Repair and weatherproof the roof and windows of Carrington Building One

Open 648 official signatures 📡 RSS feed

Petition request

That the House of Representatives urge the Government to weatherproof and repair the roof and windows of Carrington Hospital’s Building One in Point Chevalier, Auckland.

Why this petition

We think weak heritage laws have allowed our local heritage-listed building to slowly rot from the inside out: “demolition by neglect”. Roof tiles and windows have been removed or broken. We consider rain a constant threat to the building. Carrington Hospital (1865-1992) was Unitec's Architecture & Design School between1994 and 2022. The Government has given responsibility for the building to the developer, which has not repaired the roof /windows. We ask for a solution.

📖 Background

Click to see details

What is the topic?

This petition asks the New Zealand Government to intervene in the physical repair of a specific historic building. The core issue is "demolition by neglect," a term used when a building is allowed to deteriorate due to lack of maintenance until it becomes unsafe or unusable, effectively leading to its destruction without a formal demolition order. The petitioners argue that current heritage laws are too weak to force owners to maintain these structures.

Current Situation

The building in question is Building One at the former Carrington Hospital site in Point Chevalier, Auckland. The hospital operated from 1865 to 1992. From 1994 to 2022, the building was used by Unitec Institute of Technology as its Architecture and Design School. According to the petition, the building is currently listed on the local heritage register. The site has been transferred to a private developer who is responsible for its care, but petitioners claim the developer has not repaired the roof or windows, leading to significant water damage and structural decay.

Arguments in Favour

Heritage Preservation: Supporters argue that the building is a significant part of Auckland’s history and should be preserved for future generations.
Legal Gap: Petitioners believe existing laws do not adequately compel private owners to maintain heritage-listed buildings, allowing them to let structures rot.
Immediate Threat: They state that ongoing rain and weather exposure are causing irreversible damage to the interior and structure.

Arguments Against

Private Property Rights: Opponents or neutral observers may argue that the government should not mandate specific repairs on private property unless there is an immediate risk to public safety.
Developer Responsibility: The current owner (the developer) is legally responsible for the site. The government may view this as a matter for the developer to resolve or for local council enforcement, rather than a national legislative issue.
Cost and Precedent: Directing the government to fund or force specific repairs could set a costly precedent for other heritage sites across the country.

Relevant Context

Heritage protection in New Zealand is managed through the Resource Management Act and local district plans. While the Department of Conservation (DOC) manages national heritage sites, locally listed buildings are typically protected by local councils (in this case, Auckland Council). If a building is deemed dangerous, the council can issue enforcement notices. However, if the building is not an immediate danger to the public, enforcement can be slow. The petition seeks to bypass local enforcement by asking the House of Representatives to urge the central government to act, suggesting that local mechanisms have failed to protect the structure.

⚡ Cached from a previous visit

Sign on parliament.nz →

Community verdict

7 support · 8 oppose

⚔ Battles (7 days each)

tie

👍 ForAsher Mitchell

Carrington Building One is one of Auckland's most important surviving nineteenth-century institutional buildings. Letting the roof and windows fail is demolition by neglect. Repairing the envelope now is the minimum the owner and the Government should do.

0 votes

0 : 0

👎 AgainstIona Clarke

The building is in private ownership. It is not the Government's job to repair every heritage property its owner has neglected. The council should use existing heritage enforcement powers, not ask taxpayers for a bailout.

0 votes

Community arguments

👎 Against Sinead Harrington 20 Oct 2026

If we fund this building, every other neglected heritage site will ask for the same treatment. We need a consistent national heritage fund with criteria, not a one-off decision driven by local pressure.

👍 For Megan Rutherford 20 Oct 2026

Broken windows and missing roof tiles are also a safety risk. Water ingress makes the structure unstable and puts anyone who goes near it in danger. The Government should not wait for a collapse.

👎 Against Malachi Reid 20 Oct 2026

This petition asks the Government to urge action but gives no figures, no engineering evidence and no ownership analysis. Parliament should not commit to a repair programme on the basis of a campaign slogan.

👍 For Marama Tait 20 Oct 2026

Carrington is part of the story of health care and architectural education in Auckland. Future generations deserve to see it, not a fenced-off ruin. Repairing the envelope is a modest, concrete step.

👍 For Tessa Whitfield 19 Oct 2026

Local volunteers and heritage groups have already documented the damage and offered support. This is not a vague request for a blank cheque; it is a call to fix the roof and windows before the building is lost.

👍 For Amelia Frost 19 Oct 2026

There is a realistic adaptive reuse case here: community space, housing or education. But none of that can happen if the building is left open to the weather. Stabilise it first.

👎 Against Harper Ngata 19 Oct 2026

Heritage listing does not automatically mean the building can or should be saved. If it is unsafe, poorly suited to reuse and expensive to maintain, demolition or partial retention may be the more honest option.

👎 Against Gwen Lloyd 18 Oct 2026

Auckland already has enormous infrastructure costs. Spending public money on one privately owned building means less for transport, water and other heritage sites. Priorities have to be set transparently.

👍 For Luka Singh 18 Oct 2026

The building is heritage-listed, but the legal protection has clearly not stopped it deteriorating. The Government should step in, require the owner to act, and fund urgent weatherproofing if necessary.

👍 For Eden Grant 17 Oct 2026

Every winter without a roof means more rot, more structural damage and a bigger bill later. Weatherproofing is the cheapest part of any restoration. Doing nothing is the most expensive option.

👎 Against Dara Patel 16 Oct 2026

Before any public money is committed, we need a full structural survey, cost estimate and remediation plan. "Repair the roof and windows" sounds simple, but heritage work is often far more expensive than it appears.

👍 For Caleb Nielsen 15 Oct 2026

I studied at the architecture school when it was based in this building. The craftsmanship and scale cannot be replaced once water gets into the structure. This is not nostalgia; it is practical heritage conservation.

👎 Against Iona Clarke 14 Oct 2026

👍 For Asher Mitchell 12 Oct 2026