statutory management committee - 29 january 2013...1. this report has been prepared by . i have a...

Hearing Panel: Bill Wasley - Independent Hearings Commissioner

Hearing Date: 21 November 2017

Report Name: s42A Planning Report on Publicly Notified Resource Consent Application – for the removal of a B ranked Heritage Item being the ‘St Pauls Methodist Church’ at 62 London Street. Following removal, a commemorative display is proposed to be installed (signage and structures).

Author: Laura Thomson

REPORTING OFFICER

1. This report has been prepared by Laura Thomson. I have a Bachelor of Resource and Environmental Planning from Massey University, 2010 and I am an intermediate member of New Zealand Planning Institute (NZPI). I have 6 and a half years of professional experience in the resource management field.

2. At present I hold the role of Acting Applications Team Leader for the Hamilton City Council

in the Planning Guidance Unit, a role that I have held for approximately 5 months. I have been a member of the Planning Guidance Unit for over 4 and a half years, starting out as a Planner. Most recently I have held the position of Senior Planner for the past year.

3. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and have complied with that practice note in preparation of this report. I agree to comply with it in presenting this report and any evidence at the hearing. The opinions and assessment within this report are within my area of expertise, except where I have stated my reliance on other identified evidence. I have considered all material facts that are known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express in this evidence.

REPORT STATUS

4. This report is a s42A Report prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) which provides my advice and recommendations. It does not represent any decision on

Council report

Hamilton City Council - S.42A Report 28 September 2017

the application and this report will only be considered by the Commissioner in conjunction with all other technical evidence and submissions to the application.

APPLICATION TIMELINE

5. To record the timeline for the application, the following are the key dates of the application process:

29 September 2016 Application lodged with Council 14 October 2016 S92 Further Information Request

12 May 2017 Responses to Further Information Request 31 May 2017 Application Notified 29 June 2017 Submissions Close

14 September 2017 First Commissioners Direction 31 October 2017 Issue of Planning Report 21 November 2017 Hearing

COMMISSIONERS DIRECTIONS

6. Commissioner Bill Wasley will hear and determine the application under delegated authority from Hamilton City Council. Commissioner Wasley has issued a direction for the pre-circulation of evidence and for the hearing process. The direction notice is dated 14 September 2017.


S.42A REPORT - TABLE OF CONTENTS S.42A Planning Report..............................................................................Pages 1 - 26 Attachment 1 – Central City Activities………….................................................Page 27 Attachment 2 – Recommended Conditions of Consent.........................Pages 28 – 30 APPENDIX A The assessment and recommendation provided in the S.42A report have been informed by the technical assessment and professional recommendations by other experts including Council staff. This includes: 1. Heritage (a) Heritage Comments – email dated 13 October 2016 prepared by Adam Wild,

Archifact – architecture & conservation limited. (b) Statement of Evidence – dated 27 September 2017 prepared by Adam Wild. (c) Hamilton City Council Built Heritage Inventory Records – 2012 (St Paul’s

Methodist Church).

2. Seismic Strengthening Comment (d) Earthquake prone buildings comment – email dated 6 October 2016

prepared by Phil Saunders, Hamilton City Council.

3. Engineering and Services (e) Technical Comment - email dated 11 October 2016 prepared by Martyn

Smith, Hamilton City Council

APPENDIX B (a) Board of Administration of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Application (b) Section 92 Request for Further Information letter 14 October 2016 (c) Section 92 Response 27 March 2017 (d) Section 92 Email Response (Louise Feathers) 12 May 2017 (e) Accessed via www.hamilton.govt.nz/methodistchurch

APPENDIX C (a) Submissions to Notified Application (b) Accessed via www.hamilton.govt.nz/methodistchurch

http://www.hamilton.govt.nz/methodistchurch

http://www.hamilton.govt.nz/methodistchurch


1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

7. The administration details for the application are listed as follows:

Applicant : Board of Administration of the Methodist Church of New Zealand

Proposal : Removal of a B ranked Heritage Item being the ‘St Paul’s Methodist Church’ and installation of a commemorative display.

Street Address : 62 London Street, Hamilton Central 3204 Legal Description : Lot 1 DPS 7437, Part Lot 3 DPS 7437, Lot 1 DPS 21340 and

Lot 2 DP 441703 Site Area : 4846m2 Zone (PODP) : Central City Zone (Precinct 2 – City Living) Areas (PODP) : None Features (PODP) : Heritage Item H61 – St Paul’s Methodist Church Flood Hazard Area (PODP) : No Selected Site : Yes File No : 010.20160.00008923.001 Date : October 2017 Activity Status : Discretionary Activity Consent Trigger : Removal off site of a ‘B’ ranked heritage item and erection

of structures and signs on a site with a heritage item.

Aerial Photo


2 SITE AND LOCALITY

8. The site is located in the Hamilton Central City which is the primary centre for commercial, civic and social activities, and is the region’s cultural and recreational hub. The site is on London Street between Harwood Street and Victoria Street. The surrounding area contains a mix of commercial uses, with buildings of various styles and heights.

9. The wider site contains two existing buildings, being the St Pauls Methodist Church (the Church) as well as the St Pauls or Methodist Centre. The Church is a timber structure and was initially constructed in 1906 and is listed in the Partly Operative District Plan as a Heritage Item (H61). This building is located near to the London Street frontage of the site in the south western part of the site. The Methodist Centre (or St Pauls Centre) was opened in 1962, is located on the northern part of the site and is a community use building for the Methodist Church.

10. A site visit was undertaken by the original processing planner, Mrs Clare Douglas during the initial processing of the application and s95 notification report preparation. A further site visit was undertaken by myself on 3 July 2017.

11. Further detailed descriptions of the site are found in the Methodist Church’s Application

for Land Use Consent (Louise Feathers Planning – main body of application) and Heritage Assessment: St Paul’s Methodist Church 62 London Street, Hamilton, 18 November 2016 (Opus – Appendix B).

