Agenda of Heritage Advisory Panel

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Heritage Advisory Panel will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Tuesday, 17 April 2018

5:30pm

Level 2 Reception Lounge
Town Hall
Auckland

Heritage Advisory Panel

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Cr Mike Lee
Deputy Chairperson	Sally Hughes
Members	Elizabeth Aitken-Rose
	Graeme Burgess
	John Burns
	Leyton Chan
	Helen Geary
	Rau Hoskins
	Allan Matson
	Claudia Page
	Bill Rayner
	Sherry Reynolds
	David Veart
	Lorraine Wilson

(Quorum 8 members)

Tam White

Senior Governance Advisor

12 April 2018

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8156

Email: tam.white@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

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, 21 November 2017 and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 27 February 2018, as true and correct records.

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

17 April 2018

Pukekohe Rail Station Building

File No.: CP2018/05288

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Ms Christine Madsen, Franklin Heritage Forum will speak seeking support to save the Pukekohe rail station building.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Correspondence regarding the station is attached.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Heritage Advisory Panel:

a) receive the presentation regarding the Pukekohe Rail Station building and thank Christine Madsen for her attendance.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Letter to the chair of the Heritage Advisory Panel	9
b ⇩	Pukekohe station article	13
c ⇩	Pukekohe station photos	17

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Tam White - Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage

Heritage Advisory Panel

17 April 2018

Auckland Emergency Management Recovery Planning

File No.: CP2018/04684

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To introduce the Panel to Auckland Emergency Management’s work on planning for disaster recovery.

2. To seek insight and advice from the panel about how to ensure the interests and visions of the community are understood when planning for disaster recovery.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. This interactive session has been developed to promote a whole of council approach to recovery planning. It allows participants to learn about the hazards and risks Auckland faces and the disaster recovery challenges we might encounter. It also asks participants for their insight on how Auckland Council can ensure an inclusive and effective approach to disaster recovery and how we could address these before a major disaster occurs.

4. Planning for disaster recovery is connected to council wide plans as it requires all departments to consider how their roles and responsibilities are likely to change following a major disaster event in Auckland, as well as how they might contribute to achieving successful recovery outcomes.

5. The Heritage Advisory Panel is requested to identify what disaster recovery priorities, challenges and opportunities might look like for Auckland communities.

6. Auckland’s Resilient Recovery Strategy will provide the strategic oversight needed to establish recovery plans after a disaster event has occurred. The Strategy will include information about Auckland’s social, economic, natural and build environments and the key assumptions, challenges and opportunities we would be likely to face across the four environments.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

7. The ideas, suggestions and advice gathered from this panel will be used to inform the principles and priorities outlined in the ‘Resilient Recovery Strategy’.

8. The Draft Resilient Recovery Strategy will be presented to the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Committee on 29 August 2018 for approval to begin the consultation process.

9. Depending on interest, staff can present to the panel to introduce the Draft Resilient Recovery Strategy and seek feedback and comment if required.

10. The Final Resilient Recovery Strategy will be completed on or by 28 November 2018.

Discussion questions

Ø What challenges are people likely to encounter during disaster recovery?

Ø What could be done to reduce the impact of disasters on the community?

Ø How could recovery planning better incorporate the priorities, needs and values of different groups?

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Heritage Advisory Panel:

a) provide advice regarding the Resilient Recovery Strategy.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Stephanie Blackford - Emergency Support Coordinator
Authoriser	Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage

Heritage Advisory Panel

17 April 2018

Heritage Advisory Panel Draft Work Programme

File No.: CP2018/05216

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To confirm the Panel’s work programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. At previous workshops the Panel has developed a work programme identifying areas where it wishes to concentrate.

3. The workshops have had the following objectives:

· Reach a consensus of which actions are priorities for the Panel.

· Develop actions under each of the concepts generated at the first workshop.

· Allocate tasks.

4. The following questions have guided the workshops.

· What would the benefit of the action be?

· What steps need to be taken to achieve the ideas?

· What resources would be necessary?

· Do you need any additional information?

· How would the actions be carried out?

5. The following is a list of the actions that have emerged from the workshops. What would be useful is for a discussion on what Panel members will do to support each of these actions. To help the discussion, below each action are comments about how this could progressed. Some of the actions are more in the officer space to implement, some are a combination of officers and panel members’s involvement and some can be led by the Panel member.

Research:

1. Current work.

Support work underway by Heritage Unit.

Officer Comment:

Heritage Unit research: Officer led –David Bade.

Officers will report regularly to the Panel. The Panel could provide advice on the direction of work, on potential sources of information and then to advocate for the results of the work.

2. External agencies.

Identifying what each local board, school, historical society, library is doing in the heritage space as both a base of information and a source of what actions are occurring in the heritage space.

Officer Comment:

Lead: Panel Member/officer.

Each member, through their contacts to provide a list of information and actions which officers can collate. Officers can also obtain heritage actions through local board plans.

Funding:

3. Submission to Long Term Plan.

HAP to provide submission to Long Term Plan to:

a) Raise the regional historic heritage fund

b) Partition the built heritage acquisition fund, say ⅓ into heritage incentives programme

c) Support council’s heritage fund

Officer Comment:

This action has been competed with the Panel’s submission and presentation to the Long Term Plan / Auckland Plan process. The Panel through its delegate will also be involved in consideration of submissions to the Auckland Plan process.

