I hereby give notice that an ordinary
meeting of the Heritage Advisory Panel will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Monday, 14
June 2021
5.30pm
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
|
Sally Hughes
|
|
|
Co-Deputy Chairperson
|
Steve Bielby
|
|
|
Co-Deputy Chairperson
|
Nicola Short
|
|
|
Members
|
Elizabeth Aitken-Rose
|
|
|
|
Noelene Buckland
|
|
|
|
John Burns
|
|
|
|
Bridget Graham
|
|
|
|
Caleb Hamilton
|
|
|
|
Alexander Jorgensen
|
|
|
|
Margot McRae
|
|
|
|
Sherry Reynolds
|
|
|
|
Lisa Truttman
|
|
|
|
David Veart
|
|
|
Chief Liaison councillor
|
Cr Dr Cathy Casey
|
|
|
Liaison councillor
|
Cr Wayne Walker
|
|
|
(Quorum 8 members)
|
|
Sarndra O'Toole
Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana
Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors
8 June 2021
Contact Telephone: 021 704 850
Email: sarndra.otoole@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
(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
14 June 2021
|
|
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: Sean Taylor - City Models Restoration Project 7
6 Public
Input: New Lynn Protection Society Inc. - St Andrews Sunday School Hall 9
7 Regional
Historic Heritage Grant -Update 11
8 Threats to
Heritage from Climate Change 25
9 Heritage
Advisory Panel Future Work Programme 27
10 Heritage Managers - Update 47
11 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 Monday, 15 February 2021, 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
14 June 2021
|
|
Public
Input: Sean Taylor - City Models Restoration Project
File No.: CP2021/01488
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. Sean
Taylor will speak to the panel regarding the City Models Restoration Project.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Sean will discuss the status and future of the Auckland scale
models
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive
the public input from Sean Taylor regarding the City Models Restoration Project
and thank him for his attendance.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana
Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors
|
|
Authoriser
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
14 June 2021
|
|
Public Input: New Lynn Protection
Society Inc. - St Andrews Sunday School Hall
File No.: CP2021/00420
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. Penny
Laybourn, Chair and Ross Clow of the New Lynn Protection Society Inc. will
address the Heritage Advisory Panel.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Penny
Laybourn and Ross Clow will speak to the Heritage Advisory Panel regarding
their concerns that the process that led to the demolition of the St Andrews Sunday School Hall building (Scheduled Heritage B) in New
Lynn in late 2019, warrants a detailed investigation to reveal any gaps
in the process.
3. The
ultimate aim being to provide transparency and ensure that there is a robust
system for the protection of heritage buildings in the future.
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive
the public input from Penny Laybourn, Chair and Ross Clow of the New Lynn
Protection Society Inc. regarding the St Andrews Sunday School Hall and thank them
for their attendance.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana
Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors
|
|
Authoriser
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
14 June 2021
|
|
Regional Historic Heritage Grant -Update
File No.: CP2021/07300
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
seek guidance on the Regional Heritage Grants fund (RHGF) criteria
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Through
the LTP process the Council has agreed to reinstate the increase in funding for
the RHGF.
3.
The fund is now $500,000. The process and criteria previously used was based on
a fund of $80,000.
4. Feedback
on the following matters would assist in developing more appropriate criteria:
· The
Regional Historic Heritage Guidelines Attachment A
· The
Regional Historic Heritage Assessment Attachment B
· Any
issues around process e.g. amount of individual grants, number of grant rounds
in any year whether the funding priorities set out below are still relevant.
5. The Funding priorities for the 2019/2020 round were as follows:
· Conservation
of regionally significant Historic Heritage places
· Conservation
of at-risk historic heritage places
· Supporting
kaitiakitanga of Māori cultural heritage
· Heritage
and Character in Town Centres
6. We will also consider applications for other services, projects,
events and activities. However, these may be considered a lower priority.
7. The following activities are identified as lower priorities for the
2019/2020 round:
· Heritage interpretation
· Conservation of moveable heritage (i.e. objects in museums) o
Movable heritage items subject to evidence that the object would be stored and
exhibited within the Auckland region in a manner that will ensure its long-term
protection.
