I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Heritage Advisory Panel will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Tuesday, 10
May 2016
5.30pm
Level 2
Reception Lounge
Town Hall
Auckland
|
|
Heritage Advisory Panel
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Chairperson
|
Councillor Mike Lee
|
|
Deputy Chairperson
|
Sherry Reynolds
|
|
Members
|
Elizabeth Aitken-Rose
|
|
|
Graeme Burgess
|
|
|
John Burns
|
|
|
Leyton Chan
|
|
|
Helen Geary
|
|
|
Rau Hoskins
|
|
|
Sally Hughes
|
|
|
Allan Matson
|
|
|
Jane Matthews
|
|
|
Dr Ann McEwan
|
|
|
Claudia Page
|
|
|
Bill Rayner
|
|
|
David Veart
|
|
|
Lorraine Wilson
|
(Quorum 10 members)
|
|
|
Elodie Fontaine
Democracy Advisor
4 May 2016
Contact Telephone: (09) 890 4868
Email: elodie.fontaine@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Purpose
·
Provide advice to the council in
relation to:
- the
direction and content of strategies, policies and initiatives
- any matter that the panel considers to be of
particular interest or concern to the historic heritage of Auckland
·
To deliver advice for improving
the promotion and management of historic heritage of the Auckland region
·
Advise Auckland Council on council
processes and mechanisms for engagement with the historic heritage community,
including owners of heritage buildings in Auckland.
·
To recommend historic heritage
expert membership and provide advice to the Auckland Urban Design Panel.
Scope
To provide a forum for the consideration of issues affecting
historic heritage of the Auckland region and provide advice to the council.
Priorities
The priorities for the panel include:
·
Historic Heritage Plan
·
Issues relating to the Unitary Plan
·
Council processes
·
Input into the Auckland Urban Design Panel.
Membership
The panel’s spokesperson is its chairperson.
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
10 May 2016
|
|
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Apologies 5
2 Declaration of Interest 5
3 Confirmation of Minutes 5
4 Extraordinary
Business 5
5 Public Input 7
6 Proposed Review of Scheduled Archaeological Sites 9
7 Ihumatao Update 11
8 Unitary Plan Update 13
9 Processing applications within the Pre 1944 overlay 15
10 Update from the Chair 17
11 Manager Heritage General Update 19
12 Correspondence to the Mayor regarding the restoration of
Christchurch Cathedral 23
13 Consideration of Extraordinary
Items
At the close of
the agenda no apologies had been received.
2 Declaration of Interest
Members are
reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a
conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other
external interest they might have.
3 Confirmation of Minutes
|
That the Heritage Advisory Panel:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting,
held on Tuesday, 16 February 2016, including the
confidential section, as a true and correct record.
|
4 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“An item that is
not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time
when it is open to the public,-
(i) The
reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be
delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“Where an item
is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general
business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the
meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be
discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in
respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the
local authority for further discussion.”
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
10 May 2016
|
|
Public Input
File No.: CP2016/08592
Purpose
1. To provide the opportunity for
members of the public to present items to the Panel.
Executive
Summary
2. Henry Snow from Motat will
present to the Panel.
3. Nicholas Chin from Heritage NZ
will present on the Melanesian Mission in Mission Bay.
|
Recommendation
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive with thanks the
presentations from Mr Snow and Mr Chin.
|
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Authoriser
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
10 May 2016
|
|
Proposed Review of Scheduled Archaeological Sites
File No.: CP2016/05846
Purpose
1. To inform and seek feedback from
the Heritage Advisory Panel on a proposed review of archaeological sites
included in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) historic heritage
schedule.
Executive
Summary
2. The Heritage Policy team is
preparing to undertake a selective review of scheduled archaeological sites.
3. The purpose of this proposed
review is to ensure that places in the heritage schedule are accurately
described, located and mapped, are assigned to the appropriate category, have a
baseline monitoring record, and meet the PAUP criteria for inclusion in the
schedule.
4. We do not propose to review all
scheduled sites but to focus on priority sites that have identified issues or
required actions.
5. This work will involve sites of
Māori origin and require access to private land. Advice is being sought
from the Māori Heritage team, Mana Whenua information forum, Heritage
Advisory Panel and relevant local boards.
6. Periodic updates on progress
will be made.
7. Robert Brassey will present
further detail at the meeting.
|
Recommendation
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive the report
|
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Authoriser
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
10 May 2016
|
|
Ihumatao Update
File No.: CP2016/07821
Purpose
1. To provide the Heritage Advisory
Panel with an update on Ihumatoa.
Executive
Summary
2. Heritage Advisory Panel member
David Veart will provide an update on Ihumatoa.
|
Recommendation
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive with thanks the update
from David Veart for his update.
|
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Authoriser
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
10 May 2016
|
|
Unitary Plan Update
File No.: CP2016/05494
Purpose
1. To inform the
Heritage Advisory Panel on the Council’s process and timetable for considering
the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) recommendations on the PAUP.
