the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints trust board

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Trust Board

RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION AND ASSESSMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS:

Land Use Application to Demolish a Block Plant and Concurrent S127 Application to Changea Condition of Resource Consent 10.2016.8544.01

November 2019

Contact Details:

Bloxam Burnett & OlliverPo Box 9041, Hamilton, 3240Attn: Andrew McFarlaneEmail: [email protected]

Telephone: 07 838 0144Facsimile: 07 839 0431

Job Reference: 140450-64

Document Quality Assurance:

Prepared by: Andrew McFarlaneSenior PlannerBloxam Burnett & Olliver

Reviewed by: Chris DawsonPlanning Project ManagerBloxam Burnett & Olliver

Authorised by: John OlliverDirectorBloxam Burnett & Olliver

Status: Final Version: 3 Issue Date: 11 December 2019

K:\140450 Temple View Developments\64 Block Plant Demolition\Reporting\Final s127 and Block Plant AEE - (11 December 2019) .docx

Table of Contents

Part One – Land Use Consent to Demolish Block Plant ................................. 5

1. Introduction .................................................................................... 52. Applicant and Property Details ........................................................ 53. Site Description ............................................................................... 64. Background ..................................................................................... 85. Description of the Proposal ........................................................... 106. Hamilton City District Plan ............................................................. 11

7. Assessment of Environmental Effects ............................................. 14

8. Assessment of Other Relevant Provisions ....................................... 29

9. Consultation ................................................................................. 3210. Notification Assessment ................................................................ 3211. Statutory Framework – Resource Management Act 1991 ................ 33

12. Part One Conclusion ...................................................................... 36

Part Two – S127 Application to Amend Consent 10.2016.00008544.001 ..... 37

13. Introduction .................................................................................. 3714. Description of the Proposal ........................................................... 37

15. S127 – Resource Management Act 1991 ......................................... 3816. Assessment of Environmental Effects ............................................. 39

17. Assessment of Other Relevant Provisions ....................................... 41

18. Notification Assessment ................................................................ 4119. Statutory Framework – Resource Management Act 1991 ................ 41

20. Part Two Conclusion ...................................................................... 42

Appendices

Appendix A: Application FormsAppendix B: Certificate of TitleAppendix C: Heritage Impact Assessment - Archifact LtdAppendix D: Block Plant Heritage Assessment – Archifact LtdAppendix E: Block Plant Photographic RecordAppendix F: Baseline CDP Consent (September 2016)Appendix G: Proposed Amendment to Consent Conditions and Revised MasterplanAppendix H: Temple View Design Code ExtractAppendix I: New Zealand Architecture Awards for Heritage ConservationAppendix J: Letter of Project Support – New Zealand Labour Missionary Charitable Trust

Part One – Land Use Consent to Demolish Block Plant

1. Introduction

Part One of this application relates to the proposed demolition of the former Block Plant in TempleView, which is a utility building historically used for the manufacture of building materials associatedwith the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Block Plant is listed in the Operative HamiltonCity District Plan (ODP) as a B listed heritage building. The demolition of a B listed building is aDiscretionary Activity under the ODP.

This application considers the historic significance of the Block Plant in the context of proposeddemolition. It demonstrates that there is little significance in the fabric of the Block Plant which, initself, is utilitarian and unremarkable. The Block Plant was constructed with the sole purpose ofhousing an already in-situ block making machine. Because the building merely ‘enabled’ block makingto occur, and because that function has long since ceased, residual heritage significance stems largelyfrom association with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and from the building materialsused to construct other church facilities. These issues are considered in detail in subsequent sectionsof this application.

This report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of s88 and the Fourth Scheduleof the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA). The report describes the application in detail,measures the proposal against the relevant provisions of the ODP, and assesses the actual andpotential environmental effects resulting from the proposed changes. The report is to be read inconjunction with the attached appendices.

2. Applicant and Property Details

The completed application form is enclosed as Appendix A to this report. The Certificate of Title forthe property is attached as Appendix B. The summary details relating to the Applicant and subjectsite are as follows:

To: Hamilton City CouncilApplicant’s Name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Trust BoardAddress for Service: Bloxam Burnett & Olliver

Attn: Chris DawsonPO Box 9041, Waikato Mail Centre, Hamilton 3240Email: [email protected]: 07 838 0144

Address for Fees: C/- Temple View Project, P O Box 15246, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3243Attention: David HeperiEmail: [email protected]: 021 845 830

Legal Description: LOT 1 DPS 88403 (SA68C/73)Site Address: 509 Tuhikaramea Road, Temple View

Owner/ OccupierName & Address

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Trust Board

Site Area: 87.2438haDistrict Plan Zoning: Temple View ZoneOverlays: Temple View Character Area

3. Site Description

The subject site is located in Temple View, which lies approximately 7km south-west of the Hamiltoncity centre. The settlement is bisected by Tuhikaramea Road providing connectivity between StateHighway 39 (Kakaramea Road) and Hamilton city.

Temple View has a population of approximately 1,182 people with the majority of the township’sresidential properties located on the western side of Tuhikaramea Road. The eastern side ofTuhikaramea Road was historically characterised by the former Church College campus andassociated community buildings. The Hamilton New Zealand Temple lies on elevated ground to thesouth of the former College campus and forms the visual and spiritual focal point of the Temple Viewcommunity.

The application site is held in Certificate of Title SA68C/73 which is legally described as Lot 1 DPS88403 and which has a combined area of 87.2438 hectares. The Block Plant is located within an areawhich is subject to a Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP 2), which is a masterplan intended toguide development and provide integrated outcomes. The CDP 2 area comprises approximately 13.35hectares. A copy of this Certificate of Title is attached as Appendix B of this report. There are noencumbrances on the Certificate of Title that affect the outcome of this application. The applicantalso has approval to further subdivide the site into superlots for the purpose of residentialdevelopment and the consent decision was issued by Council on 3 May 2019.1 Titles are expected toissue for these superlots in early 2020.

The location plan showing the extent of CDP 2 is illustrated in Figure 3.1 below.

1 HCC consent reference 011.2018.00006852.001.

Figure 3.1: Location Plan

The CDP2 site is generally bounded by Boyack Drive and Wade Lane to the west, the Hamilton CityCouncil boundary to the east, the Koromatua stream to the south and the former Block Plant to thenorth.

The Church College site is zoned ‘Temple View Zone’ in the ODP. The zoning recognises the commonhistory between these land parcels, which have been in church ownership for many decades. Bothfringes of Tuhikaramea Road are affected by a Teacher Housing Area overlay, which references thehistoric use of that land for teacher accommodation purposes. The whole CDP2 area is also subjectto the Temple View Character Area overlay. Excerpts from the relevant Planning Maps that show theboundary of CDP2 and the overlays are included as Figures 3.2 and 3.3 below.

Figure 3.2: Excerpt from PDP Zoning Map Figure 3.3: Excerpt from PDP Features Map

Block Plant

Tuhikaramea Road

Boyack Drive

McKay Drive

CDP 2 Area

4. Background

The background which follows is relevant to Parts One and Two of this application.

Temple View was established in the 1950s out of the construction of the Hamilton New ZealandTemple and the Church College of New Zealand by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (theChurch). The New Zealand Temple and Church College were constructed largely by labourmissionaries serving on a voluntary basis.

The Church College project began in the latter part of 1950 under the supervision of George RBiesinger. At that early stage, a plant for the manufacture of concrete blocks was set up in an existingfarm shed with the first blocks produced in July 1951. By the close of 1951, the plant was producingover 2500 hand-pressed blocks per day. These were not only for Church College development but forChurch projects elsewhere in the Pacific, including Samoa and Tonga.

Temple View was established in the 1950s out of the construction of the Hamilton New ZealandTemple and the Church College of New Zealand by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (theChurch).

Following a visit by the Church President David O McKay in 1955, the scope of the Church Collegeproject was increased to include construction of the David O McKay building and the Matthew Cowleyadministration block, amongst others. At that stage, a decision was also made to construct the nowiconic Temple.

David O McKay dedicated the New Zealand Temple on 20 April 1958 and the Church College of NewZealand on 26 April the same year. By August 1958, membership of the New Zealand Mission was17,000, but grew to 26,000 during the next eight years as 200 missionaries canvassed the country andconvert numbers doubled. In order to accommodate that growth, it was necessary to createadditional stakes in Hamilton and Hawkes Bay in 1960, Wellington in 1965, another in Hamilton in1967, and in Auckland in 1968.

By 1955, the original block plant site was required for the further development of Church College, bywhich time white-washed blockwork was an established characteristic of the College campus. TheChurch identified a need for a replacement block-making facility and this was constructed at the sitelocation which exists today. A Columbian block making machine was assembled first and the plantbuilding constructed around it. The new plant was fully operational by March 1956 with productionreaching 5,000 to 8,000 blocks per day.

