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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 25 June 2019

5.30pm

Level 2, Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Ngā Hui a te Rōpū Kaitohutohu Taonga Tuku Iho / Heritage Advisory Panel

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Mike Lee

 

Deputy Chairperson

Helen Geary

 

Members

Elizabeth  Aitken-Rose

 

 

Graeme Burgess

 

 

John Burns

 

 

Leyton Chan

 

 

Rau Hoskins

 

 

Sally Hughes

 

 

Allan Matson

 

 

Claudia Page

 

 

Bill Rayner

 

 

Sherry Reynolds

 

 

David Veart

 

 

Lorraine Wilson

 

 

(Quorum 8 members)

 

 

 

Sonya Inger

Governance Advisor

19 June 2019

Contact Telephone: (09) 977 6050

Email: sonya.inger@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


TERMS OF REFERENCE

(Excerpt – full terms of reference available as a separate document)

 

The terms of reference set out the purpose, role and protocols of the Panel.

Panel members abide by the Code of Conduct for members of Auckland Council advisory

panels.

 

Purpose

As one of council’s engagement mechanisms with diverse communities, the demographic

advisory panels provide advice to the governing body and council staff within the remit of the

Auckland Plan on the following areas:

·         Auckland Council’s regional policies, plans and strategies

·         Regional and strategic matters including those that Council-Controlled Organisations deal with any matter of particular interest or concern to diverse communities.

 

Outcomes

The panel’s advice will contribute to improving the outcomes of diverse communities and

social cohesion as set out in the Auckland Plan. The panel will advise through their agreed

strategic agenda and detailed work programme.

 

Strategic agenda and work programme

The panel must develop a work programme and set a strategic agenda for the term. The

agendas should be focused and integrated across the panels for collaborative input into

shared agendas, particularly on the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan and annual plans.

The panel should advise on council’s organisational strategies relevant to diverse

communities.

The governing body and council staff should work with the panel for the development of their

strategic agendas and work programme. An appropriate committee will approve the panel’s

work programme and any subsequent major changes to it.

 

Submissions

The panel must not make formal submissions to Auckland Council on council strategies,

policies and plans, for example, the annual plan.

In its advisory role to the council, the panel may have input to submissions made by the

council to external organisations but do not make independent submissions, except as

agreed with the council.

This does not prevent individual members being party to submissions outside their role as

panel members.

 

Review

The form and functioning of the panels may be reviewed prior to or after, the end of the

panel’s term in September 2019.

 


Heritage Advisory Panel

25 June 2019

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

4          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                5

5          AMETI Archaeological Survey Panmure                                                                     7

6          Auckland cultural heritage institutions review                                                          9

7          Heritage Manager’s Update                                                                                        23

8          Heritage Advisory Panel Correspondence                                                               29 

9          Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Apologies

 

Apologies were received from Members Graeme Burgess and Sherry Reynolds.

 

 

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, 30 April 2019, 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

25 June 2019

 

 

AMETI Archaeological Survey Panmure

File No.: CP2019/11039

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide a further update on progress with the AMETI (Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative) project.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Staff will provide an update on the AMETI archaeological survey at Panmure.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Heritage Advisory Panel:

a)      receive the update.

 

 

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

25 June 2019

 

 

Auckland cultural heritage institutions review

File No.: CP2019/10585

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide Heritage Advisory Panel members with an update on the Auckland cultural heritage institutions review process.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Governing Body approved terms of reference for Stage 2 of this review at its meeting on 30 May 2019.

3.       Attached is a report setting out the review background and proposed process as well as the terms of reference.

4.       Links to relevant documents are also provided in the attached report.

5.       Any comments that the panel wishes to make regarding the process can be passed on.

6.       Further opportunities for panel engagement can be arranged once the project commences.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Heritage Advisory Panel:

a)      receive the report.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Background Report

11

b

Terms of Reference

15

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage

Authoriser

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

 


Heritage Advisory Panel

25 June 2019

 

 

 

Memorandum

12 June 2019  

 

 

To:

Heritage Advisory Panel

Subject:

Auckland cultural heritage institutions review

From:

Edward Siddle, Principal Advisor, CCO Governance

Purpose

To provide an update on the Auckland cultural heritage institutions review.  Governing Body approved terms of reference for Stage Two of this review at its meeting on 30 May 2019. 

