Gordon Wilson Flats' Heritage Protection Goneburger
'The Gordon Wilson Flats were used as social housing until 2012, when an engineer's report showed the building was so unsafe that large slabs of the concrete exterior could come off in an earthquake or even a strong wind. The building has sat vacant since then, becoming more dangerous and more of an eyesore every year,' Mr Bishop says.
'The Gordon Wilson Flats are currently listed as heritage protected in the Wellington City District Plan, making it nearly impossible for anyone to get a resource consent to demolish them or alter them.
'There has been attempt after attempt to deal with the Gordon Wilson Flats since 2012, all of which have failed. The Flats sit as an ugly scar on the Wellington skyline, emblematic of a failed planning system that prioritises preservation of heritage, no matter the economic cost.
'Cities shouldn't be museums. The Wellington City Council wants the Gordon Wilson flats demolished, the University (the current owner) wants them demolished, and the people of Wellington want them demolished too.
'The Government is not prepared to let the situation continue any longer.
'Cabinet has agreed to enable the demolition of Gordon Wilson Flats by amending the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, which has recently been reported back to Parliament.
'The amendment will remove the Flats' protected heritage status and will make its demolition a permitted activity under the RMA. This means the building can finally be demolished, without a resource consent.
'The amendments will not apply to any other heritage-protected buildings around the country. The Gordon Wilson Flats have been singled out because the building is owned by a public institution – Victoria University – and because that owner, the council and the community all want it gone.
'I know many Wellingtonians will be relieved to know the Gordon Wilson Flats' days of heritage protection are numbered, and that it is unlikely to mar our beautiful city's skyline for too much longer.
The Amendment Paper to the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill will be introduced during the Bill's Committee of the Whole House stage, between its second and third readings. The Bill is expected to pass into law in the middle of 2025.
'The Bill also contains wider amendments to allow councils to de-list heritage buildings in their district plans faster and more easily. The wider issue of heritage protection is also being actively considered as part of the government's replacement legislation for the Resource Management Act, expected to be introduced later in the year.'
Victoria University may choose to demolish the Gordon Wilson Flats following the enactment of the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill. While they would not need a resource consent for the demolition, they would still need a demolition consent under the Building Act 2004 to ensure appropriate management of matters such as handling and disposing of hazardous building materials and controlling silt runoff, excess noise and dust generated by the demolition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
37 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Firms call for govt to step in over paint issue
The Dunedin City Council's "overly risk-averse" approach to lead paint in soils added $200,000 to the cost of a six-unit new build in the city, a group representing developers says. In a publicly released letter, the group is now calling on the government to intervene. The 10-page letter, signed by Terramark, TL Survey Services and Patersons and addressed to Housing Minister Chris Bishop, lays out a litany of complaints about the city council. "DCC are concerned that historic use of lead-based paints on residential properties categorises them as 'potentially contaminated'," the letter says. "We consider the DCC's application of the [national environment standards] for inorganic lead in soils is inappropriate, overly risk-averse and adds unjustified complexity, delays and costs to new housing projects." The letter also included a cost breakdown from two Terramark clients who had recently developed near affected land. It said the total cost of dealing with the lead in soil was $206,472 for a development of six two-bedroom units, while the cost to develop two sites for a new build comprising 18 units was $302,000 for lead remediation. "While there is no denying lead contamination can have adverse effects on human health, there is no evidence to support the approach taken by the DCC is actually reducing that. "Development actually reduces the potential contamination pathways. Doing nothing ensures the risk to human health remains higher — entirely the opposite of what the national environment standard is trying to achieve." The letter said the group had examples of homeowners terminating plans for minor house extensions once they discovered the potential cost and delays due to the DCC's interpretation of the national environmental standards. Terramark resource management planner Darryl Sycamore told the Otago Daily Times the three firms were compelled to write the letter out of "sheer frustration". "The council is over-interpreting the rules. It's impacting development, and it's pushing people who are developers to move to other