Figure 4.1 below illustrates that functionality of the Block Plant extended to more than the buildingitself. With the production of 5,000 to 8,000 blocks per day, the outdoor storage area was a prominentfeature of the plant and an operational necessity.

Figure 4.1: Block Making plant and Storage Yard

The construction sequencing of the Block Plant is of particular relevance because it indicates stronglythat the current building comprises machined-pressed blocks rather than the hand-pressed blocks ofthe original yard. Material from the new block plant was subsequently used in the construction ofmultiple buildings, including the iconic Temple at Temple View, 26 other chapels around New Zealandand church buildings in the Pacific Islands.

When production from the Block Plant ceased, the building was incorporated into the Church Collegefacilities and used variously over the years as a gymnasium (weights training room), a bus shed, rugbychanging rooms and a generator room. The fate of the Block Plant changed again following closure ofthe Church College in 2009, after which it was sporadically used for the storage of groundsmaintenance vehicles and equipment. Those later maintenance functions have partially transferredto alternative facilities currently under construction within the nearby Temple complex.

In the interim since 2009, the College site has been progressively cleared of redundant buildings andre-landscaped in preparation for residential development. Iconic historic buildings such theMendenhall Library, the First Teachers House, the GRB building and the Kai Hall have been restoredand re-purposed for alternative community use. As it stands today, the Block Plant is a redundant,isolated structure with no obvious connectivity to its past. There is certainly little or no value in thesurviving fabric of the building which is unremarkable in terms of its form and function. Nor, at firstglance, are there any are no visible reminders of the part played by the Block Plant in the developmentof other church facilities. The now isolated nature of the Block Plant can be clearly seen from thephotographic records in Appendix E of this application.

In January 2016 the Trust Board applied for land use consent for a Comprehensive Development Plan(CDP) to guide re-development of the mid-section of the former Church College site, which becameknown as the CDP2 area. The CDP2 area included multiple historic buildings including but not limitedto, the Mendenhall Library (H109), the First House (H133) and the Block Plant (H135). The CDP2

application retained all of these heritage buildings on site and HCC consented the ComprehensiveDevelopment Plan in September 2016.

In June 2017 and July 2018 respectively, HCC approved Comprehensive Development Plans for CDPAreas 1 and 3 respectively. The CDP 1 area encompassed the northern section of the Church Collegesite, including the former David O McKay building whereas the CDP3 area encompassed the Templeand the former Visitors Centre.

All three CDP areas are in various stages of redevelopment. In the interim since September 2016 ithas become apparent that the Block Plant contained within CDP2 is no longer fit for purpose andcannot usefully be re-purposed and integrated with adjacent planned development.

Historically, approximately 14 hectares of the Church College site sat within Waipa District butbecame part of Hamilton city in 2014. In February 2019, Hamilton City Council publicly notified PlanChange 3 (PC3) to the ODP, the primary purpose of which was to rezone the former Waipa land to‘Temple View Zone’ in order to align with the balance of the Church College site. At the same time,PC3 made amendments to provisions for the Special Character Zone, including the deletion of CDPs.Decisions on PC3 were publicly notified on 11 September 2019. As at the time of writing this report,Plan Change 3 was beyond appeal and was approved to make operative at a full Council meeting heldon 28 November 2019. The 14 hectare area rezoning will become operative on 12 December 2019.

5. Description of the Proposal

The proposal is to demolish the Block Plant to make way for an integrated residential development.The cleared site will be re-purposed for residential development and associated infrastructure,including roading.

Prior to demolition, it is proposed to make a detailed historical record of the Block Plant, as has beendone with multiple other former buildings within the Church College campus.

Post-demolition, it is proposed to erect a memorial plinth in the vicinity of the former Block Plant, thepurpose of which is to memorialise the form and function of the former building. The plinth will alsodirect people to the nearby Pacific Church History Museum, where more detailed records of theformer Church College are in storage and on display. It is also proposed to include some memorialelements associated with the Block Plant as part of the proposed rose garden memorial to bedeveloped immediately north of the restored Mendenhall building.

6. Hamilton City District Plan

Activity Classification

Rule 19.3(i) of the ODP provides for the demolition of any B ranked structure or building as aDiscretionary Activity.

Objectives and Policies

The objectives and policies which are of specific relevance to Part One of this application are thosecontained within Chapter 19 of the ODP – ‘Historic Heritage’.

Objectives 19.2.3 The heritage values of significant buildings, structures and their immediatesurroundings are protected.

Policy 19.2.3a Demolition or relocation of buildings or structures ranked A in Schedule 8Ashall be avoided.

Policy 19.2.3c Subdivision and development shall retain, protect and enhance the heritagevalues of any building or structure listed within Schedule 8A.

Policy 19.2.3d Subdivision and development shall avoid any potential cumulative adverseeffects on any building or structure listed in Schedule 8A.

Policy 19.2.3g The continued use or adaptive reuse of any building or structure of identifiedheritage value shall be encouraged.

Policy 19.2.3h The site surrounding the heritage building or structure shall be protected tothe extent that it contributes to the heritage values.

Policy 19.2.3i Encourage the strengthening of buildings in Schedule 8A to increase theirability to withstand future earthquakes while minimising the significant lossof associated heritage values.

The above-listed policy framework seeks to ensure the protection of ‘heritage values’ with respect tobuildings and structures listed within Schedule 8A of the OPD. The Block Plant is a category B rankedheritage building listed as item 135 within Schedule 8A. The listing status is a reflection of its heritagevalues, which derive from Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory record. The Heritage Inventorywas used to inform the ODP and its associated policy framework.

The heritage values attributed to the Block Plant are listed as ‘a’ (historic qualities), ‘b’ (physical /aesthetic / architectural qualities), ‘c’ (context or group qualities) and ‘f’ (cultural qualities). Theproposal is assessed below against those heritage values in order to establish alignment with ODP

objectives and policies. As part of that process, an independent Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)has been prepared by Archifact Ltd, a copy of which is attached as Appendix C. The HIA provides acomparative assessment of the Block Plant’s heritage values and the findings are summarised asfollows.

Historic Qualities

The Block Plant has associative value with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Althoughthe existing building is not the earliest block manufacturing site, it was nonetheless used by theChurch labour missionaries to manufacture building blocks for other sites within Temple Viewincluding Church College buildings and the Temple along with a number of other chapels constructedaround New Zealand and in the Pacific Islands during the 1960s. The Block Plant forms part of thecomprehensive development of Church College which commencing in 1950. The Temple and the(former) college are focal points for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints in New Zealand:they represent a purpose-built community, the only one of its kind in New Zealand.

For these reasons, historic qualities are rated as ‘moderate’ by the ODP and ‘moderate to high’ by theHIA. Historic qualities are not in contention.

Physical, Aesthetic and Architectural Qualities

The HCC Heritage Inventory record describes the Block Plant as having ‘moderate’ architecturalsignificance because of its utilitarian nature and functional appearance. The Block Plant wasconstructed by labour missionaries under the guidance of Elder Perry Browne. Although it shares thesame colour palate as most other buildings within the Church College site, and uses similar materials,it is not architecturally iconic. It nonetheless has some architectural rarity due to its purpose-built andone-of-a-kind nature.

In contrast, the HIA rates physical, aesthetic and architectural qualities as ‘low’. Whilst the block plantis broadly reflective of the rectangular built forms found across the site in other church buildings, itis not designed in the International style favoured by the surviving buildings of value. Because it is afunctional building with simple design aspirations, it ranks low for aesthetic or architectural qualities.

Context of Group Value – High

The HCC Heritage Inventory Record describes the Block Plant as having ‘high’ group value. The BlockPlant forms part of the comprehensive development of the Church College campus whichcommenced in the 1950s and incorporated a range of buildings. The former campus is a ‘designed’landscape intended to give visual prominence to specific structures within the Temple View grounds.The Block Plant’s location towards the rear of the campus is a reflection in part, of its utilitarianfunction and its lowly status within the context of other, more prominent college buildings.

In contrast, the HIA recognises that, whilst the contextual value of the overall site is ‘high’, theprominence of the Block Plant within that setting is less so. The building’s group value is diminished

due to its remote siting relative to other surviving College buildings, as illustrated in Figure 6.1 below.Also, because the Block Plant has limited visibility from Tuhikaramea Road within Temple View itself,its contribution to the public perception of the former College campus is extremely limited. Thecontextual value is diminished further by the consented changes to the former College campus, whichhave now left the Block Plant alienated amidst a heavily modified landscape. As a result, the HIAconsiders contextual value to be of ‘moderate’ significance only.

