Heritage Protection in Auckland City

For the Planning Applications and Methods course, we had to look at an application for resource consent and write notification and decision reports on whether consent should be granted.

The site was in Ponsonby, which is within the Residential 1 zone of Auckland City. This area has heritage protection, and any application for building alteration has to meet the criteria set out in the plan.

This was the existing building:

(Source: http://www.nz.open2view.com/tour/photo/188709/16.)

And this is what did get approved:

(Photographs by Patrick Clearwater.)

In trying to assess whether the proposal was acceptable under the district plan, I found the district plan's criteria and explanation complex but still vague.

For example, the objective of the zone is to 'ensure the survival of the historic form and pattern of subdivision, buildings and streetscape in Auckland’s early-established residential neighbourhoods'. Much reference is made to the architecture being 'compatible' with the 'streetscape', but neither of these terms are defined.

The council decided that this application was acceptable. The exterior fits in with the neighbouring buildings in its materials (although the highly reflective roof is rather abhorrent). The detailing matches classic villa and cottage style.

But is this sort of architecture desirable? As can be seen from the older photograph, there is no way of knowing if this is the detail that would have been on this house.

More significantly, the whole frontage of the building has been extended, so that the house now adjoins the garage. This has changed the scale of the building, its footprint, and the form of the roof is now unusual in its large size. I would argue that this is not protecting the historic form and pattern of buildings in this area.

The following are some exerpts from my decision report.

The alteration at the front of the house includes the same form of roof as the original building, but with an increase in height to cover the larger area. Thus the roof appears higher and larger and more steeply sloping than the original roof. It appears unusual compared to the size of the front facade and the cottage style of the house, and dominates the proposed building even with the increased width of the house, and it is unusual compared to the style of other roofs on the street.

The alteration at the front of the house increases the intensity of buildings on the streetscape: the small cottage is replaced by a larger form. While the form is the same as a cottage, the scale has been changed. It has lost some of its few remaining authentic features including the visual scale of the building compared to the size of the site, and the small height and width of the building that adds to the fine-grained layout of buildings on the street.

The front alteration also removes some of the authenticity of the street: the original scale of the cottage is lost; the alteration is thus very to a complete recreation, maintaining only the position of the building and its form.

For these reasons the proposal is not considered to be achieving the objective of ensuring the protection of the historic form and pattern of buildings in the area.


Probably the most important part of the heritage provisions is the requirement to assess the surrounding area. This should include assessment of heritage value. 'Historical' could mean anything that has passed. In this example the front enclosed verandah of the existing house is part of the street's history: it tells the story of social and cultural changes of Ponsonby and the varying levels of fondness for old architecture.