Council Overreach
Certain stories warrant repeated telling.
The Earnscleugh Homestead saga highlights the perseverance of its owners in restoring a dilapidated and uninhabitable structure back to its former grandeur, while also showcasing significant overreach by the local council.
The real issue lies not in the restoration itself but in the council’s decision to subject the owners to a bureaucratic ordeal through a public notification process, even though the Historic Places Trust supported the owners’ plans.
There were 98 submissions, all supporting the restoration efforts of the owners.
However, the council’s consultant opposed, wanting the building to retain its unfinished appearance.
This was despite issues like leaking walls and roof.
The consultant apparently misunderstood the story regarding the internal separation of the homestead.
The hearing costs alone escalated to $150,000 for the applicants.
The delay caused by the council resulted in significant opportunity costs.
Why did the council call for public submissions if it intended to dismiss public opinion?
Do councillors not represent the views of the public?
I urge the mayor to verify the accuracy of this information.
Additionally, will Mayor Tamah Alley publicly apologize to the building’s owners and offer to reimburse the hearing costs as a gesture of goodwill?
Gerry Eckhoff
Alexandra
Â
Response from Central Otago Mayor Tamah Alley:
The Earnscleugh Homestead stands as a true success story.
A Category 1 heritage building, once on the brink of being lost, has been restored and secured for the future.
Several points in Mr. Eckhoff’s letter are inaccurate.
Being a Category 1 heritage-listed building, any major work needed resource consent according to the district plan.
The public notification of the application was a statutory requirement under the Resource Management Act, following an independent heritage expert’s determination that the proposal’s effects were more than minor, not a discretionary or political decision.
Public submissions are not a referendum.
Decisions are made by hearings panel commissioners who apply the law and expert evidence.
Claiming the council ignored public opinion shows a misunderstanding of the process.
The council waived its processing fees in accordance with its policy.
The $150,000 mentioned refers to the applicant’s private hearing costs, not council fees.
The consent process adhered to statutory timeframes, with some periods placed on hold at the applicant’s request.
No grounds exist for compensation.
The true story is the remarkable restoration of an irreplaceable heritage building, and the owners deserve full credit.
I am delighted for Marco and Ryan and commend their achievements, not only for their family home but also for the broader Central Otago community.
