Dust up over villa demolition

BY JOCELYN REIN

A "21st century villa" proposed for a Ponsonby heritage street was put through its paces at an Auckland City Council hearing last week.

The house, earmarked to be built at 41 Clarence St, would see the existing dilapidated 1880s bay villa demolished to make way for a single-level family home.

The modern-looking, asymmetric house, designed by owners Amy Oding and Michael Pervan, has stirred up opposition from locals who are calling it a "stark and unsympathetic" addition to the street.

Although some of the seven submitters who spoke supported demolition of the building, all opposed the new design at the hearing, held last Wednesday.

Neighbour Loraine Lovering told commissioners she had undertaken an independent poll in the street and discovered most were unaware of the plans and immediately opposed the development.

"It doesn’t work with the harmony of the street," said Ms Lovering.

"We’re quite concerned that the council would even consider building such a modern structure in such a character area."

Parnell Heritage Inc secretary Kate Bowden said the house’s "blind face" facade with only one small horizontal window and no balcony is not in character with the other villas in the street.

London-based architect Anthony Hoete gave detailed reasons behind the building’s design, calling it a "contemporary take on a traditional villa".

He said the shape of the house, which resembled the ad-hoc lean-to, was part of the Kiwi psyche.

Ms Oding and Mr Pervan called the house "an innovative yet sympathetic solution" for the property.

Ms Oding said they appreciated the diversity, multiculturalism, the creative spirit and the eclecticism that differentiates Ponsonby from other Auckland suburbs.

"We believe the brief and the resulting proposal are a genuinely appropriate and creative response to this environment."

In a council report in December last year, planning consultant Sarah Mossman recommended commissioners decline the application for resource consent, calling it inconsistent with the aim of the district plan and architectural design guidelines.

But Ms Oding and Mr Pervan’s counsel David Kirkpatrick said the proposed house complied with district plan and the proposed Plan Change 163 – which seeks to further tighten the restrictions around heritage buildings.

He argued that the residential one zone is a "special character zone" not a heritage or conservation zone and that the proposed house responded to this special character appropriately without "simply replicating an old style".

The commissioners also heard cases for and against the demolition of the house.

Engineers reports paid for by the owners have generally concluded the house is not worth restoring.

Commissioner John Hill expressed concerns about a lack of evidence about the quality of the existing building.

Conservation architect Adam Wild also spoke on behalf of Ms Oding and Mr Pervan and said in terms of recognisable heritage value, the building was "unremarkable".

Mr Kirkpatrick also said the house was past the point where it could be renovated on any sensible basis. He said there was a lack of special features that would "justify heroic efforts at conservation".

But Ms Bowden says these heroic attempts are exactly what are needed and restoration should not be ruled out.

"We’re trying to keep what little is left of our heritage and yes that does require spending money."

Owner of the Great Ponsonby ArtHotel and organiser of Ponsonby’s heritage walks Gerard Hill spoke of his experience renovating seven villas and bungalows in the past 20 years and says the costs estimated for this project seemed unrealistic.

"I’ve got a fair idea of the costs and these figures are questionable."

He stressed the need for an independent, third party opinion.

A decision is due from commissioners by February 17.

- © Fairfax NZ News