regions." The firms' concerns were echoed by consultant environmental scientist Andrew Nichols, of Dunedin, who told the Otago Daily Times the city council should change its approach. Mr Nichols, whose work includes reviewing land contamination reports, said there was "precisely zero" public health data showing New Zealand residential soil was a public health risk due to its lead content that would justify the removal of the soil. He said the actual documented risks were from inhaling lead in petrol and from children chewing toys with lead paint — neither of which were issues today, let alone related to lead in soils. "This strict interpretation of HAIL [Hazardous Activities and Industries List] obligations as it applies to residential activities is great for me and others as contaminated-land professionals," Mr Nichols said. "But is an absurdity; a solution created for a problem that doesn't exist in residential development. It must change," he said. The firms' letter calls on Mr Bishop, who is also minister for the Resource Management Act, to intervene to establish a nationally consistent approach to the implementation of the national environmental standards. "In particular, we respectfully request the minister advise the DCC that their current implementation is flawed and to cease that practice without delay." Mr Bishop told the Otago Daily Times he had received the letter. "Councils are required to implement the national environmental standard for managing contaminants such as lead in soil. "Councils interpret and regulate the standards based on their local context. While I am primarily responsible for the RMA, councils are responsible for its day-to-day implementation. I encourage developers to work directly with the council." Mr Bishop said new legislation would be introduced to Parliament later this year to replace the RMA. Dunedin City Council acting general manager customer and regulatory Paul Henderson said councils received updated guidance from the Ministry for the Environment, as well as the findings of an independent review by Stantec. "It says homes and other structures built prior to 1945 could be potential or unverified HAIL sites, due to the use of lead-based paint. "This is because lead can, over time, find its way into soil surrounding such buildings, creating a potential risk to human health. "Only a small number of pre-1945 painted wooden or roughcast houses are demolished each year in Dunedin, and we continue to assess the impact in our city as being minor." While he acknowledged "a small number of developments" were likely to face additional costs as a result, he said they would not be of the order suggested, and "we didn't expect the new approach will have a significant impact on homeowners or development in Dunedin".
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Unions launch legal action over pay equity changes
When Associate Attorney-General Paul Goldsmith wrote his advice on whether the Government's pre-Budget changes to the pay equity regime breached human rights, he – likely unwittingly – provided those affected with a roadmap. 'The changes made by the Bill can be expected to have the effect of tightening access to the pay equity process and pay equity settlements,' he wrote in the document, known jargonistically as a BORA vet. These changes may result in someone facing discrimination based on their gender, he said. 'I have considered whether the combined effect of these changes may discriminate on the basis of sex by making it more difficult for a person to access a non-discriminatory rate of pay or to take steps to maintain pay equity.' But if that's the case, they could file a legal claim. 'On balance, I have concluded that these provisions do not engage s 19 because a person in this situation could still take court proceedings in order to obtain an effective remedy through other means – for example, seeking a remedy in the High Court for a breach of s19 of the Bill of Rights Act.' Cue the court case. On August 29, a collection of five unions will file their legal case with the High Court, claiming the coalition Government's controversial changes to pay equity legislation breach three fundamental rights: freedom from gender-based pay discrimination, the right to natural justice, and the right to fair legal process. This comes hot on the heels of Māori health providers and the greyhound racing industry calling on the court to declare the coalition Government's changes have broken the law. The claim will see New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO), Public Service Association (PSA), Post-Primary Teachers Association (PPTA), NZEI Te Riu Roa primary teachers' union, and the Tertiary Education Union (TEU) seek declarations from the court that the Government's changes to pay equity law are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They will be represented by Rodney Harrison KC and Peter Cranney – the lawyer who argued Kristine Bartlett's precedent-setting pay equity case. These unions represent 24 of the 33 claims that were wiped when the coalition introduced legislation without consultation, and passed under urgency, the Equal Pay Amendment Bill ahead of the May Budget. The 33 claims are estimated to have covered more than 150,000 workers. The Government says this change has saved them from paying $13 billion of taxpayers' money in future wages and salaries to those working in female-dominated workforces, whose work has been historically under-valued due to gender-based discrimination. The Government also tightened the framework, by lifting the threshold for the percentage of women workers in a sector from 60 percent to 70 percent and changed the way equitable pay is determined through the comparator system. So far, no claims have been filed and all-but the nurses say they see no way towards bringing a successful claim under the new regime. 