3 APPLICATION

3.1 Proposal

12. The application from the Methodist Church has two components. The first component is to remove the B ranked heritage building off of the site at 62 London Street, being the St Pauls Methodist Church. Land use consent is also sought for the installation of a commemorative display following the removal of the Church, involving signage and structures.

13. The applicant has proposed to remove the heritage building and relocate the building to a site at 714 Te Kowhai Road, with a proposed new owner and a new use as a cafe. The proposed new site falls within the boundaries of the Waikato District. A separate resource consent has been obtained from the Waikato District Council for the relocation and new proposed use, with the consent being approved on the 14 July 2017. The application details that the proposed relocation will involve the Church being seismically strengthened and reinstated. It is also detailed that the intention of the new owner is to make good the exterior of the building.


14. As the site falls outside of the Hamilton City Council boundaries, the future use and reinstatement of the Church is not within the Hamilton City Council jurisdiction and does not form part of this application.

15. The application has not proposed an intended re-use for the site as part of this

application, after the Church has been removed. However, the proposal does include the establishment of a commemorative display for the Church which will include signage/history, garden and seating area located fronting London Street. Details of the display have not been provided at this stage; however, it is proposed in the application that the design would be presented to Hamilton City Council for approval prior to implementation.

3.2 Other Consents

16. The Methodist Church has also obtained consent from the Waikato District Council for

the relocation of the Church onto the site at 714 Te Kowhai Road and new use as a cafe and gift shop. The resource consent was approved on the 14 July 2017, subject to conditions. 3.3 Activity Status

17. The Proposed District Plan was made Operative in Part on 21 October 2016, with the exception of Plan Change 1 (formerly the Ruakura Variation to the Proposed District Plan). In accordance with s86F, a Rule in the Plan Change must be treated as operative and any previous Rule as inoperative if there are no appeals on that Rule or any appeal has been withdrawn or dismissed or determined. There are no outstanding appeals for Plan Change 1. The subject site is also not within the Plan Change 1 Area.

18. The Methodist Church has submitted the application on the basis that the proposed removal of the ‘B’ ranked heritage item and proposed commemorative display requires consents as a Discretionary Activity.

19. The removal off site of any structure or building ranked B within Schedule 8A: Build

Heritage is identified as a Discretionary Activity within Rule 19.3 of the Partly Operative District Plan (the District Plan).

20. The proposal also includes the establishment of a commemorative display following the

proposed removal of the Church. The application has not identified that new buildings will be involved in the commemorative display. Erecting, constructing or extending any structure or fence on a site with a building within Schedule 8A: Building Heritage is a Restricted Discretionary Activity (Rule 19.3 l). Signs on these sites are also a Restricted Discretionary Activity (Rule 19.3 n). In both cases discretion is restricted to E – Heritage Values and Special Character.

21. Chapter 25.10 of the Partly Operative District Plan is also applicable for signs, with low

intensity signs being a Permitted Activity subject to compliance with standards. The


application has not identified that any additional rules are triggered by the proposal and as such, it is anticipated that the proposed display will comply with the relevant rules in this Chapter 25.10.

22. It is often the case that the activity status of an application is determined by the component parts of an application being ‘bundled’ together and the highest activity status applied to the application as a whole. In my opinion, it would not be reasonable to take this approach for the current application. The assessment of the proposed commemorative display is dependent on the assessment and decision around the proposed removal of the Church. As such, the assessment of the proposed commemorative display can occur with respect to the specific areas of discretion.

23. It is my opinion that the removal off site of the ‘B’ ranked heritage item (the Church)

should be considered as a Discretionary Activity with the proposed commemorative display to be assessed as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. 5 SUBMISSIONS

24. A total of 3 submissions to the application were received. All of the three submissions

are in opposition to the application.

25. The submissions focus on the main component of the application, being the removal of the Church. As the submissions are in opposition to the removal of the Church they do not comment on the commemorative display proposed should removal of the Church be approved.

26. The submissions cover similar issues with two of the submissions including a jointly prepared letter. The key comments and matters raised in opposition to the application include:

• Adverse heritage impacts as a result of the removal. The removal will disconnect the site from its original historic setting.

• Unclear assessment of the reasons why relocation is required, with little consideration of alternative use or demonstration that removal is a ‘last resort’ for the building.

• The building will be no longer protected in its new location once removed.

• Hamilton’s Heritage is minimal and continues to be lost.

• Effects on the London Street streetscape environment and character of the area.


6 STATUTORY PROVISIONS

27. The proposal by the Methodist Church requires land use consent under the provisions of the District Plan as a discretionary activity for the removal of the Church and a Restricted Discretionary Activity for the establishment of the commemorative display. The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) sets out the statutory provisions for the assessment and determination of the application with Sections 104, 104C and 104B providing the primary assessment framework.

Section 104 Consideration of applications (1) When considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions

received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to– (a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity;

and (b) any relevant provisions of—

(i) a national environmental standard: (ii) other regulations: (iii) a national policy statement: (iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement: (v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement: (vi) a plan or proposed plan; and]]

(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

Section 104C Determination of applications for restricted discretionary activities (1) When considering an application for a resource consent for a restricted

discretionary activity, a consent authority must consider only those matters over which— (a) a discretion is restricted in national environmental standards or other

regulations: (b) it has restricted the exercise of its discretion in its plan or proposed plan.

(2) The consent authority may grant or refuse the application. (3) However, if it grants the application, the consent authority may impose conditions

under section 108 only for those matters over which— (a) a discretion is restricted in national environmental standards or other

regulations: (b) it has restricted the exercise of its discretion in its plan or proposed plan

28. Comment: Council has discretion over E – Heritage Values and Special Character in

Volume 2, Appendix 1, 1.3.3 Restricted Discretionary, Discretionary and Non-Complying Assessment Criteria, for the assessment of the commemorative display.

