1. Harcourts Building, Wellington Lambton Quay Properties v Wellington City Council [2014] NZEnvC 229

2. heritage.org.nz The facts Category 1 Listed (registered) Building, confirmed by case in High Court in 1992 WCC district plan provision that ‘discourages demolition of listed (i.e. scheduled) buildings’ Total demolition sought 14% -19% of NBS Adjoins HSBC building which uses Harcourts building’s airspace

3. heritage.org.nz WCC District Plan OBJECTIVE 20.2.1to recognise the City’s historic heritage and protect it from inappropriate subdivision use and development POLICIES 20.2.1.2To discourage demolition, partial demolition and relocation of listed buildings and objects while: Acknowledging that the demolition or relocation of some parts of buildings and objects may be appropriate to provide for modifications that will result in no more than an insignificant loss of heritage values Giving consideration to total demolition or relocation only where the council is convinced that there is no reasonable alternative to total demolition or relocation

4. heritage.org.nz The facts (continued) HSBC and Harcourts in same ownership and owner knew of heritage status when he purchased it Yellow stickered by WCC and Notice under Building act issued Notice required that by 2027 owner either strengthen building or demolish all or part of building because of it being earthquake-p rone

5. heritage.org.nz Issues Relationship of Building Act and Resource Management Act 1991 Public safety and risk of damage to other buildings Preservation of heritage in Wellington CBD Interest of owner v. that of heritage preservation

6. heritage.org.nz Owner’s Position Building was refurbished in 2000 Unable to tenant after Canterbury Earthquakes Not prepared to argue for the retention of the façade only Argued that there was no reasonable alternative to demolition Owner made decision to demolish based on actual words of Earthquake-Prone Notice (under s124(2)(c) of Building Act) Nothing in Notice or covering letter to show WCC strong preference for repair rather than demolition

7. heritage.org.nz Position of Heritage New Zealand/Wellington City Council WCC seismic policy and procedure – the notice required ‘work necessary to reduce or remove the danger’. NB -These words were not reflected in Notice Not a dangerous building under s121 of the Building Act but an ‘earthquake-prone building under s122 Owner given option to upgrade or demolish in the Notice District Plan made it clear that resource consent under District Plan would be needed.

8. heritage.org.nz Legal Issues How to apply the WCC District Plan test ‘that there is no reasonable alternative to total demolition’ How to interpret assessment criteria for demolition and threshold that needs to achieved considering – work necessary to ensure structural safety – Adaptive reuse possibilities – Economic matters – Public interest in enhancing heritage qualities of City

9. heritage.org.nz Other Issues Offer by owner to fund other heritage works Relationship with other (HSBC) building

10. heritage.org.nz Conclusion Decision on the facts set against the District Plan provisions Relationship of Building Act and RMA can work together without conflict Reasonable alternatives satisfying economic public safety and damage to neighbouring buildings (pounding) tests Grant of consent not necessarily alleviate risk as consents are not compulsive Mitigation only relevant if there were no reasonable alternatives to demolition Bias towards s6(f)

11. heritage.org.nz