'This is about more than pay' In a press release, TEU national secretary Sandra Grey said: 'If Brooke van Velden and Christopher Luxon thought avoiding a select committee process would allow them to dodge accountability for stealing $12.8 billion from low paid women workers, we've got news for them.' Other union heads called it a 'kick in the guts'. And now the Government is faced with striking secondary teachers and nurses. On Budget Day, when talking about her decision to overhaul the pay equity regime, in the context of delivering a 'responsible budget', Finance Minister Nicola Willis said: 'In addition to pay equity settlements, the Government will fund future pay rises for women-dominated public-sector workforces through the normal collective bargaining process.' Last month, Health NZ offered nurses a 2 percent pay increase this year, followed by 1 percent next year. They then moved to strike. High school teachers were offered 1 percent. They have voted to begin rolling strikes next month. And primary teachers are due to meet this week over collective negotiations. The Government has come out swinging at striking public sector employees – by holdings press conferences scolding the nurses' and teachers' unions. Meanwhile, Public Service Minister Judith Collins has also made comments suggesting the coalition could be considering limiting the options open to those wanting to take industrial action; if true the Government could be looking to dampen one more mechanism used by female-dominated workforces to secure pay increases. Pay equity changes and the recent strike action are no doubt linked. The new regime effectively locks out the 25,000 secondary teachers who would have been covered by the teachers' pay equity claim, as the workforce doesn't reach the new 70 percent women workers threshold. 'Our claim was built on years of rigorous, evidence-based work, carried out in good faith under a process agreed with previous governments. To have that work discarded by political decree is a betrayal—not just of teachers, but of every woman in Aotearoa New Zealand whose work has been historically undervalued,' PPTA president Chris Abercrombie said. 'This is about more than pay. It's about whether our country honours its commitments to fairness, equity, and the rule of law. We will not stand by while those principles are trampled. Our members deserve better. Our students deserve better. And our democracy deserves better.' Govt 'undermined the judiciary' PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimmons told Newsroom this litigation was about getting a fair hearing. 'We know that the High Court will give us a fair hearing, and we will be advocating similar arguments in the High Court that we would have advocated had the government run a proper select committee process.' This legal action stood alongside the country's first ever people's select committee, which was hearing from communities affected by the pay equity changes. The committee, which kicked off last week, received more than 1500 submissions. The unions' claim would asks the court to rule the changes breached section 19 of the human rights law that says everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination – in this case, gender-based discrimination. But Fitzsimmons said the Government had also breached women workers' right to a fair legal process and the executive had 'undermined the judiciary'. The executive's decision to cancel claims that were about to be heard by the Employment Relations Authority was inconsistent with the country's constitutional foundations, which clearly stipulated a separation of the different arms of government. A Treasury paper from December, released last month, laid out the Government's options for closing the funded sector contingency – the money set aside for covering pay equity settlements for those working in privately owned businesses, but in sectors that provided a public good and were largely funded by the Government, such as the aged care sector. The paper revealed that of the $12.8b estimated total pay equity costs over the forecast period, the funded sector contingency accounted for $9.6b of that (75 percent of estimated pay equity costs). Care and support workers (and one other redacted workforce) were described as the 'key claims with significant estimated costs' in the funded sector. The care and support workers claim had already been deemed to have merit under the previous pay equity framework, and Treasury officials pointed out the Employment Relations Authority had indicated it would hear the claim during the first week of May. Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden announced the changes on May 6, without prior warning or consultation – as care and support workers were preparing briefs of evidence for the authority. The legislation passed through all stages under urgency, with no select committee process. 'We have separation of powers in New Zealand,' Fitzsimmons said. 'And what we saw from the Government, under the cover of darkness and through urgency, was the cancelling of claims that the judicial arm was about to hear through the Employment Relations Authority.' Now many of these care and support workers were back on the minimum wage, she said. While the Government released pay equity documents at the end of last month, many of them included heavy redactions – especially when it came to legal advice. Fitzsimmons said this court process would uncover elements of those documents that had been withheld. 'We will see the full horror of the betrayal of New Zealand women by this government, and we will be taken seriously, and women will be given a voice.' What a win in court could mean While the High Court could rule that the Government's pay equity changes had breached human rights law, that doesn't mean the Government has to change the law. And the court has no power to tell the Government what it can and can't do when it comes to legislating. But Fitzsimmons tells Newsroom a win would still be a big deal. It would also add an immense amount of scrutiny to the law and the legislative process. If the court was to declare the pay equity changes are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act then Attorney-General Judith Collins would have to notify Parliament within six sitting days. From there, the matter would be referred to a select committee for scrutiny, where they would have four months to report back to Parliament. The Government would then have a further six months to present its response to the declaration and the committee's report, and from there a parliamentary debate would be held within the next six sitting days. 'The consequences for the Government and for Parliament are significant.' Legal challenges piling up The unions' legal challenge comes as the Government faces off in court against other aggrieved communities. The pay equity case will come after a High Court hearing of an unprecedented claim from a group of Māori health providers over the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora. The providers, led by Lady Tureiti Moxon, are also calling on the court to declare the shutting of the Māori Health Authority breaches the Bill of Rights Act. And, in the first case of its kind, the group is also asking the court to declare the move inconsistent with te Tiriti o Waitangi. Last week, Greyhound Racing NZ had its case for interim relief heard, ahead of a more substantive judicial review of Cabinet's decision to ban greyhound racing in New Zealand. The decision, which was announced without consultation with the industry, didn't follow the proper process, making it unlawful, former Attorney-General Chris Finlayson KC told the High Court last Thursday. But those acting on behalf of the Crown – and ultimately Racing Minister Winston Peters – said the Government was within its rights to make a decision to ban greyhound racing on political ground, then legislate to do so. Crown lawyer Katherine Anderson KC raised the example where the Government had made a political decision to legislate, without consulting the affected communities, saying it was the executive's right to do so. This coalition has also faced a series of challenges at the Waitangi Tribunal, and it's unlikely these legal cases will be the last to come. Earlier this year, Newsroom revealed the Government would be reinstating a full prisoner voting ban. And last month the coalition announced it was overhauling voter registration, meaning voters would not be able to enrol or update their details in the 12 days ahead of election day. This move is expected to impact more than 100,000 people and disproportionately affect young people, Māori and Pasifika. Jailhouse lawyer Arthur Taylor, alongside the Human Rights Commission, successfully sought a declaration of inconsistency with the Bill of Rights Act last time a Government removed prisoners' right to vote. This led to a process that ultimately resulted in the previous Labour-led Government giving the vote to everyone who was serving a sentence of less than three years. It would be unsurprising to see someone take essentially the same case back to court when this new prisoner voting ban comes into effect, given the court's already ruled it breaches human rights law once before. Meanwhile, Attorney-General Judith Collins told her colleagues, including the minister responsible and her associate attorney-general Paul Goldsmith, that the proposed changes to voter enrolment breach the Bill of Rights Act, saying Māori, Pasifika and Asian communities will pay the 'heaviest price' by being disenfranchised. Once the law has passed, someone could call on the court to declare inconsistencies with section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act. A win in any of these cases doesn't necessitate a law change, but they will put the spotlight on the coalition's process and the weight it puts on human rights. The union's case will be filed at the High Court on August 29, alongside a protest rally held by women whose claims were cancelled.