Summary

1.       In May 2017, Auckland Council approved the establishment of a review of the major cultural heritage institutions (museums and galleries) to which the ratepayers and residents of Auckland contribute funding.  These are Auckland Art Gallery, Auckland Museum, Museum Of Transport And Technology, New Zealand Maritime Museum, and Stardome Observatory and Planetarium. 

2.       Auckland’s main museums and galleries operate under varying governance, accountability and funding structures. 

3.       As stage 1 of the review, council commissioned a review report (‘the Stafford report’) providing analysis and options about how to achieve better outcomes from the investment in these cultural institutions.  The cultural institutions, and councillors (at two workshops), suggested that stage 2 should consist of a collaborative process to move from a ‘review’ process to one which develops the future strategic priorities for the museums and galleries sector, and begin to consider what institutional structures will best support achieving those priorities (implementation would be stage 3). 

4.       The key purposes of stage 2 are:

·    to confirm and agree the evidence base and issues, as initiated in the Stafford report

·    to develop a strategy to determine council and sector priorities, allowing clear decisions on future investment

·    to respond to aspirations of mana whenua for greater formal involvement in the institutional cultural sector and its priority-setting

·    to respond to a range of opportunities and challenges arising from the growth and diversity of Auckland. 

5.       The approved terms of reference for stage 2 are attached to this memo.  The key outputs of the review will be a strategy setting out sector priorities, and any recommendations on new governance and funding options to support achieving the sector priorities. 

6.       Next steps include project establishment through the middle of 2019, recommendations on strategic priorities to a new Auckland Council early in 2020, and final recommendations prior to the beginning of the long-term plan 2021-2031 process in late 2020. Staff from Auckland Council in the core team suggest keeping the Heritage Advisory Panel advised of progress as an interested stakeholder (see project diagram, “other stakeholders” box). 


 

Context

7.       Auckland Council invests more than $60 million each year in several major cultural heritage institutions and facilities including Auckland Museum, Auckland Art Gallery, Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT), Stardome Observatory and Planetarium[1] and the New Zealand Maritime Museum.  At amalgamation in 2010, arrangements for the cultural sector were not comprehensively examined.  This meant legacy arrangements were largely carried over and combined with the newly established council-controlled organisation system. 

Stage one of the review

8.       Stage one of the review began when governing body approved terms of reference in May 2017.  The terms of reference had a focus on the need to first establish what council’s key strategic priorities for the cultural heritage institutions (museums and galleries) should be, before trying to assess what the appropriate structural arrangements would be.  

9.       Subsequently, council employed a consultant to provide advice on the issues and options for the sector.  This report (the Stafford report) was received in October 2018 and can be viewed at http://knowledgeauckland.org.nz/publication/?mid=2666&DocumentType=1&

10.     While the conclusions and some of the report detail were not universally agreed with by the institutions (and have not been formally endorsed by council), the report represents a useful first step and an input into the review process.  The Stafford report process also made clear the need to work closely with the institutions to achieve better outcomes in the cultural sector. 

11.     One of the first tasks for stage 2 of the review will be to confirm and agree a common view of the issues, opportunities and challenges faced by the sector, and a solid evidence base from which strategic priorities can be considered.

12.     There are three key issues which have emerged from the work done so far:

·    lack of strategic clarity in what Auckland Council’s investment in cultural heritage organisations is trying to achieve

·    the need to ensure our cultural institutions are responsive to Māori and particularly mana whenua aspirations in Auckland, and meet the commitment to celebrate Māori and their culture as a point of difference in Auckland

·    taking the opportunities and meeting the challenges afforded to the cultural heritage institutions by the growth and diversity of Tāmaki Makaurau.

Stage two of the review

13.     The scope of the new terms of reference are described below.  The terms of reference have been developed with the institutions, which have endorsed them.  The terms of reference were approved by Governing Body on 30 May 2019:  http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2019/05/GB_20190530_AGN_8398_AT.PDF

14.     The terms of reference propose that council and the institutions clearly identify “by way of a clear vision and strategy, the outcomes Tāmaki Makaurau is seeking from the cultural heritage sector, against which proposals to refresh our current infrastructure or make new investments can be tested”. It is important to understand what council wants to achieve with its investment, and to what degree it is already being undertaken by our institutions, and what may need to change.

15.     Toi Whītiki (the Auckland Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan, 2015) guides council arts, culture and heritage priorities.  The strategic priorities which we expect to emerge from stage 2 of the cultural heritage review will sit at a lower level than Toi Whītiki. 

