Trust replies to criticisms

Press, 6 September 1989, Page 21

Trust replies to criticisms

By

CHRISTOPHER MOORE

CRITICS OF the New Zealand Historic Places Trust have been advised to concentrate on realities rather than melodramatic interpretations of the trust’s work and function. The trust believed in the concept of new lives for old buildings, employing a comprehensive set of criteria and careful research when assessing a building for classification, according to its chairwoman, Dinah Holman.

Mrs Holman was responding to recent criticism on this page on August 26 by Sir Robert Jones, and Rodney Hide of Lincoln College. Both attacked the trust’s methods and work. Hide claimed that they represented "cavemen economics.” Sir Robert described the trust as undemocratic and unjustified. “Sir Robert’s portrayal of the trust has all the ingredients of good melodrama. Mr Hide’s picture is equally alarming. These dramatisations are all very well but it’s time to look at the realities. The trust has so far classified more than 4500 buildings. It can agree with developers and others who say that there should be clearer criteria for classification in the legislation," says Dinah Holman. “Aesthetic considerations are 4’-- ..

just one of a number of factors considered by the classification committee. A comprehensive set of criteria, careful research and assessment are employed in order to ensure high and consistent standards. Far from being a snap decision resulting from a personal whim, classification is a lengthy business, consuming many staff, committee and board hours and usually taking months to work through.”

Classification in itself did not protect a building. This could only be achieved by issuing a protection notice with the consent of the Minister of Conservation on a building with an A or B classification. The trust had issued 20 protection notices — 14 were operative today. “Only upon the issuing of the protection notice can the Trust prevent the owner from modifying or demolishing the building. Despite Mr Hide’s reported comments, the owner may continue to use the building as before or introduce a compatible new use,” says Dinah Holman. “Compared to . New Zealand, other countries either have much better incentives or stronger leg-

islation. Protection notices are used sparingly by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Either before or after issuing a protection notice, it usually attempts to discuss the future of the building with the owner and works towards a solution which will satisfy both the owner and the trust. This has been achieved in many instances.” The trust had extremely limited powers to force an owner to preserve a building. Protection notices could be subject to determinations under Section 125 D of the Town and Country Planning Act, under which the Planning Tribunal could direct the trust to acquire a building without giving it the opportunity to withdraw the notice instead. “This places the trust in an impossible position as it does not have sufficient money to buy expensive properties or the power to borrow money to do so,” says Dinah Holman. She questions implications that the trust forcibly acquires properties. “It currently owns or administers about 60 properties which it

either bought from a willing seller of inherited through a legacy. Because of the administrative and resource burden of servicing these properties, it now has a policy of not acquiring more properties,” she says. “The trust has some sympathy for property owners and developers who are currently not given much encouragement to preserve historic buildings. Sir Robert and Mr Hide make valid points about the role of the private sector whose support and involvement is essential to the long-term successful preservation of historic buildings.

agree with Sir Robert’s support for the American system of tax and financial incentives. Effective incentives of this kind nrovide an essential balance to the very necessary basis provided by regulatory provisions. “Rodney Hide, a lecturer in agricultural economics, may know his onions but not so much about the fruits of the labours of the Historic Places Trust,” says Dinah Holman. “The Historic Places Trust believes in buildings being well used and promotes the concept of new lives for old buildings. With or without strong powers to protect, it likes to work with developers and property owners

in ensuring that buildings are preserved and enjoy an economic future.” The trust’s first annual property developer’s award was recently presented to PrimAcq Holdings in Auckland for the restoration of the old Auckland Synagogue, now a branch of the National Bank. The 130 public submissions from individuals and organisations on the proposed changes to the Historic Places Trust legislation reflected a growing interest in the national heritage, the Minister of Conservation, Philip Woollaston, told the award ceremony in Auckland. “The Government is determined to live up to its pledge to reform New Zealand’s heritage legislation. It will do so within the framework of the over-all promise to decentralise decisionmaking as much as possible,” he said.