Figure 6.1: Block Plant Within Current Context

Cultural Qualities

The HCC Heritage Inventory Record describes the Block Plant as having ‘moderate’ culturalsignificance, due largely to its association with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and itsrole in the development of the Church College campus. The HIA contends that, whilst the buildingmay have sentimental associative value for the Church and its missionaries, its cultural associationsare limited beyond the Church itself. Whilst the Block Plant has enabled the construction of numerousmore prominent LDS Church buildings, the Block Plant itself has less associative cultural value.Consequently, the HIA contends that the Block Plant has only ‘low’ significance with respect tocultural values.

Making an overall assessment, both the HCC Heritage Inventory and the HIA conclude that the BlockPlant has ‘moderate’ historic heritage significance. Demolition of the Block Plant will have anirreversible impact upon that heritage significance. For that reason, the proposal does not supportObjective 19.2.3 and Policies 19.2.3(c) and 19.2.3(d).

The proposal is not contrary to Policy 19.2.3(a) because the Block Plant is not an A-ranked buildingwithin Schedule 8A. The Applicant has had regard to Policy 19.2.3(g) insofar as the Block Plant hasbeen adaptively re-used for multiple activities during the lifetime of the Church College including agenerator room, a weight training room and rugby changing rooms and over recent years formaintenance storage. However, adaptive re-use is no longer considered feasible in the context of theconsented development now proposed within the Temple View Zone and within CDP 2 in particular.The issue of adaptive re-use is discussed in more detail in subsequent sections of this report.

7. Assessment of Environmental Effects

In accordance with s88(2)(b) and the Fourth Schedule of the RMA, this section provides an assessmentof the actual and potential effects on the environment associated with the proposal. Theenvironmental effects which need to be considered are ‘effects upon heritage values and specialcharacter’. The commentary which follows should be read in conjunction with the HIA by ArchifactLtd a copy of which is attached as Appendix C.

Effects Upon Heritage Values and Special Character

The Block Plant is identified in the ODP as a category B ranked heritage building (H135) dating from1955-1956. Category B listings are considered to be items of either local or regionally significantheritage value. Generally, they are assessed as being of ‘high’ or ‘moderate’ value in relation tospecific heritage criteria.

The Block Plant is not registered by Heritage New Zealand but is listed within the ODP for its ‘historicqualities’, its ‘physical / aesthetic / architectural qualities’, its ‘contextual value’ and its ‘culturalqualities’.

The building is a utilitarian structure with double storey central feature and single storey wings. Thebuilding derives its name from its former use as a concrete block making facility, with the blocks usedas the dominant building material throughout the Church College site. Photographs of the Block Plant‘as existing’ are provided as Figures 7.1 and 7.2 below. A more detailed photographic record of theBlock Plant is attached as Appendix E.

Figure 7.1 Block Plant Front (From North-East)

Figure 7.2: Block Plant Rear (From West)

Volume 2, Section 1.3.3 of the ODP provides assessment criteria for Restricted Discretionary,Discretionary and Non-complying Activities, the criteria being a ‘guide only’ with respect toDiscretionary and Non-Complying Activities. Section 1.3.3 E9-17 also includes assessment criteria with

respect to the impact of activities on special character values, which is a relevant consideration giventhe Block Plant’s location within the Temple View Character Area.

An assessment of the proposal against relevant criteria is provided in the HIA with the findings beingsummarised in Table 7.1 as follows.

Table 7.1: Assessment against relevant ODP assessment criteria

E: Heritage Values and Special Character, GeneralCouncil Assessment Criterion CommentE1: The extent to which theproposal, development,excavation or subdivision of ahistoric heritage site or place:

a) Is consistent with the identifiedheritage values, including scale,design, form, style, bulk, height,materials and colour, and retains,protects or enhances the historiccontext.

The proposal entails demolition rather than new buildconstruction. The nature of demolition is such that it willresult in the permanent loss of the heritage asset. Therefore,the proposal cannot be considered ‘consistent with heritagevalues’.

b) Place provides for design,layout or location of the activity,including associated buildingplatforms, vehicle access andservices on site in a manner thatwill minimise the disturbance ofthe site.

This criteria is not applicable in the circumstances.

c) Provides for the on-goingmaintenance of the site to ensurethat the site is preserved and thatdamage does not occur.


d) In Schedule 8A of Appendix 8maintains visual linkagesbetween the building or structureand the street.

There are oblique views of the Block Plant from TuhikarameaRoad on the northern entrance to Temple View. Therelationship between the Block Plant and the road is of aninformal nature and is largely unintentional due to thegradual clearance and redevelopment of the Church Collegesite. Visual linkage is of limited importance in thecircumstances. Importantly, following the proposeddemolition and residential subdivision, the remaining LDSChurch buildings, including other scheduled heritagebuildings, will remain highly visible, retaining their sense ofplace and group values.

e) Is compatible with the reasonsfor inclusion of the building,structure or site and itssignificance in Schedules 8A or8B, of Appendix 8.

The proposed demolition of the Block Plant will result in thepermanent loss of this heritage asset. Mitigation, includingrecording and a plinth memorial are proposed.

f) Addresses cumulative effectson heritage values.

The proposed demolition of the Block Plant would add to thecumulative loss of other listed heritage and non-listedbuildings on the site due to the earlier removal of the DavidO McKay Centre and other CCNZ buildings. The proposedmitigation, including a blockwork information plinth (madefrom blocks taken from the building) adjacent to the site, theformal recording of the building, and the publicly availablearchives of the place will aid in the remembrance of the place.

g) Considers the irreversibility ofan effect (e.g. the loss of uniquefeatures)

The proposed demolition of the Block Plant would result inthe loss of the building in its entirety and would beirreversible.

h) Considers the opportunities forremediation and the costs andtechnical feasibility ofremediation.

The building has been assessed to achieve an earthquakeresilience of 40-50% NBS and as such is considered to bean ‘earthquake risk’. In 2009, Beca Consultants produced aSeismic Assessment report which outlined the repairs whichwould be required to bring the Block plant’s seismic resilienceto 67% NBS. Generally, these upgrades require strengtheningof the wall/floor/ceiling connections. If alternative residentialuse was to be considered for the Block Plant, the worksrequired not only to structurally improve the building, but toensure adequate weatherproofing, thermal performance,services upgrades and access for natural light will bephysically extensive. The HIA considers this to be financiallyprohibitive and would almost certainly exceed the rated valueof the building itself.Opportunities for remediation were also considered in thecontext of alternative use (‘adaptive reuse’), includingresidential. The utilitarian nature of the Block Plant,combined with the required NBS upgrades meant that thebuilding did not easily lend itself to residential adaptation.Commercial use was considered but dismissed because theBlock Plant is located within an area of CDP2 that isspecifically set aside for residential activity. Although a smallarea of commercial activity is provided for within CDP 3, it isremoved from the Block Plant location. Commercial activitywould also dictate a higher level of car parking than would berequired for residential activity, which would be at odds withthe nature and scale of surrounding activity.

Adaptation to community use was also considered butultimately dismissed because ‘community functions’ havelargely been accommodated within the re-purposedMendenhall Library, within the nearby Stake Centre andspecifically within the GRB Building and the Kai Hall, both ofwhich are extensively used already for community and churchpurposes.

i) Considers the resilience of theheritage feature to change (e.g.the ability of the feature toassimilate change, or thevulnerability of the feature tochange).

The context and physical setting of the Block Plant hasundergone numerous changes over time. The surroundingcontext of the subject place has changed, and will continue tochange, as the Temple View site is redeveloped to facilitatethe proposed future residential use. As explained above, theBlock Plant is not readily adaptable for residential purposes,and its commercial/industrial scale and typology is at oddswith the proposed domestic development around it. Thecommercial node is located further to the north of the site,and wider community uses grouped to the south, and thebuilding itself is not relocatable. Whilst the building hasassimilated some change over time (such as the addition ofthe weights room and rugby changing rooms), it is limited interms of its ability to accommodate any significant future use.Due to the specificity of the building it would requiresubstantial modification to enable alternative, appropriateand viable use. The proposed subdivision of the site forresidential activity precludes the retention of the Block Plant.

j) Adheres to the conservationprinciples of International Councilon Monuments and Sites(ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter(2010) for the Conservation ofPlaces of Cultural Heritage Value,where applicable.

The proposed development does not meet conservationprinciples in the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter (2010) asdemolition is not regarded as a conservation principle.However, article 23 (Interpretation) allows for the tangibleand intangible values of a place to be understood in a clearand ongoing way. The mitigations offered by the LDS Church(namely the commemorative block plinth with photos andbrief history, and the fuller records held at the nearby PacificChurch History Museum) will ensure that the values of theplace are understood and made accessible for futuregenerations.

k) Includes consultation withHeritage New Zealand PouhereTaonga.

