayers. They have a point, but it’s a matter of priorities.
Ratepayers already subsidise numerous activities on the grounds of "economic benefit" for the city. We support a stadium because it brings visitors to Dunedin to spend money on food, entertainment and accommodation and this is thought to be good for the city. We provide assistance for conferences and film makers on the same grounds.
Surely protected heritage also makes the city more attractive to visitors and potential new residents.
Secondly, the issue of who decides what is heritage. There’s a simple solution to this: we just align the criteria used by the council with the Heritage NZ criteria and invite any person or organisation to present a case. It doesn’t all have to be done by council staff — local groups can focus on their own areas for their mutual benefit and owners can propose their own properties.
There is an added advantage in aligning with Heritage NZ criteria in that we can augment the Dunedin list by adding all the Heritage NZ listings to the local list, as they have already been through this same, rigorous procedure.
There is a widespread misconception that being on the Heritage NZ list protects a building, but it doesn’t. It recognises the heritage values of a site or building but protection comes from being on the local council’s list.
The only statutory, national protection arises if the site is associated with human activity before 1900, in which case Heritage NZ must issue an archaeological permit before the site can be disturbed. Therefore, adding Heritage NZ listings to the council’s listings will significantly improve heritage protection for those buildings in Dunedin at very little cost.
This is a very broad coverage of the topic. My intention is to spark debate about improving heritage protection in my adopted city of Dunedin, where heritage is suffering slow strangulation, piece by piece.
Let’s act now, while there is still something left to protect.
■David Kiddey has served as a member and chairman of regional committees of the NZ Historic Places Trust and was on the board of that organisation for five years. He is an honorary life member of Heritage NZ and a director of Business South.
