|
Hearings
Committee
11 June 2014
|
|
Application for
Resource Consent: Proposed removal of a building that is subject to the
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Pre-1944 Demolition Control, 92 Point Chevalier
Road, Point Chevalier
File No.: CP2014/11650
Purpose
1. This report invites the Hearings
Committee to determine the notification decision for an application for
resource consent to remove “The Old Homestead” building at 92 Chevalier Road,
Point Chevalier.
Executive
summary
2. Following the notification of
the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (“the PAUP”) the building at 92 Point
Chevalier Road, Point Chevalier (“the site”), known as “The Old Homestead”, was
afforded protection from demolition and/or removal from site as part of the
pre-1944 demolition control overlay. A temporary consent was granted to allow
the building to be stored off site.
3. An application for resource consent
(R/LUC/2013/4689) has now been lodged seeking the permanent removal of the
building from the site and its replacement with a replica.
4. The subject site is zoned
Residential 6a under the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland
City Isthmus Section 1999) and Residential Mixed Housing Urban under the PAUP.
5. The application has been
submitted following the temporary removal in late 2013. This was reported in
the NZ Herald and generated much interest from local residents. Differing opinions
have been expressed on the removal of “The Old Homestead” by elected
representatives. As such the application is deemed ‘contentious’ as defined by
Hearings Committee ‘Hearing Policy’.
6. The Hearings Committee is
responsible for either making determinations on this contentious application
directly, or deciding who is the most appropriate delegated decision maker.
7. The Council’s reporting planner
recommends that the application be processed on a non-notified basis (refer to
report provided in Attachment A), and that a decision on whether to
grant or refuse resource consent be made by independent commissioners.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Hearings Committee:
a) determine that
the application to remove a pre-1944 building (“The Old Homestead”) and construct
a replacement building at 92 Point Chevalier Road, Point Chevalier, proceed
on a non-notified basis pursuant to sections 95A and 95B of the Resource
Management Act 1991, for the reasons that:
i. The proposal will have no
more than minor adverse effects on the wider environment and any adverse
effects on persons on adjacent sites will be less than minor;
ii. The building is of an
ordinary design / construction and the previous removal of original chimneys
and roof has compromised the heritage quality of the building; and
iii. The replacement building
will externally be a replica of the building that is to be removed, but with
an improved internal layout that better provides for the established church
activity.
b) appoint the
rostered independent duty commissioner, and either John Hill or Richard Knott
as heritage commissioner to sit with the duty commissioner, to make a
decision on the application for resource consent pursuant to section 104 of
the Resource Management Act 1991.
|
Discussion
Site
history
8. Prior to notification of the
PAUP the subject building was not protected and its removal could have occurred
as of right without the need for resource consent. The applicant was aware of
their right to remove the building and entered into extensive public
consultation with local residents, local groups and the Albert/Eden Local Board
to determine the local support for their proposed redevelopment plans.
Following notification of the PAUP the building was removed from site and
resulted in enforcement action taken by the Council. A temporary consent was
granted in November 2013 to formalise the off-site storage of the building in a
secure yard. This was approved under the Committee’s emergency provisions by
Councillors Cooper and Anae on the basis that the building would be returned to
the site should the application for the building’s permanent removal be
unsuccessful. A copy of the resource consent for this temporary removal is
provided in Attachment H and further site resource consenting history is
provided in Attachment I.
The
proposal
9. Resource
consent for a restricted discretionary activity is sought for the permanent
removal of a pre-1944 building that is subject to the pre-1944 demolition
controls of the PAUP. The building is not scheduled and is not listed by the
New Zealand Historic Places Trust.
10. A copy of the
application material and proposal drawings is provided in Attachment B,
further information is provided in Attachment C and heritage assessments
from the applicant and the Council are provided in Attachment D and Attachment
E.