The Block Plant is not included in the Heritage New ZealandPouhere Taonga historic heritage inventory list. Nonetheless,pre-lodgement consultation was undertaken with HeritageNew Zealand (Robyn Byron) on 7 June 2019. As the BlockPlant is not listed on the HNZ heritage inventory list, HeritageNew Zealand have a neutral stance on the proposal.

l) In the event of relocation, hasadequately considered whetherthe relocation is necessary andwhether appropriate measuresare proposed to ensure anypotential adverse effects onheritage values are avoided,remedied or mitigated.

This criteria is not applicable as relocation is not proposed.

m) Incorporates proposedplanting, fencing andidentification (e.g. signage)sufficient to ensure siterecognition.

The proposal provides for the erection of commemorativeplinth following demolition of the Block Plant. A consentcondition to this effect is offered. The function of the plinthwould be to memorialise the heritage of the Block Plant andto direct interested parties to the Mendenhall Library, whichfunctions as a church museum. The more detailed history ofthe Block Plant is documented within the Pacific Museum byway of photos, film archives and books outlining the earlyhistory of Church College and its construction.

E2: The extent to which theheritage values of anybuildings or places identified inSchedules 8A or 8B ofAppendix 8 would beadversely affected by theproposal.

The Block Plant is identified within Schedule 8A as a B rankedheritage building with heritage values relating to ‘historicqualities’, ‘physical / aesthetic / architectural qualities’,‘contextual or group qualities’ and ‘cultural qualities’.Demolition of the Block Plant would have a permanentadverse effect upon the building’s heritage values. It wouldnot, however, have any effect upon the heritage values of anyother listings within Schedules 8A or 8B, including thoselocated within the balance of the former College site.

E3: The extent to which theproposal including modification,re-use, renovation or restorationto the building or structure:

a) Contributes positively to thecharacter of the surrounding areaand maintains the relationship ofthe building or structure with itssetting.

The proposal does not include modification, re-use,renovation or restoration and therefore this criteria is notapplicable.

b) Will maintain and enhanceenvironmental, social, or culturaleffects for the wider community.

The Block Plant is proposed to be demolished, whichrepresents an adverse effect on the heritage values of thebuilding. This building is not a publicly accessible place, andthe purpose for which it was originally constructed (to housethe block making machinery) has long expired and that plantremoved. It now sits unused, in a remote area of the formerLDS church college campus, shielded from public view by

surrounding topography. This criteria is not applicable in thecircumstances.

c) Considers the extent to whichthe primary façade of ascheduled building is proposed tobe altered, and whether the maindeterminants of the style andcharacter, and the heritagesignificance, of the building aremaintained or restored.

The proposal does not involve the alteration to the primaryfacade of the building. This criteria is not applicable in thecircumstances.

d) Ensures new buildings respectthe design, scale and materials ofany original façade.

The proposal does not involve new buildings in the context ofmodification, re-use, renovation or restoration of the BlockPlant. This criteria is not applicable in the circumstances.

E4: The extent to which it ispracticable to provide noiseinsulation to the requiredstandard withoutcompromising the heritagesignificance and fabric of thebuilding.


E5: The extent to which theaddition of an awning wouldlikely detract from the originalcharacter of an identifiedheritage building in Schedule8A and 8B of Appendix 8.


Temple View Heritage AreaE6: The extent to which newdevelopment or earthworks(including the planting or removalof vegetation and trees) wouldadversely affect the landscapesetting and views of the Templefrom Tuhikaramea Road.

This application relates to demolition of the Block Plant whichis located within the CDP2 area. The CDP2 area is not locatedwithin the Temple View Heritage Area and therefore thiscriteria is not applicable.

Heritage Values and Special CharacterE7: The extent to which works toa transport corridor or parkingarea continue the consistent useof materials and kerb edging usedthroughout the Heritage Area.

The proposal does not involve works to a transport corridoror parking area. This criteria is not applicable in thecircumstances.

E8: The extent to which provisionhas been made for theinvestigation, recording orpreservation of any

An archaeological assessment by Warren Gumbley (HamiltonTemple Upgrade Project: Archaeological Values, January2018) considered the likelihood of archaeological discoveryaround the site to be very low, due to significant previous

archaeological deposits orfeatures.

development works. Accidental discovery protocols can beobserved during the works in order to protect undetectedarchaeology in the development area. Consent conditions tothis effect are expected.

Temple View Character AreaE9: The extent to whichdevelopment maintains thecharacteristic setback of buildingsfrom the transport corridor,visibility between the dwellingand the transport corridor andhigh levels of landscaping andpermeable surfaces within thefront building setback.

This criteria is not applicable in the context of what isproposed.

E10: The extent to which theproposed development, building,structure, alteration or addition iscompatible with the scale, form,style, bulk, height, colour ormaterials of surroundingbuildings or structures within theTemple View Character Area.

Final new building designs for the proposed residential areahave yet to be determined and will be subject to a separateconsenting process. High level building typologies arenonetheless addressed in Part 2 of this application whichrelates to an alteration to existing consent conditions. Thedevelopment to be constructed in lieu of the demolishedBlock Plant has been designed to ensure consistency with thescale, form and style of surrounding residential developmentand will complement Temple View’s character. The typologiesare identified in the Draft Temple View Design Code, a copyof which is attached as Appendix H.

E11: Whether removal of anybuilding or structure within theCharacter Area will affect thegateway appearance of theCharacter Area.

The Block Plant does not make any contribution to the‘gateway’ appearance of the Character Area, which isidentified in the Chapter 5 – Special Character Zones, 5.1.4.2Temple View Character Area as being created by thearrangement of former teacher housing on either side ofTuhikaramea Road. The Block Plant is set back significantlyfrom Tuhikaramea Road and plays no part in the streetscapevalue of the settlement.

E12: The extent to which thegenerous spacing between singledwellings is maintained.


E13: Whether it has been clearlydemonstrated that demolition ofany heritage building in Schedule8A of Appendix 8 is necessary,considering alternatives for the

The Block Plant is proposed to be demolished. Options wereexplored to find an alternative use for the building (such as acommunity facility, residential use or a commercial property)in order to retain the heritage asset. On balance, however,the removal of the building was deemed to be an acceptablecourse of action for the following reasons:

refurbishment or re-use of thebuilding, financial cost andtechnical feasibility.

• The 2009 Seismic Assessment carried out by Beca Ltddetermined that the building is 40-50% NBS and istherefore considered to be an Earthquake Risk building.Structural works are required to achieve 67% NBS andthat needs to be weighed against the practicality andcost of adaptive re-use.

• The utilitarian form and construction method of theBlock Plant building makes it difficult to adequatelyredevelop for a new use. Commercial or residentialadaptation would likely necessitate the creation ofadditional wall openings, and this would be structurallychallenging given the seismic shortfalls of the existingmainframe. That is not to say that structural challengescannot be overcome; but the economic and aestheticcosts need to be carefully weighed against thepracticality of long-term sustainable use.

· Residential adaptation would necessitate significantimprovements to both walls and roof in order to meetrequired insulation and weathertightness standards (thesame standards not being applicable to commercialuse). Whereas residential adaptation would beconsistent with the activity envisaged for thesurrounding land use, the form and scale of the BlockPlant would be incongruous with the residentialtypologies currently being developed for the CDP2 area(Refer Figure 7.5 below).

· Aesthetically, commercial adaptation offers moreflexibility than residential use, but neither theunderlying zoning nor the CDP provide for commercialactivity in this location. Consideration has also been hadto adaptive reuse for community purposes, though thistoo would need to overcome seismic and structuralchallenges which could render adaptation uneconomic.

· Community use was ultimately rejected by the Churchbecause it would replicate community facilities thathave been created elsewhere within the Temple Viewcomplex, including the re-purposed Mendenhall Library(now Pacific Church museum), the Kai Hall, the GRBbuilding and the Stake Centre.

• The purpose for which the building was first constructed– to house a concrete block making machine and thenew blocks it produced – has been disestablished, andso the building no longer fulfils this original function. Ifthe building can no longer serve a practical and

sustainable function it is likely to be disused over aprolonged period of time. Redundant heritage buildingswhich no longer serve their original purpose are atsignificant risk of eventual disrepair. Regardless of itsheritage status, it is not sustainable for the Church tomaintain a redundant building that serves no particularpurpose.