16.     Council does not currently have the ability to require performance objectives against an agreed strategy, which means that it has largely left it to the institutions themselves to design their own priorities under the high-level priorities set out in Toi Whītiki and the Auckland Plan.

17.     The initial stage of the cultural heritage review has also clearly revealed that a more systematic and committed approach to meeting the cultural aspirations of Māori in Auckland is required.

18.     Stage 2 of the review gives the opportunity to consider how mana whenua and iwi Māori governance can be enhanced in the cultural sector, and this is reflected in the proposed terms of reference:  “a sector that can model the Treaty of Waitangi partnership and genuinely reflect a mana whenua and te ao Māori world view, with Māori having an integral governance role”.  A report Council commissioned on this aspect can be viewed here:

http://knowledgeauckland.org.nz/publication/?mid=2859&DocumentType=1&

19.     The original terms of reference for the cultural heritage review discussed some of the more institutional and bureaucratic drivers of the review.  These included long-standing infrastructure challenges at MOTAT, potential location issues for Maritime Museum and Stardome, and Council’s dissatisfaction with the levy systems enshrined in legislation for Auckland Museum and MOTAT. 

20.     These issues remain, but as a way of responding to them and in discussion with the institutions, the focus has shifted to developing a positive response to opportunities afforded to the region because of its growth and diversity. 

Process for stage 2 of the review

21.     The project structure is shown in the terms of reference document. The structure reflects the intended collaborative nature of stage 2.  While this approach has the ongoing risk that one or more parties may wish to withdraw, all the organisations have indicated their desire to participate and take the opportunity to shape the cultural heritage sector of the future in the region. 

Out of scope of stage 2

22.     The governance group will consider the relationship of the project to organisations such as Auckland Zoo.  There are commonalities in the activities of the Zoo with museums and galleries, and in some overseas cities, zoos are often grouped with heritage collecting institutions (such as San Diego).  However, there are of course differences, which is why the Zoo is not directly involved at this time.

23.     Similarly, Auckland’s smaller institutions are part of stage 2 by way of the ‘other Auckland institutions’ group which will be established, so that these organisations can have input.  When the programme moves into stage 3 (implementation of any changes), local boards are likely to have a particular interest as it affects institutions within their particular local board area. 

24.     Built heritage is not intended to be addressed directly, because the focus is on heritage collecting institutions.  As the project develops however, the relationship of built historic heritage and heritage institutions can be considered.  We would be interested in discussing this with the Heritage Advisory Panel at an appropriate time. 

Next steps

25.     The broad timeline for the review programme is included in the terms of reference.  Recommendations on any significant changes will need to be consulted on through the 2021-2031 long-term plan process which will begin in late 2020. 

26.     The immediate next steps are to establish the project governance, working and stakeholder groups. This will occur over the next few months. 

 

 


Heritage Advisory Panel

25 June 2019

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Heritage Advisory Panel

25 June 2019

 

 

Heritage Manager’s Update

File No.: CP2019/10643

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To update Heritage Advisory Panel members on heritage items of interest.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Plan Change 27: Additions to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule

Two appeals have been received:

WL Property Investment Ltd v Auckland Council

This appeal relates to ID 02808 Bridgens and Company shoe factory (former) at 326 New North Road, Kingsland. The appellant is seeking a reduction in the extent of place relating to this place and for the windows and window frames within the existing window openings along the western façade to be identified as exclusions.

The appellant has sought an adjournment of the appeal, to allow them to apply for resource consent to undertake modifications to the former shoe factory building. Council has agreed to this adjournment.

Housing New Zealand Corporation v Auckland Council

This appeal relates to ID 02812 First State Pensioner Housing at 6-12 Pelham Avenue, Point Chevalier. The appeal seeks the deletion of ID 02812 from Schedule 14.1 claiming the scheduling of the pensioner flats does not strike an appropriate balance between the protection of identified historic heritage values and the ongoing efficient use and development of the flats. The appeal states that the National Policy Statement – Urban Development Capacity requires “that a wide and thorough assessment of the plan change be undertaken to determine that the historic heritage value of the place is greater than the value of the development potential forgone due to the restrictions imposed on building because of the scheduling”.

3.       Plan Change 10 Alterations to the Schedule

One appeal has been received.

Auckland Synagogue & Community Centre on Greys Avenue (ID#1975) from the Auckland Hebrew Congregation.

The PC10 decision agreed with the congregation’s position that the Synagogue should be a Category B place, not a Category A place (being the Council’s position). 