Section 104B Determination of applications for discretionary or non-complying activities

After considering an application for a resource consent for a discretionary activity or non-complying activity, a consent authority— (a) may grant or refuse the application; and (b) if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108.

http://www.brookersonline.co.nz/databases/modus/environmentallib/rmresman/link?id=ACT-NZL-PUB-Y.1991-69%7eBDY%7ePT.2&si=1878974479

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM234810%23DLM234810


29. All sections of the RMA are subject to Part 2 which includes the purpose and principles

of the legislation. Section 5 provides the purpose of the Act as follows;

Section 5 Purpose (1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and

physical resources. (2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and

protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while— (a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding

minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment

30. Of key significance to the Methodist Church’s proposal is also Section 6 which identifies

matters of national importance, including sub-section 6(f);

Section 6 Matters of national importance In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance:

(f) the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and

development: 7 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

31. For the purpose of this report, the assessment of effects focuses on the primary

relevant topic being Heritage.

7.1 Heritage

32. The proposed removal off site of the St Paul’s Methodist Church (the Church) is the primary component of the application. The Church is listed within Volume 2, Appendix 8, Schedule 8A: Built Heritage of the District Plan and has a B Ranking as a historic building.

33. Any decision on the removal off site of a heritage building must be undertaken with a careful and robust assessment of the heritage context of the building, the rationale for why the building must be removed off site and other alternative use options that may exist which could avoid the removal off site of the building. In my view there are two


main competing issues that exist for many heritage buildings, including the Church building. These are:

• Heritage buildings are important and should be protected. Removal from the site, whilst retaining the physical structure, results in the loss of connection with the setting, diminishing the historic significance and is not a form of mitigation. Removal should be seen as a ‘last resort’ to save a building.

• A building should be able to accommodate a viable and functional use taking into account an assessment of costs and the nature of any upgrade works to satisfy building code standards for health and safety.

34. The Methodist Church has prepared a heritage assessment of the building and the

proposal (OPUS Consultants, November 2016, Miss Chessa Stevens). A Detailed Earthquake Assessment assessing the likely seismic capacity of the building has also been provided in the application (CPG New Zealand Ltd, June 2012, Mr Ivan Roshkov). Council has commissioned Mr Adam Wild from Archifact, a heritage expert, to provide independent review and advice during the processing of the application. Mr Wild has also presented a Statement of Evidence which includes an independent review of the application and heritage assessment as well as an assessment of the historic heritage elements of the proposal (Refer Appendix A).

35. As discussed above, the submissions raised significant concerns regarding the loss of

heritage as a result of removal off site of the Church and the information which has been submitted by the Methodist Church to support the application.

36. My assessment below considers these matters in three parts. The first considers the heritage values and context of the Church building, the second part considers structural integrity and condition of the Church building, and the last part discusses alternative uses.

Heritage Values and Context

37. The Church has been identified in Hamilton City’s District Plan as a key heritage site since the 1980’s where it was identified first in the 1982 Second Reviewed Hamilton District Scheme. During the 2010 District Plan review the criteria for listing heritage buildings was revisited and realigned to reflect the assessment criteria promoted by Heritage New Zealand. Each heritage listed building was re-evaluated and ranked using the revised criteria, by ….on behalf of the Council. The outcome of the re-evaluations are contained within the Hamilton City Council Built Heritage Inventory Records – 2012 (Heritage Inventory), with each heritage item and site having an assessment report. The St Paul’s Methodist Church retained its ‘B’ Ranking following this review, with no submissions being lodged relating to this site or the heritage ranking of this building as part of the District Plan review process.


38. Of note is that the Church building has a ‘B’ Ranking under the District Plan, with ‘A’ Ranking buildings having a higher threshold of significance. The respective descriptions of the A and B rankings from the District Plan are as follows:

Plan Ranking A: Historic places of highly significant heritage value include those assessed as being of outstanding or high value in relation to one or more of the criteria and are considered to be of outstanding or high heritage value locally, regionally or nationally. Plan Ranking B: Historic places of significant heritage value include those assessed as being of high or moderate value in relation to one or more of the heritage criteria and are considered to be of value locally or regionally.

39. The criteria used to assess the rankings are detailed in Appendix 8-1.2 of the District Plan and cover:

a) Historic Qualities b) Physical/Aesthetic/Architectural Qualities c) Context or Group Qualities d) Technological Qualities e) Archaeological Qualities f) Cultural Qualities g) Scientific Qualities

40. The heritage values of the Church are comprehensively detailed in the Heritage Inventory. This identifies that the Church is classified as ‘high’ under the a) historic qualities, b) physical/aesthetic/architectural qualities, c) context or group qualities and f) cultural qualities. The Heritage Inventory record details that the Church is significant for its architectural design and links to key designers of the time. The Church also demonstrates the development of the Methodist Church community in Hamilton. The summary of the Heritage Inventory states:

“St Paul’s Church is significant for its historic associations with the Methodist Church community in Hamilton and provides evidence of the amalgamation of the Primitive Methodist and Wesleyan Methodist Church communities in 1913. It has been a place of worship in central Hamilton for over one hundred years. The church is significant for its architectural design, incorporating the original Gothic 1904 church designed by Mr Burgess, with additions designed in Arts and Crafts and Gothic style by Daniell and Cray Architects in 1914, which included the main porch and entrance. The significance of the church is enhanced by elements of its setting including its setback from the street with central steps and gardens and the small park adjacent which marks the site of the first Methodist Church.”

41. The heritage values are also assessed in the Opus report, submitted with the

application, prepared by Miss Chessa Stevens which recognises the historic and physical values; detailing that the Church is ‘...now the only historic Methodist Church building remaining on its original site within the territorial authority boundaries of Hamilton City, and one of only two historic Methodist Churches remaining in the Waikato District...’.