Executive
Summary
2. Several
Heritage Advisory Panel members have enquired about the timeframes and process
that Council will follow in considering the IHP recommendations on the PAUP, in
particular the role that the Heritage Advisory Panel could play.
3. The following
are the key statutory milestones binding Council in terms of responding to the
IHP recommendations.
· 13th
May Hearings for all topics completed
· 22nd
July IHP recommendations version of the PAUP presented to
Council
· 19
August IHP recommendations and Council decision notified
· 16
September Appeal period closes.
Parts not subject to appeal deemed adopted
(i.e. have legal effect)
· December
Plan becomes operative subject to governing body meeting.
4. The IHP’s
recommendations will be delivered as a clean version of the Plan- i.e. no track
changes and no individual recommendations on submissions. There will be an
associated document that will provide overarching reasons for major policy
shifts. At this stage it is not clear how the IHP recommendations will be made
available to the public.
5. Council has two
possible responses to the IHP Recommendations:
·
Council must publicly notify each recommendation of the Panel
that it accepts; and
·
Each recommendation of the Panel that it rejects and the reasons
for doing so; and the alternate solution for each rejected recommendation.
6. Appeals to the
Environment Court are limited to the following:
·
The council has accepted a recommendation that is beyond the
scope of submissions and the person is unduly prejudiced by the council’s
decisions.
·
The council has rejected a recommendation from the Panel.
7. The Council has
one month (20 working days) to consider the IHP’s recommendations. The Heritage
Advisory Panel meets on the 2nd of August, 7 working days after the release of
the recommendations and 13 working days before the Council has to release its
decision. In order for the Heritage Advisory Panel to provide considered
advice to the Council it will be dependent on each panelist reading the
recommendations. It will not be possible for officers to provide a summary
version. It will also be necessary for the Panel to provide advice at the
meeting of the 2nd in order for that advice to be provided via
council agenda reports.
8. Several of the
Heritage Advisory Panel members presented evidence to the IHP. Therefore these
members will need to consider whether they can provide independent advice to
the Council.
|
Recommendation
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive the report
|
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Authoriser
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
10 May 2016
|
|
Processing applications within the Pre 1944 overlay
File No.: CP2016/08495
Purpose
1. To receive the Heritage Advisory
Panel’s views on the processing of applications within the Proposed Auckland
Unitary Plan Pre 1944 Building Demolition Control.
Executive
Summary
2. To assist the
Heritage Unit in providing advice on applications for demolition in the
Pre-1944 overlay officers sought legal advice on a number of matters. These
matters are set out below with a summary of the advice received.
3. Is the Council’s
Heritage team required to use assessment criteria in the consideration of
restricted discretionary activity consent applications, or is it enough to
consider only the relevant objective and policies?
·
The advice received was assessment criteria, objectives and
policies in the PAUP, and the extent of the overlay as notified, are relevant.
4. Is there any
way that the Council’s heritage team can consider the Council’s position and
evidence presented to the Independent Hearings Panel in relation to the reduced
overlay, by way of section 104(1)(c) or another part of the RMA? And if
possible, what weighting (if any) can be given to this position?
·
The advice received is that very little weight, if any at all,
should be given to any evidence before the Panel. There is a body of case law
that provides assistance in relation to the weighting exercise.
5. Where the
Council has proposed to delete part of the overlay for heritage reasons (which
are predominantly architectural) and then discovers that there are other
heritage reasons (predominantly historical) to recommend that consent for the
demolition of a building should be refused, are there any risks (financial or
otherwise) to the Council?
·
In terms of any risk associated with the decline of an
application for consent in an area where the Council’s position in evidence
suggests that the overlay will be removed, so long as the parties making the
consent application have not been misled as to the effect or likely impact of
the change to the Council’s position, the risk to Council is low.
6. How should
applications for demolition be processed in areas where the Council has
proposed that the overlay be deleted for heritage reasons?
·
All applications to demolish buildings impacted by the overlay
(as notified) should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Council.
While a standardised approach may have appeal, particularly in terms of
efficiency, given that the rules have immediate legal effect and contemplate
site-specific assessments, there is no justification for adopting a streamlined
standard approach at present. To do so would risk appeals arising from a
failure to undertake adequate assessment of all relevant architectural and
heritage values.
|
Recommendation
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive the report.
|
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Authoriser
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
10 May 2016
|
|
Update from the Chair
File No.: CP2016/08715
Purpose
1. To provide an opportunity for
the Chair to inform the Heritage Advisory Panel members on various matters.
Executive
Summary
2. Councillor Lee, Chair of the
Heritage Advisory Panel, will provide an update to the Panel members.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive the update from the
Chair.
|
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Elodie Fontaine - Democracy Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
10 May 2016
|
|
Manager Heritage General Update
File No.: CP2016/07769
Purpose
1. To update the Heritage Advisory Panel
on a range of matters raised since the last meeting
Executive
Summary
Issues raised by members
2. As a result of the last Panel
meeting being cancelled members raised a number of issues. These are listed
below should members want to provide any advice to Council on these matters.
