In correspondence shared with the Northern Advocate, O\u2019Neill questioned KiwiRail\u2019s assertion that it recognised the building\u2019s historical significance, saying he was unaware of any community members who had been informed or consulted before the demolition of what he considered an important part of the town\u2019s heritage.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe reaction has been fury, that the building wasn\u2019t offered for sale and removal, or even for salvage of the timber and fixtures. I have also checked with the Kauri Museum, who appear to have received no communication from KiwiRail regarding the demolition.\u201d<\/p>\n
He also asked KiwiRail for the engineering report that deemed the building unsafe, and details of the decision-making process that led to the demolition rather than sale or salvage. <\/p>\n
O\u2019Neill said KiwiRail\u2019s 45-page response largely focused on planned replacement portacoms for the site and did not address the building\u2019s heritage value, community notification, or opportunities for sale or salvage. <\/p>\n
KiwiRail executive general manager property Anna Allen said the former Maungat\u016broto<\/a> Railway Station \u2013 which opened in 1920 and closed in 1987 \u2013 was demolished on February 27, after being assessed as structurally unsound and a serious safety risk.<\/p>\n The building had most recently been used as a depot for KiwiRail staff but was no longer operational, she said. <\/p>\n Engineers found a perimeter wall was at risk of collapse, prompting KiwiRail to remove the structure.<\/p>\n \u201cThe decision was not made lightly. <\/p>\n \u201cIt was not heritage listed, was in disrepair and was well beyond the end of its structural life. As the building was no longer operational and was unsafe in its condition, the cost of repair could not be justified,\u201d Allen said. <\/p>\n Alternatives to demolition were considered but ultimately ruled out because of the building\u2019s condition, she said. <\/p>\n \u201cBecause of the risk of collapse, selling the structure to the community was not considered a viable option.<\/p>\n \u201cThe condition of the building, including the slab and foundation, meant relocating or reusing the structure was not possible.\u201d<\/p>\n Allen acknowledged the station\u2019s importance to the local community.<\/p>\n \u201cWe acknowledge the building had a long history in the community and that some people, including KiwiRail staff, were disappointed to see it go.\u201d<\/p>\n She said KiwiRail worked with iwi and hap\u016b before the demolition and carried out a site blessing.<\/p>\n \u201cWe recognise that heritage railway buildings are important to the identity and history of local communities<\/a>, and where possible work to protect or repurpose them. However, this needs to be balanced with our responsibility to ensure buildings are safe for use.\u201d <\/p>\n Opponents of KDC\u2019s decision to demolish the library building<\/a> expressed concern about the cumulative loss of heritage buildings.<\/a><\/p>\n They said the library building was an important part of the town\u2019s heritage and questioned whether more could have been done to restore or preserve it. Several suggested retaining the building\u2019s facade, while others argued decades of inadequate maintenance had contributed to its deterioration and eventual closure.<\/p>\n Residents also shared memories of using the library over several decades, saying its loss would remove another physical link to the township\u2019s past.<\/p>\n Others accepted demolition might be necessary if a building had become unsafe, citing reports of extensive mould, water damage and structural problems in the former library building. Some also questioned whether restoration costs could be justified.<\/p>\n Otamatea Ward councillor Denise Rogers said KDC staff examined whether parts of the building, including the front wall, could be retained, but reported that doing so would be prohibitively expensive and carried no guarantee of success. <\/p>\n While acknowledging the building\u2019s heritage value, Rogers said the council also had a responsibility to follow safety requirements.<\/p>\n