By Jean Dorrell (Hamilton ratepayer and retired accountant)
Until 2022 it had never occurred to me that my Council could put a heritage designation on my house without any evidence.
I received a letter in June 2022 and, after five contacts with Hamilton City Council (HCC), I received an “expert” report[1] prepared by Richard Knott which stated the following about the twelve houses which formed the proposed Oxford Street (East) and Marshall Street Railway Cottage Historic Heritage Area (HHA):
“The dwellings within the area appear to be Railway Cottages” and are “consistent with a significant number of features of the early establishment of a service town and the railway workers suburbs heritage themes and is of at least moderate heritage value”
If you are in Hamilton, you will immediately think of the Frankton Railway Village which is a great example of Railway cottages, a former Railway workers suburb and a nationally recognised historic area registered under the Historic Places Act 1993.
My house is in Fairfield. It is not a Railway house and has no connection to Railways. It is 1.6 km from any railway infrastructure. The twelve houses are small old weatherboard cottages which have always and continue to be privately owned. Most of them have been modified significantly since they were first built. The houses are all unique (although there may have been more similarities when they were first built) and the better maintained ones could be described by real estate agents as “cute”.
I was gobsmacked that HCC could make such a material error. However, the City Planning Manager stated it was not an error. In the Waikato Times[2], Mark Davey, the City Planning Manager is reported as saying “The railway cottage designation refers not so much as to whether the houses were built by the railway as to a particular style of housing.”
So we were a Historic Heritage Area because someone thought the houses looked like Railway houses, and this supposedly made us representative of “a railway workers suburb”. We were advised that our only action was to make submissions to be considered by an independent hearing panel in due course.
The HHA was publicly notified on 22 July 2022 with all relevant restrictions imposed including limits on fencing, what could be in our front yards and any modifications. The market house values were reduced as small old houses which could not be significantly modified (or demolished) are not in demand.[3] The historic designation also meant any heritage features were excluded from house insurance, or alternatively (depending on the insurer) a premium could be paid.
From a LGOIMA response[4] we learned that:
- A peer review was performed by Adam Wild from Archifact Consultants[5] which raised concerns with the methodology used and specifically with 17 of the 32 proposed HHAs, including Oxford (East). This peer review was passed to Mr Knott, who chose not to make any changes.
- HCC held no documentation of any of the Oxford Street HHA houses prior to 1949.
Unfortunately, it appeared that HCC did not consider the need for evidence to have any relevance to heritage values.
We researched the history of Fairfield and of Railway houses and put together a detailed 68-page document.[6]
In early 2023 HCC engaged another “expert” (Origin/Miller) to peer review a sample of the HHAs including Oxford Street (East)[7]. The resulting report[8] was received by our HHA with astonishment. While it was now acknowledged that we were not Railway houses, it was now recorded that the seven Oxford Street houses all had central front doors with symmetrical windows on either side and gables parallel to the street and were all built in the early 1920s. This description did not match our houses. (It did match the Frankton Railway Village houses.) The report then took the inaccurate description and made some guesses as to why the houses were designed that way including being copied from Railway houses or Ellis and Burnand prefabricated houses. Even if the description had been accurate, it would not have shown any heritage values.
In the seven Oxford Street houses, there are only two houses with central front doors and symmetrical windows. Three houses do not have doors on the front of the houses at all, one is not visible and one has French doors on the left of the front of the house. No houses have the gable parallel to the street. The question we pondered was where the “expert” had been, because it did not appear he was ever in our street.
Mr Knott then produced a completely revised report for all the HHAs[9]. He had supposedly visited the street with Origin/Miller and had also “seen” the seven Oxford Street houses with central front doors etc. While he acknowledged there was no evidence, he believed we were early 1920s Ellis and Burnand prefabricated houses. It appears that neither expert knew what an Ellis and Burnand prefabricated house was or that they were first manufactured after 1926[10] (therefore could not have been built in the early 1920s).
The first hearings began with HCC’s lawyer and experts confidently stating that all of their (revised version 2) information was accurate and described valid Historic Heritage Areas.[11]
Our neighbours presented first with a picture of their front-door-less house on the big screen.
In his rebuttal[12], Mr Knott stated that he meant that a 1940s aerial photo showed that the houses used to have front doors and symmetrical windows.
Our oral submissions were farcical at times as we questioned why HCC wanted to preserve houses because a 1940s photo supposedly showed that they used to have central front doors with symmetrical windows. No answer was ever given to this.