• The Block Plant’s remote location away from the bulk ofthe other Temple View church and community buildingsmakes it difficult to integrate into any ‘group’ function,or to contribute positively to the streetscape.Integration with the re-developed CDP area will benotably difficult given the residential typologiesenvisaged, which are significantly at odds with the bulkand form of the Block Plant. To illustrate this, an extractfrom the Temple View building Design Code is attachedas Appendix H. This Design Code was incorporated intothe CDP1 application and will be utilised across both theCDP1 and CDP2 areas of the project to ensure finallayout and typologies are consistent with the TempleView character requirements.

Ongoing development operations around the former Collegesite are substantially geared towards residential landdevelopment. In its current form, the Block Plant building isnot compatible with this activity.

E14: Any immediate orcumulative effects of the loss,alteration or removal of anybuildings on the overallcoherence of the Character Area.

The primary historic value arising from the Block Plant is itsproduction of concrete blocks used to construct LDS Churchbuildings around the Temple View campus, New Zealand andthe Pacific Rim. The building itself has associative value withthis important historic activity as it enabled the creation ofthis building material. However, there is little value in thephysical fabric of the building itself, rather its values can bemost readily appreciated in the surviving church buildingswhich were a product of its labour. While the loss of the BlockPlant is an irreversible effect, its values survive morenoticeably through the buildings which it helped create, andso the coherence of the values of the Character Area areoverall maintained.

E15: The extent to which newdevelopment or earthworkswould adversely affect thelandscape setting and views ofthe Character Area.

Following demolition of the Block Plant, the site is to becleared for future residential use. The topographysurrounding the Block Plant has already been landscaped forthat purpose. Earthworks associated with Block Plantclearance will be designed to integrate with those surrounds.

Therefore, the Block Plant clearance will have a nil effect onthe landscape setting and views of the Character Area.

E16: The extent to which thedevelopment would adverselyaffect the spatial relationshipbetween the curtilage wall andTuhikaramea Road, and theconsistency of design of theprivacy walling separating thecovered walkways fromTuhikaramea Road.


E17: The extent to which newdevelopment maintains acoherent character within theTemple View Character Area and,where relevant, integrates withany Comprehensive DevelopmentConsent.

Part A of this application identifies that the Block Plant site isto be re-used for residential development. An amendment toconsent conditions is required to ensure that replacementdevelopment (on the site of the Block Plant) is coherent withplanned development in the balance of the CDP area. Buildingtypologies have been developed to ensure that seamlessintegration.

Contextual Change

At the time of the Block Plant’s original listing within the Hamilton District Plan, it had a distinct visualconnection with surrounding buildings in the Temple College grounds. Like the Block Plant itself, theCollege classrooms and outbuildings were constructed from concrete blockwork with a whitewashedfinish. That uniformity of building style provided a homogeneous urban landscape which became acharacteristic of 1950s development in Temple View.

Subsequent to closure of the College in 2009 the whitewashed landscape has gradually changedthrough the removal of redundant buildings and re-purposing of the College grounds for domesticand community use. The extent of that contextual change can be seen in Figures 7.3 and 7.4 below,which illustrate the extent to which ‘setting’ has changed before and after closure of the formerChurch College.

Figure 7.3 – Block Plant Context in 2008

Figure 7.4 – Block Plant Context in 2019

Block Plant

Block Plant

In September 2016 Hamilton City Council approved a Comprehensive Development Plan to guideredevelopment of the CDP2 area for a combination of mixed housing and retirement accommodation.The CDP is intended to provide a degree of certainty with regards the layout, scale and nature offuture development. A further Comprehensive Development Plan was approved by Council for theCDP1 area in June 2017 along with all relevant consents from the Waikato Regional Council.

Having established a CDP ‘footprint’, and notwithstanding the recent approval of PC3, the Trust Boardhas developed a variety of housing typologies that are specific to the CDP area (Refer Appendix H).Although the typologies have flexibility to enable a variety of built form, they are intended to ensureconsistency of character across the wider CDP area. In terms of design intent and land use outcometherefore, the context has changed significantly for the Block Plant. Whilst the appearance and formof the Block Plant was relevant in the context of the former Church College, that is no longer the casenow, as demonstrated by Figure 7.4 above. Indeed, once it is surrounded by the building typologiesnow envisaged by the Trust Board, the Block Plant will be an incongruous feature relative to themodular suburban form around it. That juxtaposition can be seen in Figure 7.5 below, which showsretention of the Block Plant in the context of planned development around it. The montageincorporates building typologies from the Temple View Design Code, overlaid onto the planned CDPlayout.

Figure 7.5 – Block Plant in Context of Planned Development

The recontouring works which have been consented and implemented to date have further shiftedthe topographic context of the Block Plant. The Block Plant was not designed with that topographiccontext in mind and does not respond to that new topography. This has further disengaged thebuilding from its historic reference.

Modular ResidentialSurrounds

Block Plant

Potential conflict with plannedroading alignment

Timing

At the time of preparing this resource consent application, the infrastructure necessary to supportthe CDP2 area was in the process of being installed. Significant earthworks have been completedthroughout both the CDP1 and CDP2 areas of the site and gradients are in place to facilitate theinstallation of roading and essential services. If the Block Plant is retained in its current location,roading and essential services will need to circumvent that part of the site, which will impact uponthe cohesiveness of the preferred layout design. It makes sense to ‘service’ the former Block Plantsite at the same time as the balance of the CDP area because of the efficiencies involved. In the eventthat demolition of the Block Plant is deferred until a later date, it will be more costly to retrofit theseservices. It will also be necessary to modify the planned roading alignment as the Block Plan currentlyoverlaps the proposed road boundaries (Refer Figure 7.5 above).

Adaptive Reuse

The Church has a proven track record for the retention and adaptive re-use of heritage buildings. Thisincludes but is not limited to, the recent upgrading and re-purposing of the Mendenhall Librarybuilding which now serves as the Matthew Cowley Pacific Church History Museum. When no longerrequired for manufacturing purposes, the Block Plant also underwent a series of adaptive reuses,having been variously used over the years as a gymnasium, a generator room and as changing roomsfor the Church College. The building has also had ad hoc use as a storage yard for grounds equipment.

The closure of the College in 2009 significantly reduced options for adaptive re-use of the Block Plant,as did construction of the stake centre, repurposing of the Mendenhall library, First House andupgrading of the Kai Hall and GRB building. To varying degrees, each of these buildings include spacefor community use and each is located in proximity to the Block Plant. It would therefore be aninefficient use of resources to replicate that community space within a repurposed Block Plant, giventhat those activities are already occurring elsewhere on the former College grounds.

Heritage Legacy

The Trust Board owns multiple heritage buildings within Temple View and has invested heavily intheir conservation, upgrading and adaptation. Since 2014, the Trust Board has successfullyrepurposed and / or restored the former Mendenhall Library (Category B), First House (Category B)the Kai Hall (Category B) and the George R Biesinger Building (Category B), all of which are in ongoingchurch or community use. These facilities were officially dedicated in June 2017 and have been inconstant use ever since.

In 2018, the Trust Board also initiated a multi-million dollar seismic strengthening and upgrade of thehistoric Temple (Category A), from which the Temple View community gets its name in addition tothe complete replacement of most accommodation buildings across the Temple site. The Templeupgrade and refurbishment project is expected to be completed by mid 2021. These heritage projectsrepresent a significant commitment towards the preservation of the Church’s architectural legacyand are the focus of the Trust Board’s conservation activities heading towards the future. Thoseprojects located on the Temple View Project site have also been the recipient of New Zealand

Architecture Awards for heritage conservation, copies of which are attached as Appendix I. Theseprojects differ from the Block Plant because of their higher heritage values and because of theiradaptability to meet ongoing church and community needs. These projects demonstrates the TrustBoard’s commitment to heritage protection wherever practicable.

Comparable Heritage Removal

The Block Plant was one of a group of buildings that housed trades to aid in the construction of thecampus and associated Church buildings. Another was a timber workshop and treatment plant (TTP)which was situated on a part of the College campus that was located within Waipa District, but whichsubsequently became part of Hamilton City in 2014.

Timber for the Church College complex was milled in Kaikohe in the Bay of Islands and transported tothe College site to be treated before being used in construction. Like the Block Plant, the TTP wasconstructed on campus specifically for production purposes. The TTP is another example of autilitarian, purpose-built structure used for the manufacture of building materials not only within theTemple College campus, but within the wider Church community throughout New Zealand. Like theBlock Plant, the TTP reached the end of its functional life after closure of the Church College in 2009.The TTP shared the same historic and contextual qualities as the Block Plant but was not listed assignificant in the (then) Waipa District Plan. The TTP serves as a comparable example to the BlockPlant because both facilities provided a legacy of building materials within surviving church buildings.Both were purpose-built utilitarian structures that reached the end of their useful lives and whichcould no longer be practically re-purposed. In terms of heritage values therefore, the loss of the BlockPlant may be construed as no more significant than the demolition of the TTP.

