|
|
Resolution
number KT/2022/73
MOVED by Deputy Chairperson D Grant, seconded by
Chairperson J Gillon:
That
the Kaipātiki Local Board:
a)
note that the proposed Unitary
Plan change amends the category status for 91 Category A* historic heritage
places, following the re-evaluation of these places. The plan change also
updates information in the Auckland Unitary Plan for the historic heritage
places.
b)
note that the purpose of the
proposed plan change is to update the category status for 91 Category A*
historic heritage places and to ensure that the information in the Unitary
Plan is accurate and reflects the historic heritage values of each place.
c)
note that historic heritage
places in the Auckland Unitary Plan are identified in one of four categories:
A, A*, B and historic heritage area:
i)
Category A: historic heritage
places of outstanding significance well beyond their immediate environs
ii)
Category A*: places identified
in previous district plans which are yet to be evaluated and assessed for
their significance
iii)
Category B: places of
considerable value to a locality or beyond
iv)
Historic heritage areas:
groupings of interrelated historic heritage places and features.
d)
note that local board feedback
is on behalf of the interests and preferences of the local community and that
these views will be included in the hearing report.
e)
table the document
Kaipātiki Local Board Feedback on Proposed Plan Change to Auckland
Unitary Plan Chapter L, Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements
and Maps, with specific feedback from the local board for each site included
in the highlighted columns (the sixth and seventh columns), noting the
following:
i)
There are 29 Category A*
historic heritage places within the Kaipātiki Local Board area that are
included in the plan change.
ii)
Four historic heritage places
are proposed to be Category A by staff, which are all supported in the
Kaipātiki Local Board feedback (places 895, 896, 917 and 926).
iii) 22 historic heritage places are suggested by staff to be
Category B, four of which are supported in the Kaipātiki Local Board
feedback (places 914, 915, 922 and 930) and 18 of which are contested by the
local board with a request that they are changed to Category A (places 897,
898,899, 901, 902, 904, 908, 909, 910, 912, 913, 920, 921, 924, 925, 927,
928, 1003).
iv) Three historic heritage places are proposed to be deleted
where the re-evaluation of these places shows that their historic heritage
values do not meet the criteria and thresholds in the Regional Policy
Statement section of the Auckland Unitary Plan to be eligible for inclusion
in Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage. The local board agree that
one should be deleted (place 932), and two places contested by the local
board with a request that they remain as Category B (places 854 and 906).
v)
for clarity, clauses i to iv
are presented in the below table:
|
Feedback
status
|
Place ID
|
Total number of places
|
|
Category A
proposed; agree to remain as Category A
|
895, 896, 917, 926
|
4
|
|
Category B proposed; agree
to remain as Category B
|
914, 915, 922, 930
|
4
|
|
Category B proposed;
request to remain as Category A
|
897, 898,899, 901, 902,
904, 908, 909, 910, 912, 913, 920, 921, 924, 925, 927, 928, 1003
|
18
|
|
Status deleted; agree to
delete
|
932
|
1
|
|
Status removed; request to
remain as Category B
|
854, 906
|
2
|
|
|
Grand Total:
|
29
|
f)
Provide the following
additional feedback:
i)
object to the method of
assessment between Auckland Council’s schedule and Heritage New
Zealand’s register being different, and request that Auckland Council
align to Heritage New Zealand. An example of a difference of assessment is
the Masonic Lodge at 14 Rodney Road, Northcote Point.
ii)
express significant concern
that places changing from category A* to category B will be subject to 30-70%
demolition as a discretionary activity, and request that this aspect of the
Unitary Plan is reviewed and changed to a lower percentage or prohibited as
part of a future plan change. The local board would like to avoid the total
or substantial demolition or destruction of features (including buildings,
structures or archaeological sites) within all scheduled historic heritage
places, where it will result in adverse effects (including cumulative adverse
effects) on the overall significance of the scheduled historic heritage place
to the extent that the place would no longer meet the significance thresholds
for the category it has been scheduled under.
iii) request that currently unscheduled historic heritage
places that meet the criteria for scheduling be evaluated for inclusion in
the schedule as part of a future plan change, as we note that some places
that the community have identified as having significant heritage values are
not presently included in the historic heritage schedule, either because of
incomplete information, lack of consultation with the landowner, or for other
reasons.
g)
request the opportunity to
present further evidence closer to the time of the hearing process for this
Plan Change, as we believe that the outcome of the consultation process for
the National Policy Statement on Urban Development may have bearing on the
discussions and evidence given at the Plan Change hearing.
h)
appoint Deputy Chairperson
Danielle Grant to speak to the local board views at a hearing on the plan
change to enable council’s amendments to 91 Category A* historic
heritage places.
i)
delegate authority to the Chairperson
of the Kaipātiki Local Board to make a replacement appointment in the
event the local board member appointed in resolution h) is unable to attend
the plan change hearing.
CARRIED
|