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive
the report.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Regional Historic Heritage Grant Guidelines
|
13
|
|
b⇩
|
Regional Historic Heritage Grant Assessment
|
23
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Authoriser
|
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
14 June 2021
|
|
|
Heritage Advisory
Panel
14 June 2021
|
|
Non-scoring assessment
a) Compliance with
good practice. Does project reflect the principles outlined in the ICOMOS NZ
Charter and tikanga Maori, and the project design and delivery is credible and
appropriate.
b) Capacity and
ability to deliver. Has the applicant demonstrated that they are capable of
delivering this project as outlined in the application. This could include
either them, or their having sourced appropriate technical, project management
and financial skills, ability to collaborate.
c) Does the project
have the potential to cause or raise any actual, potential or perceived
conflicts of interest for the Auckland Council or any of its officers?
d) Are there any
statutory consents (triggered by hertiage provisions in the Auckland Unitary
Plan) required to carry out this work?
e) From the
information included in the application, is the proposed work the subject of a
resource consent condition, a reversal or mitigation of work undertaken without
appropriate statutory consents?
f) From the
information included in the application, will any third-party derive benefit
from proposed works?
g) Ground
disturbance/archaeological concerns comment.
h) Site visit
required?
Scoring
assessment
1. Priorities for
2018
1.1. Conservation of a regionally
significant Historic Heritage Place
(a) Score out of 5 (weighting x
2)
1.2. Supporting kaitiakitanga of
Māori cultural heritage
(b) Score out of 5 (weighting x
2)
(c) Comments about
priorisation for 2018
1.3. Conservation of at-risk heritage
place
(d) Score out of 5 (weighting x
2)
1.4. Heritage and character in town
centres
Score out of 5 (weighting x 2)
2. Significance
Assessment of significance should consider
historic, physical and social/community values as per the Unitary Plan. If
unscheduled, applicant must demonstrate the place has regional significance
(subject to evidence that the site has interim protection through heritage
covenants as well as a letter from the applicants confirming support for
scheduling the site under the relevant heritage overlay).
Scoring will be assessed as follows:
4: Exceptional regional, national
(Category A, rarely Category B)
3: Considerable regional (Category B
and some Category A)
2: Considerable local (character
defining, Category B)
1: Moderate local (business character
supporting, most residential character buildings)
0: No evidence (not in overlay, no
evaluation/assessment to guide decision)
Score allocated
Score out of 4 (weighting x 7.5)
3. Funding Necessity
Assessment of funding necessity
includes consideration of whether funding is important to secure the future of
an at risk item/place, and whether the applicant has other sources of funding
available.
3: Funding is urgent to ensure
short-medium term survival of the item/place.
2: Funding is not urgent however is
essential for long term survival of the item/place.
1: Funding is not urgent or essential
however proposed work would contribute to good heritage outcomes.
0: Funding is not urgent or essential.
Funding necessity score:
Score out of 3 (weighting x 5)
4. Public Access and
Education
The degree of physical or visual
access or other clear public benefit such as educational value or securing
place for potential public access.
3: Full public access to item/place is
available and/or project has community involvement and/or significant
educational value.
2: Some physical access to item/place
is available and/or project has some community involvement and/or educational
value.
1: Restricted physical access to
item/place is available. Full visual access from a public place and/or
community involvement and/or educational value.
0: The project has no physical or
visual access and does not have any community involvement or educational value.
Score out of 3 (weighting x 5)
|
Heritage Advisory
Panel
14 June 2021
|
|
Threats to Heritage from Climate Change
File No.: CP2021/07801
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. The
Panel requested information regarding threats to heritage, including climate
change.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Rebecca
Ramsay from Councils Heritage Unit will show some of the mapping results with
the coastal inundation layers showing heritage sites at risk. Also Rebecca will
speak briefly to the Coastal Management Plans as an example of response to
threats.
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive
the report
b) thank
Rebecca Ramsay for her presentation regarding threats to heritage from climate
change.
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
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
14 June 2021
|
|
Heritage Advisory Panel Future Work
Programme
File No.: CP2021/07304
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
provide information to enable the Panel to develop a future work programme
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. During
the previous term the Panel developed a work plan. This is identified as
Attachment B.
3. It
is proposed that this Panel identify areas it wishes to focus on and
potentially develop a work plan around these areas.
4. To
assist also attached is the Heritage Units internal 10 year strategic plan
Attachment A.
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive
the report.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Heritage Units 10 year plan
|
29
|
|
b⇩
|
Advisory Panel Work Plan
|
45
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Authoriser
|
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
14 June 2021
|
|
|
Heritage Advisory
Panel
14 June 2021
|
|
|
Heritage Advisory
Panel
14 June 2021
|
|
Heritage Managers - Update
File No.: CP2021/07305
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
Update Panel members on issues
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Changes
to Panel membership.