The first hearings ended with Mr Knott and the lawyer stating they had revised the HHA report.[13] Two more revisions were produced.
Version 3[14] described us as “originally:- A central front door. – A small porch and symmetrical windows either side. – Oriented with the gable parallel to the street. (based upon information interpreted from early aerial photographs).” And stated:
“Limited documentary evidence is available to confirm the likely links to Ellis and Burnand.”
“In general, the buildings are of interest in so much as they are typical of houses of the period and of early state housing,”
When we requested the “limited documentary evidence” we were advised[15] that Mr Knott was referring to verbal conversations with other experts, and Mr Knott’s online research. This is a rather different definition of “documentary evidence” to the dictionary and not one which would stand up in the Environment Court or any court for that matter!
Version 4[16] reverted to describing us as still having a central front door etc.
In the second hearings, we highlighted the contradictions. We questioned how we could be typical state houses (as well as looking like Railway houses and “probably” being Ellis and Burnand prefabricated houses. We once again stated that HCC had provided no evidence of any historic heritage values.
Despite HCC and their experts having provided no evidence, the HHA was still ranked as having “moderate” heritage value.
On 26 February 2024, all the “moderate” HHAs were removed in the second decision by the Independent Hearing Panel[17].
The property owners in my HHA (also ratepayers) had around 20 months of high stress as they had to oppose an everchanging fake “history”. The residents of the twelve properties are a mix of young couples (with or without small children) and older couples/singles.
During this time:
- At least two houses were unable to be sold at market value due to the HHA designation.
- Two residents were unable to fence their properties to keep growing children safe[18].
- Property owners were unable to make future plans.
Footnotes
[1] Hamilton City Historic Heritage Area Assessment, 21st June 2022, Richard Knott Limited, page 35
[2] Waikato Times 17 September 2022.
[3] David Bade, Jose Gabriel Castillo, Mario Andres Fernandez, Joseph Aguilar-Bohorquez, The price premium of heritage in the housing market: evidence from Auckland, New Zealand, Land Use Policy, Volume 99, 2020, see page 12
[4] Official Information response from Hamilton City Council LGOMIA 286468, 07 December 2022
[5] “memorandum : plan change 9 historic heritage areas peer review”,archifact – architecture & conservation ltd (archifact), 6 June 2022
[6] Objection to Oxford (East) Marshall HHAs, David Edwin Whyte, Jean Mary Dorrell
[7] Memo – Direct Appointment – Origin Consultants Ltd – Request for GM Approved Miller
[8] Hamilton City Council PC 9: Historic Heritage Areas. Peer Review Assessment. March 2023, Origin Consultants Ltd, Page 29
[9] Appendix 8: Heritage, Schedule 8D: Historic Heritage Areas, 02 December 2022 , pages 95-96 + 97
[10] Papers Past, Waikato Times Volume 100, Issue 16813, 3 June 1926, page 8
[11] Hearing 1, Day 5, approx. 10:15
[12] Hearing 1, Day 5, approx. 15:26
[13] Hearing 1, Day 8, approx. 16:25
[14] SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF RICHARD JOHN KNOTT IN RESPONSE TO PANEL DIRECTION 8, 22 September 2023, pages 207-208 + page 209
[15] Email correspondence with HCC, RE: Evidence referenced in 22 September 2023 HHA report, 28 September 2023
[16] SECOND SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF RICHARD JOHN
KNOTT, 27 October 2023, pages 85-85 + pages 87-88
[17] PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 9 HISTORIC HERITAGE AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT TO THE HAMILTON CITY PLAN, Second Decision, 8 February 2024
[18] Both properties had high fences built within a month of the removal of the HHA.
[The content of any Opinion pieces represents the views of the author and the accuracy of any content in a post labelled Opinion is the responsibility of the author. Posting of this Opinion content on the CityWatch NZ website does not necessarily constitute endorsement of those views by CityWatch NZ or its editors. CityWatch NZ functions to provide information and a range of different perspectives on New Zealand’s cities and local councils. If you disagree with or dispute the content, CityWatch NZ can pass that feedback on to the author. Send an email to feedback@citywatchnz.org and clearly identify the content and the issue.]
Further reading on this issue:
OPEN LETTER: “HeritageGate” – The Problems with Hamilton’s Plan Change 9
Plan Change 9: Kāinga Ora appeals against large blocks of Hamilton becoming Historic Heritage Areas