The Spinoff
2 hours ago
- The Spinoff
‘How do I not get rage-baited?' Meet the under-25s vying for council seats
They're young, full of ambition and just want to make sure their mates stop leaving the country. The competitive world of local politics, where greying heads and people named John dominate, is not a domain younger New Zealanders have traditionally gravitated towards. While this is changing – the number of under-40s voted in at the last last local elections in 2022 had doubled since 2016 – the median age was still 55, and only around 6% of members were aged 18-30. Looking to further increase that percentage when the country heads to the polls in October, these young candidates are hoping another youthquake could be possible in local government. Born on a leap day in the year 2000, 25-year-old Wellingtonian Sam O'Brien may have only had six real birthdays, but he reckons he's got enough life experience to represent the Motukairangi/Eastern Ward on Wellington City Council. Running on the Labour ticket, O'Brien is the second-youngest candidate in his race after the Act Local-backed 21-year-old Luke Kuggeleijn. Though their political stances are poles apart, they're both driven by the same motivation: to prove the youth voice can speak for all New Zealanders. It's a rainy day in Kuggeleijn's home suburb of Lyall Bay – Motukairangi/Eastern Ward stretches eastwards from Roseneath, Kilbirnie, Hataitai and Lyall Bay to cover the Miramar Peninsula that juts out into the mouth of Wellington Harbour – when we meet for a coffee at Maranui Cafe, just a stone's throw from the Surf Life Saving Club where he works. A postgraduate medical technology student and athlete, Kuggeleijn told The Spinoff he decided to throw his hat in the ring after seeing the party he voted for at the last election move into the world of local government – he figured the support that Act could offer would make it easier for a first-time candidate at his age to 'have the confidence to stand'. Also, it's pretty handy to have some mentors around who can answer the hard questions, like 'how do I not get rage-baited?' Running in a Green/Labour stronghold city, Kuggeleijn reckons his chances of winning one of the three ward councillor spots are slim (and the Eastern Ward race in particular is pretty stacked, with mayoral candidates Alex Baker, Rob Goulden and Karl Tiefenbacher also running), but he says it's still worth it if it encourages other young people to get into local politics. 'Usually, [young people] only see older people on council, and they think it's shit – you know, what's the point [of caring?],' Kuggeleijn says. 'We have a 45% voter turnout [in Wellington], and they're mostly older property owners and people who are already interested in politics.' Kuggeleijn says he feels 'fairly aligned' with Act's principles and 'commonsense mindset' on council spending, a position also informed by the experiences of his parents, two local business owners dealing with the rising cost of rates. As a councillor, Kuggeleijn says he'd be focused on 'ending wasteful spending and focusing on core services'. There are times when Kuggeleijn feels slightly out of step with his more progressive peers, but he's a firm believer that 'in a democracy, you've got to give people a choice, even if it's a minority view'. 'I think the best course of action you should take if you're elected is that [you see yourself] as a public servant, so you have to serve. People should make decisions that are not based on ideology or political favour – you're supposed to make decisions based on what the people want,' Kuggeleijn says. In Hataitai, Sam O'Brien's vision for the Eastern Ward looks vastly different. Over a coffee and toastie from Coolsville Cafe, just up the road from his flat, the regional council environment policy adviser (who's been endorsed by outgoing Eastern Ward councillor Teri O'Neill, herself elected to council at age 21), reckons he's been to far too many leaving parties for his mates who are heading overseas for better opportunities. Encouraging development and demand in the Eastern Ward will be key to curbing the 'general down-buzz' permeating the air in the capital, he says, and to turn off the tap on the brain drain. Alexandra born-and-raised O'Brien is running for council in the city he moved to post-university because he believes the council could be more proactive at listening to the concerns of younger Wellingtonians. The Eastern Ward in particular has seen very little growth in terms of population, O'Brien says, and as a councillor he would push to enable housing intensification and greater density. Ignoring these issues will 'affect young people more than anyone else' in the long run, he says. Having affected mobility due to hip and knee replacements as a child, O'Brien is also pushing for a more accessible capital by way of supporting more pedestrian-friendly urban spaces and improving the public transport system in the city. And should he make it onto the council table, O'Brien hopes older Wellingtonians will be able to see themselves and their interests reflected in his work. 