Aesthetic and Architectural Values

As noted in section 6.2 above, the HCC heritage inventory attributes the Block Plant as having‘moderate’ physical / aesthetic and architectural qualities, which is in contrast to the ‘low’ valueattributed by the HIA. The utilitarian function of a building does not in itself prevent it from havingmoderate or even high architectural value, but that is not the case here. The Block Plant was a purelyfunctional addition to the Church College complex, of distinctly low architectural and aesthetic value.It was never intended to be a frontispiece for the LDS Church and has never played a significant rolein the streetscape of Temple View. It has since undergone a series of adaptive re-use, and with eachphase, modifications have been made to the interior and exterior of the building. Modificationsinclude the enclosing of former open-sided storage areas and the infilling or changing of windows, asillustrated in Figures 7.6 and 7.7 below. Architectural value, such as it is, has been compromised bychanges which detract from the window-to-wall relationship of the original structure and furtherundermine its character. In the circumstances, there is little or no value in the fabric of the BlockPlant, which is unremarkable in itself. In retrospect, it is questionable whether the Block Plant shouldhave been listed under the ODP at all.

Figure 7.6 – Alterations Figure 7.7 - Alterations

Positive Effects

The loss of heritage values resulting from demolition of the Block Plant will be offset by a number ofpositive effects. The site will be re-utilised as part of an integrated and comprehensive residentialdevelopment. The Design Code extracts attached as Appendix H demonstrate aspirational urbandesign standards which seek to ensure a consistency of architectural language, designed tocomplement the special character of the area. In the context of what is planned for the wider CDParea, the building typologies available for the Block Plant site will achieve a significantly higher levelof streetscape integration than would have been achievable if the Block Plant were to be retained inits current form.

Development of the CDP 2 area will stimulate economic vitality for the local community and for theconstruction industry in particular. By providing housing in lieu of the redundant Block Plant, it willenable the Temple View community to better provide for its social and economic needs, both forcurrent and future generations. The land area released by the Block Plant will enable the constructionof approximately 6 residential allotments.

8. Assessment of Other Relevant Provisions

Subject to s104(1)(b) and s104(1)(c) of the Act, the following assessment considers the proposal interms of the relevant National and Regional Policy Statement(s), National Environmental Standard’s(NES) and other statutory and non-statutory matters.

National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards

The only National Policy Statement or National Environmental Standard of relevance to thisapplication is the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soilto Protect Human Health (‘NES Soil’). NES Soil is given effect by The Resource Management (NationalEnvironmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health)Regulations 2011 (‘NES Regulations’).

NES Regulations apply to any “piece of land” on which an activity or industry described in the currentedition of the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) is being undertaken, has beenundertaken or is more likely than not to have been undertaken.

When production within the Block Plant ceased, the building was re-purposed for various activitiesassociated with the Church College. As a remnant of its past function, the Block Plant currently housesa back-up diesel generator originally used for the Church College. The generator is no longerfunctional but can be seen in Figure 8.1 below.

Figure 8.2: Block Plant Generator

The generator is thought to have been serviced by an underground fuel storage tank. Whilst thereare no remaining signs of underground storage, the Trust Board has chosen to exercise aprecautionary approach with respect to NES Soil. The bulk storage of petroleum or petrochemicals isa HAIL activity, as is the storage of fuel within tanks or drums. A room adjoining the generator hasbeen used as a workshop and still contains remnants of above-ground fuel storage activity. The BlockPlant is therefore conservatively assessed as having been subject to former HAIL activity.

NES Regulations are applicable to five categories of activity, including but not limited to, ‘land usechange’, ‘soil disturbance’ and ‘removal of fuel storage systems’. At this stage, site investigations havenot yet established the presence of a buried (underground) fuel storage tank. However, it is morelikely than not that there will be disturbance of potentially contaminated land in the event that theBlock Plant is demolished and re-contoured for residential development. The ‘piece of land’ will alsoundergo a change of use to accommodate residential activity.

Demolition of the Block Plant may not comply with permitted activity thresholds with respect to ‘soildisturbance’ because the volume of disturbance could exceed 25m3 per 500m2 of land. In the eventthat the removal of a storage tank proves necessary, soil disturbance could also exceed 30m3 for eachtank. The Trust Board is unable to demonstrate that ‘it is highly unlikely’ that there will be a risk tohuman health given the intended residential activity, and therefore the change of use is also unableto satisfy permitted activity regulations.

As a result of the above, the Trust Board is seeking a precautionary consent under NES Regulations.The proposal constitutes a Discretionary Activity under NES Regulations because the application isnot accompanied by a Detailed Site Investigation Report. A Detailed Site Investigation will thereforebe necessary before demolition works can begin on site, including the identification of remedialmeasures. Consent conditions to this effect are anticipated.

Waikato Regional Policy Statement

The operative Waikato Regional Policy Statement (WRPS) is a high-level broad-based documentcontaining objectives and policies the purpose of which is to provide an overview of the resourcemanagement issues of the regional and to achieve integrated management of the natural and physicalresources of the Region.

Of relevance to Parts One and Two of this application is Objective 3.18 of the WRPS and itscorresponding policy. It states as follows:

“Objective 3.18 - Historic and Cultural HeritageSites, 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 NewZealand’s history and culture

Policy 10.3 – Effects of development on historic and cultural heritageManage subdivision, use and development to give recognition to historic and cultural heritage and tointegrate it with development where appropriate.”.

The RPS has previously been assessed under the baseline application for CDP2 and at that stage, wasfound not to be in conflict with that document. If Parts One and Two of this application are successful,however, the proposal would be deemed in part conflict with Objective 3.18. In mitigation, however,the Trust Board’s vision for CDP 2 is to ensure that new development ‘complements and enhancesthe special character of the area’, and this is reflected in the Design Code extract which is attached asAppendix H. The Design Code gives recognition to the historic and cultural heritage of the College siteand seeks to ensure that new development is complementary to, and reflective of that past.Therefore, Part Two of this application which follows is at least partially aligned with Policy 10.3.

The application is not otherwise in conflict with the WRPS.

Waikato-Tainui Settlement Act 2010

The localised and discreet nature of the proposed demolition is such that it does not warrant adetailed assessment against the Waikato-Tainui Environmental Plan. There are no water courseslocated in proximity to the Block Plant which would otherwise be at risk from sedimentation or debrismigration. Regardless, the contractors for this site have, and will continue to use, best practiceerosion and sediment control measures based upon Waikato Regional Council guidelines. It is furthernoted that development within CDP1 and CDP2 has already obtained Waikato Regional Councilapprovals for bulk earthworks and the project has also obtained approval of a sub-catchmentIntegrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP), which addresses Three Waters. Those approvalshave already taken into consideration alignment with the Waikato-Tainui Environmental Plan.

9. Consultation

The Trust Board undertook extensive consultation with Heritage New Zealand (HNZ) as part of thebaseline (CDP 2) application that was approved in September 2016. HNZ were consulted again in June2019 regarding proposed demolition of the Block Plant. As the Block Plant is not registered onHeritage New Zealand’s Heritage Inventory, HNZ expressed a ‘neutral’ view on the proposal.

Consultation was also undertaken with members of the New Zealand Labour Missionary CharitableTrust (the Charitable Trust), whose members were responsible for the original construction andoperation of the Block Plant. The Charitable Trust confirmed support for the Temple View project andthe goal to develop the land for residential housing. The provision of residential houses is consideredto benefit future generations and provide much needed housing for the wider community. TheCharitable Trust also confirmed support for removal of the Block Plant given its purpose-builtutilitarian nature and the fact that it has long outlived that purpose. Evidence of that consultationand the position of the Charitable Trust is attached as Appendix J.

10. Notification Assessment

Section 95A of the RMA requires Hamilton City Council to decide whether public notification isrequired. Council must publicly notify an application if it considers the effects of the activity will bemore than minor, if the Applicant requests public notification, or if a rule or national environmentalstandard requires public notification.

Part One of this application will give rise to adverse heritage effects which are more than minor. Inthe circumstances, the Trust Board requests that this application is publicly notified.

11. Statutory Framework – Resource Management Act 1991

Section 104

Section 104(1) sets out the matters the consent authority must have regard to. They are subject tothe overriding provisions of Part 2. The relevant matters in s104(1) can be summarised as:

· The actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity;· Any measure proposed or agreed to by the Applicant for the purpose of ensuring positive

effects to offset or compensate for any adverse effects on the environment that will or mayresults from allowing the activity;

· Any relevant provisions of a National Environmental Standard;· Any relevant provisions of a plan or proposed plan;· Any provisions of any Regional Policy Statement or proposed Regional Policy Statement and

Regional Plan; and· Any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to

determine the application.

