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

 

 


TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

 

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 

 

 


1          Apologies

 

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