Staff
view on notification
11. The planning assessment has
involved a thorough analysis of numerous expert reports, site meetings with the
applicant, informal public consultation in the form of petitions of support and
Albert/Eden Local Board support for the proposal. Whilst the council heritage
assessment concludes that the building warrants Category B scheduling under the
Historic Heritage provisions of the PAUP, the building is not scheduled under
the PAUP provisions. It is recommended that the adverse effects associated
with the proposal are minor and that the application should proceed on a
non-notified basis.
12. This is primarily due to the
ordinary design and construction of the building, the removal of original
chimneys and roof which has compromised the heritage quality of the building.
Additionally, the applicant proposes a building that will externally be a
replica of the building that is to be removed, but with an improved internal
layout that better provides for the established church activity.
Consideration
General
13. The Hearings
Committee has adopted a hearings policy, which at section 4.2, refers to “Allocation
of decision making responsibility between elected members, independent
commissioners and staff". This includes procedural decisions such as
whether or not to notify, in addition to substantive decision-making. Section
4.2.2 of the hearings policy states that in deciding who is the most
appropriate decision maker, the Hearings Committee will take into account
recommendations from staff, the significance of a particular matter and whether
it is contentious.
14. The application
falls into the definition of contentious due to differing perspectives between
elected officials and the building’s previous media coverage. Therefore, the
Hearings Committee in accordance with its policy, should either determine
notification of this application or delegate authority to an independent
commissioner (or commissioners) to the decision maker for this application.
Local
board views and implications
15. The Albert /
Eden Local Board Planning Chairperson on behalf of the Local Board have
provided written support of the proposal (refer letter provided in Attachment
F).
Public
consultation
16. No formal publication
consultation under the Resource Management Act 1991 has occurred and the
applicant has not formally sought the written approval of any potentially
affected parties. This is due to the applicant’s opinion that there are no
adversely affected parties and this is supported by the officers’ notification
recommendation that this application does not require the service of notice on
any persons.
17. Notwithstanding
the above, the applicant has undertaken extensive informal public consultation
on their plans for the site and provided evidence of this in their
application. The application is supported by a petition signed by persons from
the local Point Chevalier area as well as letters of support from local groups
and residents including properties within the immediate environment of the
subject site (refer correspondence provided in Attachment G). A copy of
the consultation evidence and a map identifying properties providing support of
the proposal is included in the notification recommendation.
Maori
impact statement
18. There is no
record of the site having particular significance to iwi nor has any matter of
interest been raised in the application’s assessment of environmental effects
or supporting documentation. An archeological survey submitted with the
application has not raised any relevant issues or found any significant
archeological items within the site.
Implementation
19. There are no financial or legal
implications beyond those normally associated with the determination of an
application or the appointment of hearing commissioners. In this case, staff
are of the opinion that the costs of any commissioner involvement in the
decision making should be met by the Council and not passed onto the applicant.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Council staff notification recommendation report
|
9
|
|
b
|
Application material (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
c
|
Application further information (s92 RMA) (Under
Separate Cover)
|
|
|
d
|
Application heritage assessment (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
e
|
Council staff heritage assessment (Under Separate
Cover)
|
|
|
fView
|
Letter from Albert / Eden Local Board
|
21
|
|
g
|
Letters of support from local community (Under
Separate Cover)
|
|
|
hView
|
Temporary removal resource consent
|
23
|
|
i
|
Background approvals (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Peter Kensington - Principal Planner, Hearings and
Resolutions
Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager
|
|
Authorisers
|
Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents
Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager
|
|
Hearings
Committee
11 June 2014
|
|
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987
That the Hearings Committee:
a) exclude the
public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general
subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the
reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific
grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.
This
resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or
interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be
prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of
the meeting in public, as follows:
C1 Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 11 June 2014
|
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each
matter
|
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)
|
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this
resolution
|
|
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be
likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for
withholding exists under section 7.
|
s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary
to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage,
negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
In particular, the report contains information that could
compromise the council in undertaking without prejudice negotiations of
appeals that are before the Environment Court.
|
s48(1)(a)
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be
likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for
withholding exists under section 7.
|