To the extent relevant, the proposal has been assessed against the above listed matters in thepreceding sections of this report. There are no ‘other matters’ of relevance to an assessment of thisapplication.

Section 104B

Part One of this application relates to the demolition of a B ranked heritage item, which is aDiscretionary Activity under Rule 19.3(i) of the ODP. Section 104B of the RMA states that afterconsidering a consent application for a discretionary or non-complying activity, a consent authoritymay grant or refuse the application, and if it grants consent, may impose conditions under s108.

Part 2 RMA

Part 2 of the RMA sets out the purpose and principles of the Act. The RMA has a single purpose whichis to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. “Sustainablemanagement” is defined to mean managing the use, development and protection of such resourcesin a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and their health and safety. At the same time they must:

- Sustain the potential of resources to meet the reasonable foreseeable needs offuture generations.

- Safeguard the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems.- Avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment of the activity.

Having regard to the definition of “sustainable management’ in s.5(2), approval of this applicationwill provide for further development of a site earmarked for a more intensive land use and willconsequently provide for the social, economic and cultural well-being of the Temple View community.

While the CDP2 area could be developed for some residential housing without the removal of theBlock Plant, the overall site development will be more efficient and achieve a higher amenity with theBlock Plant removed. Approval of the application is consistent with the sustainable managementaims of the RMA in that it will free up an area of land that is suited to residential use in a carefullyplanned and designed manner. Furthermore, it does so at the expense of a redundant and disusedbuilding which cannot practically be repurposed.

Of particular relevance with respect to Part One of this application is the fact that demolition of a Blisted heritage building is provided for within the ODP as a Discretionary rather than a Non-complyingor Prohibited activity. Implicit with this lesser activity classification is that Discretionary Activities,such as this, are potentially an efficient and sustainable use of resources.

Section 6 of the RMA contains ‘matters of national importance’ that must be recognised and providedfor. The s.6 matters that are relevant to this application are:

“6. Matters of National ImportanceIn achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, inrelation 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.”

The proposed demolition of the Block Plant will inevitably impact upon heritage values. However, theHIA contained within Appendix C demonstrates that the significance of the building is implicitly linkedto the operational activities of the former Church College, which ceased in 2009. Furthermore, theheritage value of the building must be assessed within the context of the heritage values of the ChurchCollege site as a whole.

As such, the discontinuance of the College and the removal of the majority of the former ChurchCollege buildings means that the context for the Block Plant is also removed. The significance of theBlock Plant, such as it is, has been progressively diminished through contextual change and eventualredundancy of that resource.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has invested heavily in the protection of historicheritage. This investment includes but is not limited to, the refurbishment and upgrade of theMendenhall Library, the First House, the Kai Hall and the GRB Hall. The Church therefore has anenviable record for the protection of historic heritage which, in New Zealand, is focussed exclusivelyon the Temple View site.

Therefore, notwithstanding the inability to retain the Block Plant, the Trust Board has still recognisedand provided for the protection of historic heritage elsewhere within Church site. On this basis theremoval of the Block Plant and the development of the site for residential housing is an appropriateuse of the physical site resource.

Section 7 of the RMA list the matters that a consent authority is required to have particular regard toin achieving the purpose of the RMA. The listed maters are not threshold test or criteria but, wherea proposal raises issues of the kind listed, they are to be given particular regard. The s.7 matters thatare relevant to this application are:

“7. Other Matters(1) In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and

powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, andprotection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard to–

(b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:(f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment …”

The Block Plant is vacant and obsolete. It no longer serves a Church or community function and hasnot been used for school purposes since the end of 2009. In its present form, it cannot be consideredan efficient use of resources. Redevelopment of the site in accordance with a CDP is considered torepresent a more efficient use of the land resource because it gives effect to a Church vision formeeting localised community needs. Given that the Church was and still is, at the heart of the TempleView community, it is well placed to understand community needs. Regard has therefore been hadto s.7(b).

There are synergies between sections 7(c) and 7(f) of the RMA; if the quality of the environment ismaintained and enhanced, then there is a strong likelihood that amenity values will also be protected.The CDP has been designed to ensure compatibility with the surrounding environment, both in termsof complementary land use activity and in terms of development scale. The replacementdevelopment has been comprehensively designed, via an urban design-lead approach, and thereforeit builds upon the levels of amenity expected and promoted through the ODP. Providing developmentprogresses in accordance with the CDP, environmental and amenity values will be maintained.Cognisance has therefore been had to sections 7(c) and 7(f) of the RMA.

Section 8 of the RMA relates to providing for the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. There is noknown record of sites of cultural significance or archaeological sites on the land that is subject to thisapplication and effects will be controlled in a manner that ensures consistency with the Vision andStrategy for Waikato River.

Based on the above, assessment it is considered that approval of the application would be consistentwith the sustainable management aims of the RMA.

12. Part One Conclusion

Part One of this application seeks land use consent to demolish a category B redundant Block Plantbuilding within the former Church College site. Demolition of a category B listed building is providedfor as a Discretionary Activity in the ODP. Given that Discretionary status, the ODP clearly anticipatesthat there may be scenarios whereby the demolition of a listed heritage building may be justifiable incertain circumstances. This is one such circumstance.

Demolition of the Block Plant will have a permanent adverse effect upon the building’s heritagevalues, such as they are. The HIA which accompanies this report demonstrates that, overall, the BlockPlant is of ‘moderate’ value only. In contrast to the ODP assessment, the HIA attributes ‘low’ scoreswith respect to physical / aesthetic values and ‘low’ scores with respect to cultural values. The BlockPlant does not score highly in any of the heritage value attributes, and this is appropriate given thestrictly utilitarian and unremarkable nature of the building.

The Block Plant is now a redundant building which has been disused for a number of years. The blockmaking machine which gave the building its sole purpose, has long-since gone. Although the buildingenabled block making to occur, and therefore by association contributed towards a number of churchprojects throughout in New Zealand, there is little or no heritage significance in the surviving fabricof the Block Plant itself. Further, the associative value with the Church lives on through the survivingchapels that were constructed with Temple View blocks, rather than the Block Plant itself.

The Trust Board has considered the feasibility of adaptive reuse but, on balance and in the context ofthe redevelopment now planned around it, that is no longer considered an efficient and sustainableuse of resources. It is proposed to commemorate the location of the Block Plant following itsdemolition, and to ensure that it is appropriately recorded in the Matthew Cowley Pacific ChurchHistory Museum which is located only 100 metres from the Block Plant location. Consent conditionsto this effect are welcomed.

The proposal does not fully support the heritage objectives of the ODP or those of the WRPS. It is,however, aligned with the sustainability principles of the RMA insofar as re-use of the site forredevelopment will better provide for the social and economic needs of the community. Further, theintangible social and cultural values of the place can be retained through the commemorativemitigation proposed by the Trust Board.

Concurrently with the above, the proposal requires a Discretionary consent under The ResourceManagement (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil toProtect Human Health) Regulations 2011.

The purpose of the RMA would be served by the granting of consent with conditions as appropriate.

Part Two – S127 Application to Amend Consent10.2016.00008544.001

13. Introduction

As a result of Part One of this application, a consequential variation will also be necessary to theconsent approval for CDP 2. Hamilton City Council approved CDP 2 by way of land use consent inSeptember 2016 (Council reference 010.2016.8544.001). A variation to the September 2016 consentis necessary because at the time the CDP was approved, it did not provide for demolition of the BlockPlant. In the event that approvals are forthcoming for Part One, it will be important that the CDP 2consent is not in conflict with that outcome, albeit that CDPs themselves are rendered obsolete byPC3 which will become operative on 12 December 2019.

The sections which follow have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of s88, s127 andthe Fourth Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA). There is an element of overlapbetween the considerations in Part One and Part Two of this application, and therefore in theinterests of brevity, cross-reference is made to Part One assessments where appropriate. The sectionswhich follow should be read in conjunction with the attached appendices.

14. Description of the Proposal

Reason for the Proposed Change

The Comprehensive Development Plan which was approved as part of application 010.2016.8544.001shows the retention of all heritage buildings within the CDP2 area, including the Block Plant. Asdetailed design for CDP2 has progressed, it has become apparent that the Block Plant cannot usefullybe re-purposed or integrated with surrounding planned development. This is in contrast to theMendenhall Library, the Kai Hall, the George Biesenger building (GRB) and the First House, all of whichare heritage buildings which have been retained and upgraded for a variety of church uses.