42. The Opus report considers that the contextual values are limited as the ‘...physical and visual character of the site of St Paul’s has changed significantly...’ and ‘...is negatively


impacted by the proximity of neighbouring high-rise buildings, and the proximity of the Church to the southwest section boundary’. Mr Wild’s Statement of Evidence takes a different view of this. Mr Wild acknowledges that the area has a ‘...diverse mix of uses...’ and ‘...mix of building scales...’. However, in his view ‘...It is this variety that lends a certain character to the immediate context within which St Paul’s itself is a significant contributor and which is characteristic of many urban environments which include historic heritage assets.’

43. The assessment in the Opus report also details that there are perceived cultural values;

however, asserts that consideration of this should be in the context of the current views of the Parish. This differs from the significance attributed to the cultural values of the building by the Heritage Inventory. Mr Wild also does not agree with this assessment and details that ‘the audience concerned with the values of St Paul’s is no longer its congregation, but is now the public which share the benefit of this rare landmark historic building in Hamilton’s CBD’.

44. The submissions also identify the heritage values of the Church and its connection to the

setting, including the London Streetscape. It is clear from the submissions that the submitters consider the Church to be a landmark building and not solely significant for the Methodist Parish. The submissions also identify the limited resource that is historic heritage and the importance of retention of this resource.

45. In my opinion, the heritage values of the Church building are well recognised and have

been thoroughly assessed as part of the District Plan review and this application. I am in agreeance with Mr Wild, that the Church has significance not solely for the Methodist congregation but for the wider public as a landmark building. In my view the Church provides the connection to the historic development of London Street, with this street previously being the main street of Hamilton West. The Church as well as the Former Dairy Co-op Building located at 661 Victoria Street (corner of Victoria and London Streets) are two of the original buildings as shown in Figure 5 of the Opus report taken in 1930. These buildings contribute to demonstrating the history of the development of this portion of the Central City. In short, the heritage values of the Church building remain and deserve careful consideration.

Structural Condition and Integrity of the Church Building

46. A Detailed Earthquake Assessment has been undertaken of the Church building in June 2012 (Detailed Earthquake Assessment – CPG New Zealand Ltd) and was submitted with the application (Appendix 5 of the application). The report details that the assessment was not a full detailed analysis of the existing building but used the Initial Evaluation Procedure (IEP) in accordance with the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Publication “Assessment and Improvement of the Structure Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes”. This procedure compares the loading requirements that would have applied at the time the building was designed, with the current Building Code requirements. This allows for a percentage of the new building standard to be


estimated. The report identifies limitations in this analysis and it is intended to be a preliminary indication of a buildings likely seismic strength. The IEP gave an estimate for the structure at 28% of the current seismic code standards.

47. The report also identified the specific areas where the building is earthquake prone, with the building achieving 100% of the current seismic code requirements for a number of the test areas. Suggestions for where strengthening work could be undertaken to raise the capacity of the building to above 67% of the current code standards were also included. This included the following: • Install missing steel tie rod as per adjacent bays • Lumberlok Multi Brace straps with tensioners applied over the roof structure

at the main hall and the front/back additions. • Installation of new braced (anchored piles) in the subfloor framing. • Installation of brace-line lining at the southern and northern walls of the main

hall and at the transverse wall of eastern extension. The assessment also did not take into account potential upgrading works and associated costs that may be triggered under the building code requirements as part of the Building Consent that would be required for undertaking the earthquake strengthening works. It also did not provide any cost estimate for the recommended strengthening options.

48. Additional and more detailed information regarding the earthquake strength and

potential structural issues of the Church building was requested as part of a request for further information under s92 prior to notification. This was to enable a more thorough and certain understanding of the potential structural integrity issues with the Church building. The Methodist Church elected not to provide this information and it was stated by Mrs Louise Feathers, in her response to the s92 request dated 27 March 2017, that ‘the decision to apply for Resource Consent to remove the building was not based on the earthquake strength of the building’.

49. In order to gain a better understanding of the potential requirements for earthquake strengthening for heritage buildings, and in particular wooden heritage buildings such as the Church, I have consulted with Mr Phil Saunders. Mr Saunders is the Principal Building Advisor within Hamilton City Council and has experience with earthquake strengthening, having being part of the working party with Local Government around the development of the legislation. Mr Saunders has previously reviewed the CPG report and noted that the report advises that modelling has not been undertaken which would assess the performance of the building in a real earthquake event. Mr Saunders identified that modelling has shown that building of this type will often preform much better than anticipated with timber weatherboards contributing to bracing. Mr Saunders also details that the means of remediation that is proposed in the CPG report would likely be inexpensive to carry out. The remediation work would also increase the strength of the building to 67% of the current standards which is well above the 34% minimum required. Whilst this is the minimum it is acknowledged that the market has a part to play in determining the level of strengthening, as it may be more desirable for potential tenants to have a building that is strengthened to a greater degree than the minimum standard.


50. A resource consent from Waikato District Council has also been obtained for the

relocation of the building to the new proposed subject site within the Waikato District. Whilst a building consent has not been obtained at the time of drafting of this report, the removal of the Church building off of the site to the new site at 714 Te Kowhai Road will require a building consent and reinstatement of the building. It is anticipated that this will also require upgrading of the building in line with the Building Code. As such, I conclude that while there are likely structural integrity issues with the Church that would require strengthening, these do not appear to be so onerous as to be prohibitive.

Alternative use options and the Church building retention

51. As structural issues with the Church building have not been identified as a significant factor limiting the potential re-use of the building, a close and diligent examination of alternative use options must be undertaken. Appropriate investment in the upgrading and repurposing of the building may well then avoid the need for removal of the building off site.

52. As part of the resource consent application a summary of alternatives considered by the Methodist Church was included. The options explored included ones that would enable the heritage building to remain on the subject site, such as restore and re-use of the building for the Methodist use with a possibility of repositioning the building on the site. This also included the restructure and re-purpose for another use via lease or sale of all or part of the subject site. These options were largely discounted, for reasons such as: the Methodist Church not having any further use of the building as a place of worship; the building not lending itself to be a flexible space; a lack of interest in an alternative use; and the financial risk.

