Purpose: The purpose of this document is to summarise the analysis I prepared in response to a question from Voluntary Heritage as set out in their email to me on page 3 below.

 

Under the Local Government Act 2002 the role of a Councillor is to make decisions and set direction, taking account of community views and preferences while also considering the broader interests of the whole district. If elected I would present my analysis to the community and discuss this matter with them and decide what best represents my community and sharing my reasons with the community. Therefore my responses to the following questions:

  1.  If you are elected, will you support the government's delisting of the Gordon Wilson flats from the Council’s heritage list: Yes /No See my answer to question 3 below

  2. If you are elected, will you support delisting properties from the Council’s heritage list if the owners want the heritage listing removed: Yes /No See my answer to question 3 below

  3. If "No", do you support the current policy, or do you propose an alternative solution? The role of a Wellington City Councillor is to make decisions on behalf of the community to support the city’s well-being and development. If elected I would present my analysis to the community and discuss this matter with them and then decide what best represents my community, and sharing my reasons with the community.

 

My understanding is the Heritage Designation Framework exists to identify, protect, and manage places of historic, cultural, or architectural significance so they are preserved for current and future generations.

 

The decision to remove a property from Wellington’s heritage list must weigh the owner’s desire to redevelop the site against the statutory heritage protections set by government regulation. The owner argues that delisting would unlock significant redevelopment opportunities, potentially providing new housing, economic activity, and better land use. However, the government’s regulation requiring heritage listing reflects the building’s recognised historical, cultural, and architectural value, intended to protect it for future generations.

 

I have analysed the tradeoffs as follows:

·         Economic: delisting increases development but risks losing unique character.

·         Environment: delisting and redevelopment could improve sustainability and resilience being more energy-efficient and environmentally optimised

·         Social: delisting removes a deteriorating, unsafe eyesore and  meets community expectations for urban improvement and safety, results in a new development that might deliver housing and amenities.

·         Culturally: delisting removes protection for a significant modernist landmark erasing an important chapter of architectural and social history.

·         Governance: delisting overturns a mandated listing which could set a precedent and raises questions about fairness and representative process.

 

Whether the benefits exceed the costs of removing a property from Wellington’s heritage list depends on the weight we give to economic redevelopment and public safety versus heritage preservation and local governance integrity.

 

From a purely economic and functional standpoint, the benefits are strong: the building is derelict, unsafe, and costly to restore. Delisting clears the way for redevelopment—likely into student accommodation—which could meet urgent housing needs, increase land use efficiency, and improve the area’s safety and amenity.

 

However, the costs are significant in terms of cultural loss, environmental impact, and governance precedent. The demolition will erase a rare example of mid-century modern state housing, discard potential adaptive-reuse opportunities, and generate waste. The central government’s override of local heritage protections also risks undermining community trust in heritage processes.

 

On balance, if our priority is unlocking land for economic use and eliminating unsafe structures quickly, the benefits likely outweigh the costs. But if we place higher value on protecting unique cultural heritage, reducing demolition waste, and upholding local decision-making, the costs could be considered greater.

It’s ultimately a trade-off between urgent redevelopment needs and long-term heritage and governance principles.

 

I wonder whether there is an option to explore that by de-listing the alternative redevelopment option retains heritage elements aligning the owner’s objectives with the intent of the regulation. I also wonder whether it could be time to revisit the heritage designations framework.

 

Please note: This document has been prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, but all final wording is mine and I am accountable for it. If you have any questions about this, please let me know.

From: voluntaryheritage@gmail.com <voluntaryheritage@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 10:20 AM
To: Rodneybarbernz@gmail.com
Subject: Heritage Policy

Dear Rodney,

As you will be aware from media and social media activity, the great majority of people have had enough of unwanted and unwarranted heritage designations being placed on private property.

These heritage designations are stopping our city developing, are putting home ownership out of the reach of our young people and are leaving our beautiful city littered with eyesores.   The Gordon Wilson Flats in Wellington, which have lain empty and derelict for the last thirteen years, epitomise the problem, but there are numerous others like the Dixon St Flats, the old gasworks tank in Miramar and many residential buildings.

The Voluntary Heritage Group is a group of citizens and ratepayers who support heritage designations by Councils only where the designation has the written agreement of the owner of the property. We are writing to you as a candidate in the coming Council elections to understand your support for voluntary heritage.

We would appreciate your response to the following questions:

  1.  If you are elected, will you support the government's delisting of the Gordon Wilson flats from the Council’s heritage list: Yes /No

  2. If you are elected, will you support delisting properties from the Council’s heritage list if the owners want the heritage listing removed: Yes /No

  3. If "No", do you support the current policy, or do you propose an alternative solution?

Please provide your response by Friday 22 August.

The VHG will publish your response to this email on our Facebook page   https://www.facebook.com/voluntaryheritage/?_rdr  on Monday 25 August. Non-responses will also be recorded.

Kind regards/ Ngā mihi

Philip Barry