Pages

Sunday, November 18, 2012

WCC - Irony, hypocrisy, or both?

Today it was announced that Wellington City Council has paid over a million dollars towards the hype leading up to the premier of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit - well J R R Tolkein's Hobbit actually, but you'd be forgiven for thinking Peter Jackson was the creator.  It's no problem to close streets for the erection of the Weta sculptures in the city, a twelve metre high sculpture of Gollum has been installed at the airport and silhouettes of Hobbits dominate the skyline in Wellington these days, but isn't it funny how times change . . .

It wasn't long ago that the Wellington City Council waged war on another Peter Jackson, for erecting a sculpture of Albert Einstein in Courtenay Place (- at his own expense):
From the Dominion Post, August 2005:
"BEAUTY, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder -- a lesson being learned the hard way by Wellington bar owner Peter Jackson.
He has been embroiled in a David and Goliath-type battle with Wellington City Council over a polystyrene Albert Einstein sculpture he commissioned to hang outside The Lab in Dixon St.
The council claims the artwork is an eyesore and has refused to grant resource consent. But the defiant publican is refusing to remove it.
He said he was prepared to cop a fine for his stand and was even considering an Environment Court appeal.
The 2.5-metre sculpture cost $2000. It was attached to the outside of the Hope Gibbons Building last year.
But the council demanded Mr Jackson apply for consent, claiming it was a sign because it featured the bar's name and breached planning regulations.
He duly applied, but council officers declined consent in June, ruling that Einstein was a visual affront, damaging the architectural and heritage values of a protected heritage building.
Down but not out, Mr Jackson objected and the matter went to a hearing last month.
Facing off against a team of council officials, he said there were countless signs down Courtenay Place. But the council last week dismissed Mr Jackson's objection and upheld the decision to deny him consent. It said the sign was inappropriate and detracted from the building's visual amenity.
"It just seems ridiculous," Mr Jackson said yesterday.
He had no intention of removing the sign as it could affect his business.
Council planning group manager Jane Davis said Mr Jackson had 15 working days to lodge an appeal before the sign had to be removed.
If he refused, the council could issue an abatement notice before seeking a court order.

No comments:

Post a Comment