'What benefits young people benefits everyone, and I don't want to come across a candidate that only cares about young people,' he says. 'A lot of older voters that are on fixed incomes are really struggling, and you can see the similarities between them and students.' 'I'll sacrifice myself, I guess' Further north in Auckland, 21-year-old Caitlin Wilson is running for the Waitematā Local Board with City Vision, the Labour-Greens-independent local government coalition in the supercity. She's also seen too many of her mates headed to Australia for work opportunities, and as a former co-convenor for the Young Greens, Wilson had tried last year to put together a campaign to 'push the vote out for our younger audiences', but struggled to find any young candidates keen to stand in 2025 – until she realised she should just do it, deciding, 'I'll sacrifice myself, I guess.' 'There's no pathway, which is why a lot of young people say, 'I don't know where to start',' Wilson says. 'You feel like you have to fit a certain mould, talk a certain way, look a certain way … But I definitely think I'm learning that people should respect me for who I am, regardless of how I dress and speak.' Wilson says local government isn't designed to engage young people – too few councillors are showing up in youth-focused spaces, and holding local board meetings at the 'retiree time' of 1pm can be a barrier to accessibility. 'Young people, and myself included, have in the past thought, 'they don't care about us, they don't care about our opinions, so why should we be engaged?'' Wilson says. Her own interest in politics happened by accident – she was 15, there was a global pandemic going on, and Green MP (now co-leader) Chlöe Swarbrick was on Facebook Live talking about the cannabis referendum. It was the first time Wilson had seen a politician 'speaking in a language I could understand'. She hopes that standing for council and replicating some of Swarbrick's 2020 campaigning by hitting the universities and letterboxes can also help the youth vote grow. 'My whole thing has just always been to bring people into politics, people who've never felt welcomed or that they needed a certain level of knowledge to enter this space,' Wilson says. 'It's not just young people – I feel I can represent disengaged communities in general, families and people who don't have the time and luxury to be in the know with local government.' Young enough to know when to quit Rohan O'Neill-Stevens was only 19 when they were first elected to Nelson City Council in 2019, and had just turned 22 when they became the city's deputy mayor, after putting their name forward for the top job. Now 25 and having spent a quarter of their life in local government, O'Neill-Stevens reckons it's the right time to give someone else a chance to bring their ideas to the council table. 'I promised myself when I was first elected that I'd ask myself every single day, 'Is this where I'm most effective and most able to drive change?'' O'Neill-Stevens tells The Spinoff. 'I can step away with confidence that I'm making space for someone else to have those opportunities to shape the future, and that I'll be able to find new ways to do the same.' Their experience in council has shown them that younger elected members tend to face more scrutiny than their older counterparts – it wasn't uncommon to field 'way more technical questions' to prove that they were on par with older councillors. 'There was definitely that period of being sized up,' O'Neill-Stevens says. 'It's so hard to know what my experience would have been like if I wasn't young. But also, I'm a male-presenting white person, so those layers of perception are different in terms of what it takes to earn respect, and to have your voice be treated as one of authority.' To the next generation of young councillors, O'Neill-Stevens says the 'service to the kaupapa' has to be the driving force behind a campaign, and to 'approach every conversation with the expectation that you'll learn something'. Being able to create meaningful dialogue with community members, even those who might never vote for you, is still 'an innate source of information' for what's going on in your area. That attitude to conversation even works with fellow candidates. 'So many people will tell you exactly what their debates are before you go in, even if they are completely opposed to you,' O'Neill-Stevens says. 'Use that to your advantage, get them talking. Let them spill their secrets.'