The Trust Board is seeking land use consent to demolish the Block Plant, as outlined in Part One ofthis application. Consequently, amendment is required to the September 2016 CDP consent to makeclear (a) that the Block Plant is not being retained as was originally intended, and (b) that the areaformerly occupied by the Block Plant is to be redeveloped for roading and residential purposes. PartTwo of this application is a technicality only, given that CDPs are no longer a requirement of the ODP.Nonetheless, pre-lodgement advice from Hamilton City Council has confirmed that an amendmentwill be required to the 2016 consent conditions.

Variation to Conditions of Consent

In order to give effect to the change described in section 14.1 above, a change will be necessary tocondition (1) of the September 2016 consent. The proposed changes are as follows (additions areunderlined in italics with deletions in strikethrough):

“General

1. That the development be in general accordance with the plans and the informationsubmitted with the application including:

(a) The BBO application dated January 2016 and attachments.(b) The BBO letter dated 15 April 2016 and amended application details.(c) The BBO Letter dated 22 July 2016 and the amended application details.(d) The BBO email from Chris Dawson dated 15 August and 22 August 2016.(e) The updated Compliance Schedule dated 6 September 2016.(f) The Revised Site Masterplan by Construkt dated 31 October 2019.

The proposed change described in section 14.1 has no consequential impacts with respect to theremainder of the September 2016 consent conditions. The proposed change recognises the fact thatCDPs are no longer part of the ODP and in this case, has been replaced by a ‘Site Masterplan’.

15. S127 – Resource Management Act 1991

S127 of the RMA prescribes the requirements and provisions for applications seeking to change, varyor cancel the conditions of resource consents. The relevant provisions of s127 are assessed below:

1) The holder of a resource consent may apply to a consent authority for a change orcancellation of a condition of the consent, subject to the following:

a) The holder of a subdivision consent must apply under this section for a change orcancellation of the consent before the deposit of the survey plan; and

b) No holder of any consent may apply for a change or cancellation of a condition onthe duration of a consent;

2) [Repealed]3) Sections 88 to 121 apply, with all necessary modifications, as if:

a) The application was an application for a resource consent for a discretionaryactivity; and

b) The references to a resource consent and to the activity were references only to thechange or cancellation of a condition and the effects of the change or cancellationrespectively;

4) For the purposes of determining who is adversely affected by the change or cancellation, theconsent authority must consider, in particular, every person who:

a) Made a submission on the original application; andb) May be affected by the change or cancellation.

In consideration of sections 127(1)(a) and (b), the holder of the resource consent is the Trust Board(the Applicant). The Applicant is not applying for a subdivision consent and the proposed change doesnot affect a condition relating to duration of consent.

The application has been assessed in the context of a Discretionary Activity pursuant to s104 ands104B further in this report. In consideration of s127(4) of the Act, the baseline application approvedin September 2016 was processed on a non-notified basis without need for written approvals. Nopersons are considered to be specifically affected by the proposed change in consent conditions.

However, section 7 of this application confirms that the proposal will have an adverse effect uponheritage values which is more than minor. Consequently, the Trust Board request that Parts One andTwo of this application be publicly notified as a bundled application.

16. Assessment of Environmental Effects

Effects upon Heritage Values and Special Character

In accordance with s88(2)(b) and the Fourth Schedule of the RMA, this section provides an assessmentof the actual and potential effects on the environment associated with the revised site layout.Because the proposed change will result in removal of the Block Plant and its replacement withalternative development, the environmental effects which need to be considered as part of the newMasterplan are:

- Effects upon heritage values and special character; and- Visual streetscape and amenity effects

These considerations are addressed under the subheadings which follow. The commentary should beread in conjunction with the HIA by Archifact Ltd a copy of which is attached as Appendix C.

Effects Upon Heritage Values and Special Character

The consideration of heritage values and special character are relevant to both Parts One and Two ofthis application and this has been addressed in detail within section 7.1 of this report. For the sake ofbrevity, the assessment is not repeated here.

Visual Streetscape and Amenity Effects

Public views of the Block Plant are limited to long-distance southerly views from Tuhikaramea Roadon the approach to Temple View from Hamilton. Passing through Temple View, the Block Plant islocated well below Tuhikaramea Road with direct views of the facility generally blocked byintervening topography and development. The setback location of the Block Plant combined with itsutilitarian form means that it makes a negligible contribution to streetscape and visual amenity. Thiscan be seen quite clearly from Figure 7.4 in section 7 above.

The proposed change to the 2016 consent will substitute one form of development plan with another,affecting a localised area only. The replacement development is of a domestic / residential nature, inkeeping with development approved elsewhere in the balance of the CDP 2 area. Visual amenity willarguably be improved because the utilitarian nature of the Block Plant would be incongruous within

the context of its planned residential surroundings. In terms of scale and density, the replacementdevelopment will relate better to the consented surrounding land use.

In addition to residential development, the site of the former Block Plant will also be partially affectedby road development. In this location, the updated CDP 2 provides for a 16m road reserve comprising3m wide lanes and 2.5m berms with integrated street parking. The berm parking includes provisionfor roadside trees which, once established, will form a visually appealing streetscape. A typical streetcross-section is provided as Figure 16.1 below.

Figure 16.1: CDP 2 - Typical Street Cross Section

Making an overall judgement, and heritage considerations aside, adverse visual and amenity effectsresulting from demolition and redevelopment of the Block Plant are considered to be less than minor.

Positive Effects

The loss of heritage values resulting from change to the CDP will be offset by a number of positiveeffects. As noted within Part One of this application, the site will be re-utilised as part of an integratedand comprehensive residential development. The Design Code extracts attached as Appendix Hdemonstrates aspirational urban design standards which seek to ensure a consistency of architecturallanguage, designed to complement the special character of the area. In the context of what is plannedfor the wider CDP area (now a ‘Masterplan’ area), the building typologies available for the Block Plantsite will achieve a significantly higher level of streetscape integration than would have beenachievable if the Block Plant were to be retained in its current form.

Development of the CDP 2 area will stimulate economic vitality for the local community and for theconstruction industry in particular. By providing housing in lieu of the redundant Block Plant, it willenable the Temple View community to better provide for its social and economic needs, both forcurrent and future generations.

17. Assessment of Other Relevant Provisions

National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards

As previously noted in Part One, section 8.1 of this report, the only National Policy Statement orNational Environmental Standard of relevance to this application is NES Soil. The Block Plant site isconservatively assessed as being a HAIL site and therefore the Trust Board is seeking a precautionaryconsent under NES Regulations. The proposal constitutes a Discretionary Activity under NESRegulations because the application is not accompanied by a Detailed Site Investigation Report. ADetailed Site Investigation will therefore be necessary before demolition works can begin on site,including the identification of remedial measures.

Waikato Regional Policy Statement

Alignment with the Waikato Regional Policy Statement has been addressed in Part One, section 8.2of this report and need not be repeated for the purpose of Part Two.

18. Notification Assessment

As noted in Part One, section 10 of this application, the proposal will give rise to adverse heritageeffects which are permanent and more than minor. The Trust Board requests that Parts One and Twoof this application are publicly notified as a bundled application.

19. Statutory Framework – Resource Management Act 1991

Section 104

Section 104(1) matters have been variously addressed in Part One, section 11.1 of this applicationand in the preceding sections of this report. There are no ‘other matters’ of relevance to anassessment of this application.

Section 104B

Part Two of this application relates to the variation of a consent condition which has a defaultDiscretionary Activity status under s127 of the RMA. Section 104B of the RMA states that afterconsidering a consent application for a discretionary or non-complying activity, a consent authoritymay grant or refuse the application, and if it grants consent, may impose conditions under s108.

Part 2 RMA

Part 2 matters have variously been addressed in section 11.3 of this report and need not be repeatedfor the purpose of a s127 variation.

20. Part Two Conclusion

Part Two of this application relates to a s127 application by the Trust Board to Hamilton City Council.The purpose of the application is to enable change to a 2016 CDP consent, to allow for the demolitionof a former Block Plant and the construction of housing in its stead. The change is reflected in a revisedMasterplan which takes the place of the former CDP. The default activity classification pursuant tos127 of the RMA is Discretionary Activity.

Part Two of this application will give rise to adverse and permanent effects upon heritage values andis therefore at least partially in conflict with the policy direction of the Operative District Plan. Theproposed CDP change is nonetheless consistent with the purpose and principles of the RMA, becauseit enables more efficient use of a land resource to meet the current and future needs of the TempleView community.

It is submitted that the purpose of the RMA would be served by the granting of a variation asdescribed in this report.

K:\140450 Temple View Developments\64 Block Plant Demolition\Reporting\Final s127 and Block Plant AEE - DN, Mac updates (11December 2019) .docx

the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints trust board

Documents