53. The Methodist Church has not provided detailed estimates of what a comprehensive

building upgrade and renovation would cost for a range of alternative use options. An economic feasibility study addressing the potential for repurposing of the Church was sought as part of a request for further information under Section 92 of the Act. The Methodist Church declined to provide this with Mrs Louise Feathers detailing in her response that ‘the decision to apply for Resource Consent to remove the building was not reliant on costs. It was based on whether the building and land upon which it sits fits with the mission of the Methodist Church and provides for the future of Methodism in the central city’. As such, it is difficult to fully understand the potential scale of limitation that would prevent adaptive re-use of the Church building on the site. A full and comprehensive assessment of the potential reuse of the heritage building, and whether an economic analysis supports the removal of the building from the site would have assisted in the assessment of the proposal.

54. Mr Wild in his Statement of Evidence has also identified this as lacking in the

assessment included in the application. He details that the application focuses primarily on the only use for the building being as a place of worship for the Methodist Church.


Mr Wild also is of the opinion that ‘…suitable alternative uses for the building…’ have not been ‘…considered by the Methodist Church to allow the building to remain on the site…’.

55. The zoning of the site is a relevant consideration for the potential re-use of the Church

building. The site is within the Central City Zone (City Living Precinct) with a surrounding area that is a mix of retail, recreational and office activities. The zoning provides for a wide range of potential uses, as is not always the case with some other sites with heritage buildings that have a more limited zone with regards to potential reuse options. A list of the potential activities that are provided for or anticipated within the Central City Zone (City Living Precinct) is included in Attachment 1. This includes office and retail uses, as well as restaurants and cafes. The location of the Church building on the site would also contribute to the ability for an alternative use. It is located on the London Street frontage of the site and has good connection with the street environment. There are a number of other previously earthquake prone heritage buildings within the central city which have been strengthened and adapted for a different purpose, such as the Former Dairy Co-op Building located on the corner of Victoria and London Streets.

56. Some other examples of heritage buildings which have been upgraded, seismically

strengthened and in some cases re-purposed include the St Mary’s Convent Chapel at 47 Clyde Street, the Commercial Hotel at 287 Victoria Street and the Former Waikato Brewery (now a restaurant). Another example of a building, whilst not a heritage building, that has been repurposed is the current site of the Good George Brewery at 32a Somerset Street. Whilst each of these buildings has its owner unique story and requirements they demonstrate that repurposing of a heritage building, particularly when within a commercial zone, can occur.

57. The District Plan also takes a pragmatic approach to the repurposing of heritage

buildings. This acknowledges that the building needs to be fit for purpose in today’s terms and does not place further limits on proposed uses than is applicable for the zone requirements. Whilst consent may be required where more than minor works are proposed, earthquake strengthening is in principle supported.

58. Council also provides funding options for owners of sites with heritage buildings through

the Heritage Plan and the Historic Heritage Fund Guidelines which established an annual Heritage Fund. As a listed heritage building the Church would be eligible to potentially receive some funding for earthquake strengthening, maintenance and repair, and reuse. To date it is understood that the Methodist Church has not made an applicable for funding.

59. One of the submissions detailed that more consideration for alternative use within the

original site could be had. The submission also questions the reasons why relocation of the Church building is required.


60. It is clear from the application that the Methodist Church no longer considers the Church building to be suitable for its purposes. This does not however, demonstrate that there are not any options for reuse of the building on the site. As detailed above, the Methodist Church has confirmed that costs were not the primary factor in seeking to remove the Church. I also consider that the zoning of the site presents a range of potential use options which is not always the case for heritage buildings. As such, I consider that it has not been demonstrated that there would be significant challenges for an alternative use proposal for the Church.

8 ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

8.1 District Plan

61. The Proposed District Plan was made Operative in Part on 21 October 2016, with the exception of Plan Change 1 (formerly the Ruakura Variation to the Proposed District Plan). In accordance with s86F, a Rule in the Plan Change must be treated as operative and any previous Rule as inoperative if there are no appeals on that Rule or any appeal has been withdrawn or dismissed or determined. There are no outstanding appeals for Plan Change 1. The subject site is also not within the Plan Change 1 Area.

62. As detailed above the criteria for listing heritage building was revisited as part of the 2010 District Plan review, with each heritage listed building being re-evaluated and ranked using the revised criteria. The provisions relating to heritage listed buildings was also reviewed with one significant change being the addition of a lesser activity status for earthquake strengthening than for general alterations and additions to the exterior of a heritage item.

63. The District Plan is the key planning instrument which provides guidance on the heritage

and character values which have been identified as being important.

64. The District Plan contains a number of plan provisions which are directly relevant to the assessment of the application to remove the heritage building. These will be discussed in terms of: • Objectives and Policies – Central City Zone • Objectives and Policies – Heritage • Assessment Criteria

Objectives and Policies – Chapter 7: Central City Zone

65. The following objectives and policies are directly relevant to the assessment of the

Methodist Church’s proposal:

All Central City

Objective


7.2.2 The form, scale and diversity of activities support and facilitate the role of the Central City as the Regional Centre.

Policies 7.2.2d Heritage resources are recognised and managed to contribute to local

amenity values and anchor investment within the Central City. 7.2.2h Future development will be undertaken in a manger that protects and

appropriately integrates heritage values into the Central City to enhance social and cultural values and the overall attractiveness of the city.

66. Policies 7.2.2d and 7.2.2h address heritage values and may be considered alongside the

specific District Plan objectives and policies for heritage. More detailed assessment will be undertaken regarding the objectives and policies below; however, briefly it is worth noting that these policies recognise the specific role that heritage buildings play in the amenity of the Central City. The proposed removal of the Church would result in the loss of a landmark building within the London Street streetscape environment. Objectives and Policies – Chapter 19: Historic Heritage

All Historic Heritage

Objective 19.2.1 Significant buildings, structures, sites and items that define the City’s

historic heritage are identified and protected. Policies 19.2.1a The City’s historic heritage shall be protected from the adverse effects

of subdivision, use and development. 19.2.1b Ensuring that where features have been destroyed or damaged, the

historical heritage values of these sites are recorded and recognised to ensure the historical legibility of Hamilton City.