· Impact
of up-zoning on character town centres – e.g. Karangahape Road – and whether
there were heritage protection measures in place sufficient to withstand
pressure for change.
· How
mechanisms in the PAUP will operate in practice – particularly enforcement of
the rules
· Presentation
from the Waitemata Local Board on their experiences regarding resource consent
decision making process.
· Earthquake
prone policy, in light of extended timeframes but no additional funding.
· RMA
reforms
Mt Victoria cemetery.
3. Panel
Member Bill Rayner has raised the issue of the condition of the Mt Victoria
cemetery in Devonport. Mr Rayners has provided the following:
At a ceremony making the restoration of
tukutuku panels dedicated to Patuone, the Nga Puhi rangatira buried in the Mt
Victoria cemetery in Devonport on Sunday, both Nga Puhi and Ngati Paoa leaders
were very critical of the decrepit state of the cemetery and grave sites, and
the associated disrespect to our pioneer families, both Maori and pakeha,
and publicly called at the hui at the Council chambers for Council to
take action to restore the cemetery within the last five months of current
Council life.
The key leaders at the hui were Arthur
Titiwhai of Nga Puhi and Hau Rawiri of Ngati Paoa.
Councillors Alf Filipaina and George
Wood were at the meeting along with the Local Board.
Could you please put this on the agenda
of the next Heritage Advisory Panel meeting and provide details of options. The
project shouldn’t be over difficult as the grass is kept mown and it is a
matter of identifying the grave sites and repairing the graves themselves.
Odeon Murals
4. Progress
is being made with the tiled mural in the Odeon.
The Odeon mural
5. A notable
feature of the Smith tiling is its tenacious nature – it wasn’t built to come
apart easily. It is noted that this is a complicated and expensive
process only possible through the efforts of George Farrant and several
volunteers as well as the owners who have paid for much of the work.
6. To date the main mural on the brick wall has been covered
section-by-section (more than 200 of them) with glued-on - but removable –
fibreglass sheets to secure the tiles. They have been individually documented.
The 7.4m x 4m (almost 30 sq m) mural coated with fibreglass
7. Tiles from the cut-up concrete
wall that formed the rear corridor low mural section have been partly harvested
by painstaking chiselling and loose bagging, to be replacement stock to off-set
inevitable losses on the main section.
8. Work is paused for the moment
while we await the arrival of specialist concrete cutter subcontractors on site
– once they have finished their current job in the CBD.
9. When the specialist concrete
cutter subcontractors arrive we hope to slice the main mural section-by-section
off the brick & plaster, transport them on plywood in cage pallets, and
store the material, possibly at Trafalgar St. The remaining ‘corridor’ tiles we
intend to cut bodily off the concrete slabs using masonry saws (along with a
minimum of concrete backing) to save painful time on site chiselling.
10. We are getting great co-operation
and help from all the parties on and off site, though we must be constantly
aware that we do need to keep the removal work rolling efficiently to avoid
straining our welcome. The overall mural recovery is being filmed by Margot
McRae as part of her ongoing St James documentary.
11. A possible public relocation site
for the main mural is under discussion, but not as yet confirmed.
Pre 1944 Survey and Evaluations
12. At the last meeting officers
sought the panels advice on prioritising the further work required to take the
pre 1944 layer towards a historic character/schedule plan change.
13. Work is progressing on the
evaluations for site specific properties covered by the Pre 1944 layer as
retained by Council evidence. 100 evaluations are being undertaken. As well
staff are completing the assessment of several of the priority areas as
retained in the council evidence on the pre 1944 layer. Both pieces of work
will enable the Council to initiate a plan change to move the sites/areas from
the pre 1944 layer to either the historic heritage schedule or the historic
character layer.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive the update from the
Manager Heritage.
|
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Authoriser
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
10 May 2016
|
|
Correspondence to the Mayor regarding the restoration
of Christchurch Cathedral
File No.: CP2016/08544
Purpose
1. To inform the Heritage Advisory
Panel of correspondence sent to the Mayor.
Executive
Summary
2. At the 16 February 2016 Heritage
Advisory Panel meeting the Panel resolved:
Resolution number HER/2016/3
That the Heritage Advisory Panel:
a) thank Brent
Morrissey for his presentation on the restoration of the Christchurch Cathedral
and express our thanks to the Restore Christchurch Cathedral Group Inc and
support for its endeavours.
b) convey a
request from the Heritage Advisory Panel to the Mayor for a letter of support
for the Government decision to support restoration of Christchurch Cathedral in
the interest of the heritage of all New Zealanders.
3. Following this resolution a
letter was sent to the Mayor on behalf of the Heritage Advisory Panel and is
attached as attachment A.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
10 May 2016, Heritage Advisory Panel, Item 7 -
Correspondence to the Mayor regarding the restoration of Christchurch
Cathedral
|
25
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Elodie Fontaine - Democracy Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
10 May 2016
|
|