The congregation argued this change in category would reflect the reduced heritage significance of this place following the extensive interior modifications that were undertaken in the mid-2000s.

The PC10 decision however agreed with the Council on all other points, stating our approach “… result(s) in a more inclusive approach to the main exterior and interior features of the building”.

The congregation’s appeal now seeks to exclude the majority of the interior from the scheduling and reduce the heritage values identified in Schedule 14.1.


 

 

4.       St James Church/Hall Mt Eden

Following the Environment Court decision to grant consent to demolish the Category B listed St James Church Hall the court has awarded costs against the Council to the order of $160,000.

5.       Proposed Plan Change 26 Special Character Areas Overlay - Residential

The Proposed Plan Change forms a policy response to Environment Court Declaration Auckland Council v London Pacific Family Trust regarding the Special Character Area Overlay – Residential, and its relationship with the relevant underlying zone, predominantly the Residential Single House Zone (SHZ). A memo to councilors setting out the background and proposed change is attached.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Heritage Advisory Panel:

a)      receive the Heritage Manager’s report.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Plan Change 26

25

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage

Authoriser

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

 


Heritage Advisory Panel

25 June 2019

 

 

Memo                                                         11th June 2019

To:                Planning Committee Members

cc:                 John Duguid

From:            Phill Reid – Auckland-wide Planning Manager, Plans and Places Department

 

 

Subject:        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP)

Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential

 

Committee members may be fielding enquiries resulting from a public notification mail out associated with proposed plan change 26.

The purpose of this memo is to inform you about proposed plan change 26 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (AUP). The proposed plan change relates to the provisions of chapter D18, the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential (SCA Residential) and chapter E38 Subdivision - Urban. The proposed plan change was notified on 30 May 2019 and submissions close on 28 June 2019.

Background

The Proposed Plan Change forms a policy response to Environment Court Declaration Auckland Council v London Pacific Family Trust regarding the Special Character Area Overlay – Residential, and its relationship with the relevant underlying zone, predominantly the Residential Single House Zone (SHZ). The Court’s decisions on the Declaration proceedings clarified that unless there is a specific rule that allows it, overlay provisions do not replace those within the underlying zones, and that all rules relevant to an activity must be applied under the general rules of the Unitary Plan.  The decision required a change in the Council’s approach to the relationship between the SCA Residential and the underlying SHZ. The Declaration requires that both sets of rules are considered in consent assessments, as it is not specified that the overlay prevails. 

As a result of the Declaration, consent applications must be considered against the provisions of both the SCAR and the underlying zone.  However, having two standards controlling the same effect (e.g. two different height in relation to boundary standards) is causing difficulty for assessments and for plan users, and it is unclear which provision should be used to determine the appropriate building envelope.  More fundamentally, the SCAR provisions do not function as they were intended. 


 

Overview of the proposed plan change

 

Key points:

 

·    Proposed Plan Change does not amend the AUP provisions relating to additions and alterations to buildings within Special Character overlay areas;

·    Proposed Plan Change does not amend the AUP provisions relating to demolition within Special Character overlay areas;

·    Proposed Plan Change does not amend the spatial application of the Special Character overlay areas within the AUP maps; and

·    Proposed Plan Change does not involve any fundamental policy shift for the AUP management of Special Character areas.

 

The purpose of the proposed plan change is to clarify the intended relationship of the SCA Residential with the relevant underlying zone. It is intended that where there are equivalent standards, then the standard in the SCA Residential will prevail over the underlying zone. The proposed changes are all contained within Attachment 6 - Proposed Plan Change 26: Amendments to Chapter D18 & Chapter E38, hyperlinked here for your convenience.

Proposed changes:

Activity table:

The preamble to the Activity Table is proposed to be modified and is to state that where the activity status of an activity specified in the Special Character Overlay chapter is different to the corresponding activity status in the underlying residential zone, then the activity status in the Special Character Overlay chapter takes precedence over the activity status in the underlying residential zone (whether or not that activity status is more restrictive).

Notwithstanding the following activities in the activity table remain unchanged:

·    Demolition of buildings

Demolition exceeding 30% or more, of buildings within a Special Character Overlay area will require a restricted discretionary resource reconsent be applied for.

·    Additions and alterations

External additions and/or alterations to a building within a Special Character Overlay area will require a restricted discretionary resource reconsent be applied for.