19.2.1c Subdivision and development shall adhere to the conservation principles of International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) being the New Zealand Charter (2010) for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value where applicable.

Objective 19.2.2 The heritage values of a diverse and representative range of natural,

physical and cultural resources are protected. Policies 19.2.2a Items of significant heritage value (buildings, objects, areas, trees and

sites) shall be scheduled. 19.2.2b The loss of heritage values associated with scheduled items shall be

avoided. 19.2.2c Outstanding examples of a particular type of site, or sites that are

highly significant to the community shall be scheduled Buildings and Structures

Objective 19.2.3 The heritage values of significant buildings, structures and their

immediate surroundings are protected.


Policies 19.2.3a Demolition or relocation of buildings and structures ranked A in

Schedule 8A shall be avoided. 19.2.3b Demolition or relocation of buildings and structures ranked B in

Schedule 8A should be discouraged. 19.2.3c Subdivision and development shall retain, protect and enhance the

heritage values of any building or structure listed within Schedule 8A. 19.2.3d Subdivision and development avoid any potential cumulative adverse

effects on any building or structure listed in Schedule 8A 19.2.3e Heritage buildings and structures shall be used in a manner that

ensures essential heritage qualities are not damaged or destroyed. 19.2.3f The design, materials and finish of any development shall be

consistent with heritage values. 19.2.3g The continued use or adaptive reuse of any building or structure of

identified heritage value shall be encouraged. 19.2.3h The site surrounding the heritage building or structure shall be

protected to the extent that it contributes to the heritage value. 19.2.3i Encourage the strengthening of buildings in Schedule 8A to increase

their ability to withstand future earthquakes while minimising the significant loss of associated heritage values.

67. It is clear from an overall review of the objectives and policies associated with heritage,

including those relating to heritage in the Central City Zone, that there is a broad emphasis on the protection of heritage values. Within the objective and policy framework, there are also some specific policies that require consideration as part of the assessment of the proposal against the framework.

68. The majority of the objectives and policies such as policies 7.2.2d, 7.2.2h and objectives 19.2.1, 19.2.2 and 19.2.3 promote the protection and ongoing use of buildings with historic heritage. Policy 19.2.2b specifically states that the loss of heritage values associated with scheduled items shall be avoided and Policy 19.2.3c refers to any subdivision and development retaining and protecting the heritage values of scheduled buildings.

69. Policy 19.2.3a and 19.2.3b provide some more specific direction particularly with regard

to providing a distinction between building ranked A and buildings ranked B. Policy 19.2.3a states that demolition and relocation of A ranked buildings shall be avoided; whereas, for B ranked buildings Policy 19.2.3b states that demolition and relocation shall be discouraged. In particular Policy 19.2.3b adopts a less onerous position for B ranked buildings and does indicate that in certain cases there may be a loss of heritage buildings. Whilst these policies do provide an important consideration, an overall assessment against the relevant objectives and policies still needs to be undertaken.

70. Policy 19.2.1c also points to consideration of the principles of the International Council

on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). Article 10 of the Charter concludes that relocations ‘is not a desirable outcome and is not a conservation process’. The Opus report references that Article 10 details that relocation may be acceptable in exceptional circumstances if the current site is in imminent danger and if all other means of retaining the structure in its location have been exhausted.


71. Removal of a heritage building from the site, whilst not resulting in a complete loss of

heritage as is the case with demolition, is still considered to result in significant impacts on the heritage values associated with the item. Although the original structure remains intact, the relocation results in a loss of connection between the building and its setting, and the community’s sense of identity from where it originally evolved.

72. In my opinion, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that removal of the Church

building is a last resort option and that all possibilities for adaptive reuse on the site have been exhausted. The proposed removal of the Church building would result in a loss of heritage values through the separation of the building from its context. Whilst Policy 19.2.3b applies a less onerous test for the removal of B ranked buildings it is my opinion that this policy, in consideration with the wider objective and policy framework, still seeks to ensure that the loss of heritage only occurs as a last resort. As such, I do not consider that the proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Partly Operative District Plan.

73. It is also important to recognise that the assessment of objective and policies is subject

to Part 2 of the RMA and this is a matter that I will return to in Section 10.

District Plan Assessment Criteria

74. As the application has a Discretionary activity status, all effects of the proposal need to be assessed. The District Plan includes specific assessment criteria for Heritage Values and Special Character. The majority of the specific assessment criteria relate to proposals for alterations and additions to the heritage item or new buildings and structures on the site. However, there are some which are applicable to this application as detailed below.

Heritage Values and Special Character

E1 the extent to which the proposal, development excavation or subdivision of a historic heritage site or place: a) Is compatible with the reasons for inclusion of the building, structure or site

and its significance in Schedules 8A or 8B, of Appendix 8. b) Addresses cumulative effects on heritage values. c) Considers the irreversibility of an effect (e.g. the loss of unique features) d) Considers the opportunities for remediation and the costs and technical

feasibility of remediation. e) Adheres to the conservation principles of International Council on

Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter (2010) for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value, where applicable.

f) Includes consultation with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga g) In the event of relocation, has adequately considered whether the

relocation is necessary and whether appropriate measures are proposed to ensure any potential adverse effects on heritage values are avoided, remedied or mitigated.


E2 The extent to which the heritage values of any buildings or places identified in Schedules 8A or 8B of Appendix 8 would be adversely affected by the proposal.