· Rākeiao Skerrett a student currently studying at the University
of Auckland majoring in Anthropology and Māori Studies has been appointed
to the Heritage Advisory Panel.
· Alex
Jorgensen has resigned from the panel as explained below by Alex:
“I have accepted a position in
the Maori Heritage team at Auckland Council, commencing this Monday 31
May. As this presents a conflict of interest pursuant to the Code of
Conduct for Advisory Panel members, I must accordingly formally tender my
resignation from the Auckland Council Heritage Advisory Panel. I have
enjoyed my (somewhat limited, thanks to Covid) experience on the panel, and
believe it provides valuable support and insights to Council. I look
forward to continuing interaction with the panel from the “other
side”,and would be grateful if you would pass on my regards to the other
members when you meet next.”
Issues raised by Panel Members
3. Wasp
Hanger Hobsonville
· This building is not identified in the AUP, Schedule 14.1 Historic
Heritage Places.
· However, the area is subject to the Hobsonville Point Precinct
– Airfields Sub-precinct D, in which the hanger building is mentioned:
· (14) Require the
retention and adaptive re-use of the hanger building as part of the development
of the Airfields Sub-precinct (Sub-precinct D).
· Alterations and
modifications to the building require a resource consent.
· There is no rule regarding demolition of the hanger however it could
be argued that the status of demolition defaults to the general rule which
would mean demolition was a discretionary activity.
4. Plan
Change 26
Plan Change 26, was designed to clarify the
relationship between the Special Character Areas Overlay and the underlying
zone provisions. Council has now withdrawn Plan Change 26
meaning the rules as per the approved Unitary Plan reapply. Appended at
Attachment x is the public notice and fact sheet relating to the withdrawal.
5. National
Policy Statement - Urban Development (NPS -UD)
This continues to be the focus for the Heritage Unit going
forward. Survey work on the special character areas has commenced. Workshops
have been held with councillors to brief them on the various requirements of
the NPS-UD. A report seeking direction from the councils is to go to the July
Planning Committee.
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive
the Manger Heritage’s Report
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Fact Sheet
|
49
|
|
b⇩
|
Public Notice
|
51
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Authoriser
|
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
14 June 2021
|
|
Special
Character Overlay – update
withdrawal of Plan Change 26 will not impact
status of Special Character Areas Overlay
Auckland Council’s Planning
Committee has resolved to withdraw proposed Plan Change 26 to the Auckland
Unitary Plan Operative in part (Auckland Unitary Plan). The
withdrawal follows a public consultation and a hearing, and decision, by
Independent Commissioners.[1]
Planning Committee Chair,
Councillor Chris Darby comments:
“The process to find a
sensible workable solution, to an extremely complex planning provision, has not
been easy. We are now confident we have reached a position that will
continue to preserve our special character areas through the Special Character
Overlay.”
What happened?
Following external legal guidance,
between 1 December 2016 and 19 December 2017, Auckland Council did
not consider the underlying Single House Zone rules when determining the
resource consent for properties in Special Character Overlay areas.
To clarify
the rules and standards, we then sought a declaration from the Environment
Court on the correct interpretation to provide certainty for property owners,
developers and planning professionals. The Environment Court disagreed and
ruled that Special Character Areas Overlay rules and standards, and the
underlying zoning rules and standards, should be considered equally. Following
the ruling, the council immediately changed its practice.
Plan Change 26
Initiated by the council, Plan
Change 26, was designed to clarify the relationship between the Special
Character Areas Overlay and the underlying zone provisions. However, the
council now considers that Plan
Change 26 does not achieve better environmental outcomes for special character
values than those that are being achieved by the process that has been in place
since December 2017.
As a
result, the council has withdrawn Plan Change 26.
Councillor
Darby continues:
“By definition, planning
rules are technical and layered and used by those who design and build houses.
Reaching this decision has not been easy but it is reassuring that the resource
consenting practice for Special Character Areas, used by council since December
2017, has been judged to be correct with both the Special Character Overlay and
the underlying Single House Zone rules and standards are considered in
unison.”
For
further information please see:
Public
Notice – 20 May 2021
Proposed Plan Change 26 - submission period
extended. Clarifying Special
Character Areas Overlay and underlying zone provisions
Special
character resource consents – October 2018 update
Explainer:
Special character resource consents
Council
reviews special character resource consents
|
Heritage Advisory
Panel
14 June 2021
|
|
four
Environment Court appeals were lodged against that decision.