4. Special projects.

Advocate to council to fund special projects for heritage economic benefits research – impact on Auckland and with Government support nationally.

Officer Comment:

Further discussion is required to elaborate on this action.

5. Research

Publishing research results of economic benefits.

Officer Comment:

This is tied in with 1.

6. Heritage Festival

Advocate for increase in funding for Heritage Festival, using feedback and impact research from 2017 Festival.

Officer Comment:

This was included in the Panel’s Long Term Plan submission, action 3.

7. Local Boards

Advocate to local boards to increase heritage specific funding/grants.

Officer Comment:

This is connected to Action 2 and can be advanced through Action 12.

Advocacy Publicity:

8. Advocacy Groups.

Support advocacy group by invitation to present to Heritage Advisory Panel.

Officer Comment:

Panel members to identify an advocacy group to present at the next meeting. Panel member to make initial approach to group and then officers to follow up.

9. Raise profile of Heritage Advisory Panel

Internal (Council and Local Boards).

Officer Comment.

Officers to include a profile of the Panel in internal and external communications. Members to identify other methods for this to occur.

10. Publicise heritage outcomes

- Identify and develop good news heritage stories.

- Become a voice for heritage causes.

Officer Comment:

Members could identify good news stories and provide information and develop a broad outline of message. Officers can assist with the writing up of the story and finding the appropriate mechanism get the story out.

11. Invite presentations

Could be a source for heritage news/stories.

Officer Comment:

Panel members to identify which group to be invited to present to the Panel and make the initial approach. Officers to then follow up.

Governance:

12. Local Boards.

Panel to advocate that each Local Board to have a heritage portfolio holder. Invite two Local Board’s at a time, to Heritage Advisory Panel meetings to discuss their issues.

Officer Comment:

Several local boards do have a heritage portfolio holder. Officers will follow up to identify these holders and invite them to the Panel meeting.

13. Appoint Heritage Advocate Councillor(s) to liaise with Minister Arts Culture and Heritage.

Officer Comment:

Further discussion is required as to how this could occur.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Heritage Advisory Panel:

a) confirm the Panel’s work programme (i.e. the list of actions set out in the agenda report).

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
Authoriser	John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Heritage Advisory Panel

17 April 2018

Heritage Manager's Report

File No.: CP2018/05268

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To raise issues of potential interest to Panel members.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

Long-term Plan and the Auckland Plan

2. Sally Hughes presented to the Governing Body and can provide a verbal debrief if required. A copy of the presentation is attached as Attachment A.

Issues raised by Panel members

3. The following issues were submitted by Allan Matson:

“Historic Heritage Priorities

Now that we are through the process of submissions on the Auckland Plan and Long-Term Plan, I am interested to discuss where we’re actually at now, before any proposed changes take effect. I thought a useful starting point for discussion might be the attached table.

· Re Priority 1, Action 1 Develop and publish a strategy and action plan for the future management of Auckland’s historic heritage. Timing 2012.

The Panel worked on a “Heritage Plan” some years ago. Perhaps Noel could provide an update on the status of that plan.

· Re Priority 1, Action 3 – Provide a comprehensive and coordinated information service for Auckland’s historic heritage. Timing 2015.

Perhaps Noel could provide a verbal description of the current information provision, and Sherry perhaps some comment on coordination with HNZPT.

· Re Priority 2, Action 1 – Develop a suite of incentives to conserve heritage, in partnership with private owners and developers. Timing -2015.

Given that the Long Term Plan process has just been completed, could Noel provide the latest figures he has that summarise the available suite of incentives, in particular, financial ones?

Resource Consent Processes for Scheduled Items

I am interested to discuss the process by which scheduled items progress from consent application through to completed development, and whether there is anything the Panel might usefully advise Council on in this regard. There’s not much point in discussing imaginary scenarios and real situations provide the best opportunity for looking at these processes. We could look at two particular current issues involving scheduled items; the Civic Administration Building in Aotea Square and the former Windsor Castle at 144 Parnell Road

These are both live consents and the Panel should of course limit itself to Council’s publicly held information, i.e. information lodged with any resource consents in both cases.

The Civic Administration Building

I’m concerned by the second paragraph of the attached sales pitch which reads: “A complete renovation and restoration of The CAB: An all new double glazed exterior facade with state-of-the-art materials used throughout while being faithful to its modernist architecture.” This sounds an explanation for not retaining fabric of heritage significance as it may (perhaps) not be “reasonably practicable”. Perhaps Noel could update the Panel on Love & Co’s latest publicly disclosed intention as evidenced through the RC process.

It is important that Council exercise leadership in heritage matters, and given the status of the building, its development carries a degree of reputational risk for Council. The CAB has been an agenda item over a long period of time and I think it remains within the mandate of the Panel to give such further advice as it considers useful.

The Windsor, 144 Parnell Road

This is a current consent (notified on March 22) involving adaptive reuse of a significant heritage building. It is both scheduled with Auckland Council and listed with Heritage NZ, and I’m interested to hear a description of how heritage information is introduced through the RC process and how it is brought to bear within the decision making process. The particular building in question simply provides a useful and realistic lens through which to look at the process. “

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Heritage Advisory Panel:

a) receive the Heritage Manager’s report

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Presentation to Governing Body 21 March 2018	29

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
Authoriser	John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places