75. As detailed in the assessment of effects and against the objectives and policies above, the proposed building retains the heritage values that were the reasons for its inclusion as a listed heritage building. The proposed removal is considered to result in adverse effects on the identified heritage values of the Church. As stated previously, whilst removal does not result in complete loss of heritage, as is the case for demolition, the building loses its connection with the setting and as such its heritage provenance will be greatly diminished. The relocation of the building to the new site within the Waikato District would not result in retention of the heritage significance. Once removed it would no longer retain heritage protection within Hamilton City Council jurisdiction. In certain circumstances a building may not lose its ranking; however, given the proposed new site for the Church has not links to London Street, Methodists or Hamilton it is considered unlikely that the building would be favourable for protection. As such, it is considered that the adverse effects of the proposal would be irreversible.

76. As detailed above, the application has not demonstrated that the opportunities, cost and feasibility for remediation are so limited that relocation is necessary. The principles of the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter also view relocation as a last resort in order to save the building. As such, I do not consider that the proposal adheres to the conservation principles of the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter.

77. The Methodist Church has consulted Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZ)

regarding the proposed removal of the Church building. The consultation sought comments regarding the value of the building based on the three broad alternatives of: retention, relocation off site, or demolition. The comments provided by HNZ identify that the subject building is not listed with HNZ and they have not made a heritage assessment of this building; however, note that it is part of the Hamilton City Council Heritage Schedule. The comments further detail that in general retention and appropriate repair and adaptive reuse is supported by HNZ, with appropriate consideration to the impacts on the building. Relocation and demolition should be considered as a last resort and relocation is favoured over demolition.

78. Overall, taking into account the assessment regarding the specific assessment criteria

above, as well as consideration of the assessment regarding the Objectives and Policies, I consider that the proposal to remove the Church is not consistent with the assessment criteria of the District Plan.

79. For completeness I have also considered the potential effects of the commemorative

display, should the Commissioner determine to grant the proposal for removal. The triggers for resource consent identified in the application for the commemorative display are as a result of the site containing a Heritage Item. Whilst the rules would still be applicable following removal of the heritage building until such time as the heritage


status is removed from the Plan, once the removal occurs it is not considered that any potential effects on the heritage values from the display will result. Recommended conditions of consent for the commemorative display are included for completeness.

8.2 National Policy Statements and National Environment Standards

80. It is considered that there are no National Policy Statements which are relevant or have any bearing on the application.

81. The Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 ensure that land affected by contaminants in soil is appropriately assessed and made safe for human use. The subject site is listed within the Council’s Selected Land Use Register as a site where an activity or industry listed on the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) is, has been, or might have been undertaken on. Council’s Contaminated Land Officer is satisfied that the specific area of the site where the application relates is not associated with the alleged HAIL land use. As such, the NES does not apply and no further assessment is required. 8.3 Regional Policy Statement and Plans

82. The Waikato Regional Policy Statement (RPS) provides an overview of the resource management issues in the Waikato region and sets the direction and foundation of the regional and district plans which must give effect to the RPS.

83. The RPS includes the following objective and policy on heritage: 3.18 Historic and cultural heritage Sites, structures, landscapes, areas or places of historic and cultural heritage are protected, maintained or enhanced in order to retain the identity and integrity of the Waikato region’s and New Zealand’s history and culture. Policy 10.1 Managing historic and cultural heritage Provide for the collaborative, consistent and integrated management of historic and cultural heritage resources. Improve understanding, information sharing and cooperative planning to manage or protect heritage resources across the region.

84. The RPS provides the broad regional level policy direction for the protection, maintenance and enhancement of heritage. The RPS also refers to a Regional Heritage Inventory however the preparation of this inventory has not commenced at this stage. As such it is the respective district plans and local communities that identify the heritage schedules and rule provisions for protecting and managing the effects of development on heritage within each district.

85. If granted, the application will enable a scheduled heritage building identified in the District Plan to be removed from its site. The RPS provides an overall direction regarding the protection, maintenance or enhancement of historic and cultural heritage. It


anticipates that plans and the consenting process will provide for the protection, maintenance or enhancement of heritage, but does not define how this will be achieved. In my view the RPS direction is more relevant to the District Plan review process than an individual resource consent application. In saying this, it is still an important consideration and it provides the overall direction that has led to the heritage provisions in the current District Plan. This emphasises that the protection, maintenance and enhancement of heritage is not solely a local matter and requires specific consideration.

9 OTHER MATTERS

9.1 Council Strategies

City Strategies

86. Council has a wide range of strategies in terms of social and economic growth as well as for the supply of services and provision of infrastructure. These strategies help to inform and shape the provisions of the District Plan which provides the direct planning framework and assessment of land use activities.

87. In my view the application does not raise any fundamental issue with these strategies that Council has adopted.

10 PART 2 OF THE RMA

88. Part 2 consists of Sections 5-8 and establishes the purpose and principles of the

Resource Management Act 1991. All assessments of land use activities are subject to Part 2 in accordance with Section 104. Section 5 – Purpose

89. Section 5 details the purpose of the Act which is to achieve sustainable management. Sustainable management is defined as ‘…. means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while - …’.

90. There are a number of components to sustainable management as defined above that need to be addressed. With regards to the protection of natural and physical resources, the assessment in sections of the report above demonstrate that the proposal will not result in the protection of the important heritage resource. Heritage buildings and sites are limited physical resources that connect communities with their past. As a result of this, it can also be concluded that the proposal would not provide for the social and cultural well-being of people and communities.


91. However, there is also a focus on the provision of economic well-being and health and

safety. Any proposal to demolish a heritage building therefore requires careful and thorough consideration including an assessment of the building structure to ensure that it does not pose health or safety risks.

92. It has been made clear through the application that the Methodist Church considers the

Church building to be no longer suitable for its purposes. Whilst, the financial cost of strengthening the building and potentially adapting the Church for another purpose is not identified as the primary consideration by the Methodist Church for the proposed removal. It can also be assumed that from an economic standpoint the removal of the Church would be beneficial for the Methodist Church.

93. This does not; however, mean that there is not an alternative to removal or a viable use

for the Church building. While earthquake prone the building could be strengthened to be brought up to the current seismic code (or as close is required). This would ensure that the use of the Church would not pose health and safety risks.