·    New Buildings

Construction of a new building within a Special Character Overlay area will require a restricted discretionary resource reconsent be applied for.

 

 

Following are the proposed additions to the activity table:

·    Fences and walls

(incorrectly omitted from the current Activity Table)

New fences and walls, and alterations to existing fences and walls that comply with the updated Special Character Overlay fences and walls standard are permitted.

New fences and walls and alterations to existing fences and walls that do not comply with the updated Special Character Overlay fences and walls standard will require a restricted discretionary resource reconsent be applied for.

Development standards;

The proposed plan change intends to make it clearer for people to understand which rule to apply to their developments on residential sites that sit under the Special Character Overlay.

For the following standards, those residential sites covered by the Special Character Overlay are to apply the rule from the Special Character Overlay chapter and disregard the corresponding rule found within the underlying residential zoning chapter. Each standard has been modified by adding a purpose statement.

Building Height

·    Maximum height of 8m.

·    This rule has been modified by adding a purpose statement.

·    The rule and its specified height has not changed.

Height in relation to boundary

·    Height in Relation to Boundary standard of 3m and a 45º recession plane to apply to sites with a road fronted boundary less than 15m in width.

·    This standard has been modified by specifying the 15m front boundary length trigger.

·    For sites 15m and wider, the underlying residential zone height in relation to boundary standard applies

·    The Height in relation to boundary specified dimensions have not changed.

Yards

·    The average front yard setback dimension and the 1.2m side yard standard is to apply.

·    The 3m rear yard requirement is to be deleted deferring to the underlying zoning rear yard standard being 1m.

Building Coverage

·    The standard stipulates building coverage maximums informed by the existing net site area.

·    The rule and its specified coverages have not changed.

Landscaped area

·    The standard stipulates minimum required landscaped area percentages relative to the existing net site areas.

·    The rule and its specified percentage coverages have not changed.

Maximum impervious area

·    The standard stipulates Maximum impervious area coverage maximums informed by the existing net site area regardless of the corresponding Maximum impervious area standard.

·    This rule in the Special Character Overlay chapter has been modified by substituting ‘impervious’ for ‘paved’.

·    The percentage coverage maximums listed now include the building coverage and other impervious areas such as driveways.

Fences and walls

·    The standard stipulates that any new fences to be constructed forward of the line of the front façade of the building are to be to a maximum height of 1.2m.

·    All other fencing behind the line of the front façade of the building shall be 2m in height.

·    This rule in the Special Character Overlay chapter has been modified by clarifying at what point the fence heights are different along the side fence.

Other changes:

·    Additional matter of discretion & assessment criteria for restricted discretionary activities requiring that infringement of the aforementioned standards require additional assessment against the matters of discretion & assessment criteria of the underlying zoning.

Subdivision

·    Those residential sites covered by the Special Character Overlay - Sub Areas (e.g. Isthmus A – North Shore Area A) are to apply the Special Character Overlay subdivision standards from the Subdivision - Urban chapter which stipulates minimum vacant lot site areas.

·    This is to replace the corresponding minimum vacant lot site areas of the underlying residential zoning found in Table E38.8.2.3.1 Minimum net site area for subdivisions involving parent sites of less than 1 hectare.

·    The rule and its specified minimum vacant lot site areas have not changed.

 

Phill Reid

 

Auckland-wide Planning Manager,

Plans and Places Department


Heritage Advisory Panel

25 June 2019

 

 

Heritage Advisory Panel Correspondence

File No.: CP2019/07891

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide a record of correspondence for the Heritage Advisory Panel’s information as follows:

·    Letter to Mayor P Goff on 13 May 2019 regarding deputation from SOUL (Save Our Unique Landscape) on the development at Ihumatao.

·    Letter from Mayor P Goff in response to letter of 13 May 2918 concerning Ihumatao.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Heritage Advisory Panel:

a)      receive the correspondence.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Letter to the Mayor P Goff of 13 May 2019 re Ihumatao

31

b

Letter from Mayor P Goff of 15 May 2019

35

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sonya Inger - Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage

 


Heritage Advisory Panel

25 June 2019

 

 


 


 


 


Heritage Advisory Panel

25 June 2019

 

 


 

    

    



[1] Stardome is not strictly a cultural heritage institution and does not hold collections.  It has a strong focus on education and public programmes in common with the other organisations.  The review is intended to encompass institutions with a focus on science, technology and ecology, where there is an overlap of functions and interest with Auckland’s core cultural heritage institutions.