94. Through my examination of the Methodist Church’s application, the submissions and the

evidence from Mr Adam Wild I have reached the conclusion that the granting of the consent will not achieve the sustainable management purpose of the Act. The loss of the Church building will result in adverse heritage effects that are more than minor. It has also not been demonstrated that there is no alternative or viable use of the Church building on its current site which is reasonably possible.

Section 6 - Matters of National Importance

95. Section 6 details matters of national importance that should be recognised and provided for with subsection 6(f) directly applying to the proposed removal of the Church building. Subsection 6(f) states as a Matter of National Importance: ‘the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development’.

96. In my opinion the key consideration for subsection 6(f) is the determination of what is ‘inappropriate subdivision, use and development’. There have been a number of resource consent applications with Council which were determined through a notified process (eg Notre Dames des Missions H50 (‘Euphraise House’), Hamilton and the David O McKay Building, Temple View, Hamilton); as well as Environment Court decisions (eg. Harcourts, Wellington and Notre Dames des Missions H50 (‘Euphraise House’), Hamilton1) which decided on the fate of a heritage listed building. These decisions have considered these matters. The assessment of these applications took a balanced response to the assessment to ensure that all competing considerations were weighed to ensure a fair, appropriate and reasonable outcome. Whilst all of these proposals have

1 I would not normally refer to case law in a planning report; however, it is my opinion that these decisions focus on a key aspect of the Methodist Church application. Copies of the High Court judgement and the Environment Court decisions can be made available if required.


their own unique set of circumstances I believe they provide a good basis from which to interpret section 6.

97. A number of matters have been addressed through the assessment of the proposal

including: • The Church building has significant heritage values at a local level; • Submissions have been received from members of the public in opposition to

the proposed removal of the Church building; • Detailed evidence has not been provided regarding the exact structural

condition of the building and what upgrade works would be required to achieve building code requirements. The information that has been provided seems to indicate that strengthening of the building would not be a significant challenge or cost such that this would undermine upgrade options;

• The commercial zoning of the site allows for a range of options for alternative uses;

98. Having taken into account all the material available, it is my opinion that a balanced

response and recommendation on to the application is that it be declined and that the proposal by the Methodist Church should be considered inappropriate development. As such, it is my opinion that the proposal is not consistent with subsection 6(f). Section 7 - Other Matters

99. Section 7 lists other matters which decision makers shall have particular regard to in

order to achieve the purpose of the Act. Subsection 7 (b) is ‘the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources’ and Subsection 7 (c) is ‘the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values’.

100. In my opinion, the proposed removal of the Church building does not represent an efficient use of the physical resources on the site. A redevelopment of the site could provide a positive regeneration opportunity for the site and the Central City. However, it is considered that this could occur with the Church building being retained and sensitively incorporated. The Church building contributes positively to the current character and amenity of the surrounding area and the London Street streetscape. Although taller and more modern buildings are located around the site, I consider that this allows for the Church building to be more prominent and emphasises the historical depth of the area. Removal of the Church building would have a negative impact on amenity values. Section 8 - Treaty of Waitangi

101. This section requires those involved in the development of natural and physical resources to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

102. The site is not specifically identified as an archaeological site under the District Plan; however, it is considered to be a pre-1900 site in accordance with the Pouhere Taonga


Heritage New Zealand Act 2014. As a result, should consent be granted for the removal of the Church building, prior to any works occurring on the site an authority from Heritage New Zealand may be needed. It is also recommended that should the Commissioner be inclined to approve the application, conditions of consent regarding Accidental Discovery Protocol for earthworks being included. A suite of recommended draft conditions are included for completeness in Attachment 2. In my view the proposal will not compromise the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

11 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

103. Resource consent is sought to remove the B ranked heritage building off of the site at 62

London Street, being the St Pauls Methodist Church. Land use consent is also sought for the installation of a commemorative display following the removal of the Church, involving signage and structures.

104. The primary component of the application and the critical issues for the application relate to heritage values and the removal of the Church building.

105. The Trust Board has presented evidence to support their application including expert

heritage assessment of the Church building. However, has not provided detailed assessment of structural matters and potential strengthening requirements; or a detailed analysis of alternative use options.

106. Submissions have been received in opposition to the application. The submissions focus

on the main component of the application, being the removal of the Church. The primary message from the submissions was significant concerns regarding the loss of heritage as a result of removal off site of the Church and the information which has been submitted by the Methodist Church to support the application.

107. Removal of a heritage building from the site, whilst not resulting in a complete loss of

heritage as is the case with demolition, is still considered to result in significant impacts on the heritage values associated with the item. Although the original structure remains intact, the relocation results in a loss of connection between the building and its setting, and the community’s sense of identity from where it originally evolved.

108. From review all the evidence, including peer reviews and submissions, the conclusion

that I have reached is that the applicant has not demonstrated that the opportunities, cost and feasibility for remediation are so limited that removal is necessary.

109. The District Plan is the primary planning document to consider in relation to the statutory provisions of the RMA. The District Plan establishes a broad and clear policy direction to protect heritages values of buildings and structures within the Hamilton City. Whilst Policy 19.2.3b applies a less onerous test for the removal of B ranked buildings (such as the Church) it is my opinion that this policy, in consideration with the wider objective and policy framework, still seeks to ensure that the loss of heritage only


occurs as a last resort. As such, I do not consider that the proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Partly Operative District Plan.

110. In my opinion the proposal is not consistent with the sustainable management purpose

of the RMA. Of particular significance is subsection 6(f) which provides for the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate development. Based on the information presented with the application it is my assessment the proposal for removal of the Church is inappropriate, and consent should be declined.

111. Should the Commissioner determine that consent can be granted, located in Attachment

2 are recommended conditions for the commemorative display, earthworks and service disconnections associated with the removal of the building.

Laura Thomson (Int. NZPI) Acting Applications Team Leader 28 September 2017

statutory management committee - 29 january 2013...1. this report has been prepared by . i have a...

Documents