6 May 2019 The Appeals Manager - Auckland Council...consultant (the BCon Heritage Assessment). A...

6 May 2019

The Appeals Manager Auckland Council Private Bag 92300 AUCKLAND 1142 By Email Dear Sir/Madam, NOTICE OF APPEAL – AUCKLAND HEBREW CONGREGATION V AUCKLAND COUNCIL – PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 10

I act for the Auckland Hebrew Congregation.

I enclose by way of service a notice of appeal against decisions of the Auckland Council on submissions on proposed Plan Change 10 to the partly operative Auckland Unitary Plan.

The appeal has been filed in the Environment Court today.

Yours sincerely,

K R M Littlejohn Barrister

AHC Notice of Appeal PC10.doc

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT

I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA

ENV-2019-AKL-000

IN THE MATTER of an appeal under clause 14(1) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (Act)

BETWEEN AUCKLAND HEBREW CONGREGATION

Appellant

AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Respondent

NOTICE OF APPEAL UNDER CLAUSE 14(1) OF SCHEDULE 1 OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

2


TO: The Registrar Environment Court AUCKLAND

1. The Auckland Hebrew Congregation appeals against decisions of the Auckland Council on proposed Plan Change 10 (PC10) to the partly operative Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP), but only insofar as the decisions affect Historic Heritage Place ID#01965 (Auckland Synagogue, 108 Greys Avenue, Auckland) as included in the AUP.

2. The Auckland Hebrew Congregation made submissions on PC10.

3. The Auckland Hebrew Congregation is not trade competitor for the purposes of section 308D of the Act.

4. The Auckland Hebrew Congregation received notice of the decisions on 21 March 2019.

5. The decisions were made by the Auckland Council (Respondent).

6. The decisions the Auckland Hebrew Congregation is appealing are the decisions to reject or reject in part the amendments sought to Schedule 14.1 in the AUP in relation to Historic Heritage Place ID# 01965, in particular to:

(a) Heritage Values identification;

(b) Extent of Place description (including Schedule 14.3);

(c) Exclusions description.

7. The reasons for the appeal are:

(a) The relief sought in respect of the matters set out in Schedule 14.1 (as listed in paragraph 6) is necessary to describe and record correctly the historic heritage features, values, extent of place and exclusions that apply to the land and buildings at 108 Greys Avenue, Auckland.

(b) Correcting Schedule 14.1 of the AUP as sought by the Auckland Hebrew Congregation:

(i) will assist the Council in achieving the purpose of the Act;

(ii) will ensure Schedule 14.1 gives effect to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement;

(iii) is consistent with the provisions of Part 2 of the Act;

3


(iv) is supported by necessary evaluation in accordance with section 32; and

(v) will help with the effective implementation of the AUP.

8. The Auckland Hebrew Congregation seeks the following relief:

(a) Cancel the Respondent’s decisions the subject of this appeal;

(b) Accept the relief sought by the Auckland Hebrew Congregation in its submission on PC10, namely:

(i) Amend the Heritage Values to “A” and “B” only;

(ii) Amend the Extent of Place depicted in Schedule 14.3 by replacing the plans for ID#01965 included therein with the plans attached to this appeal in Schedule A;

(iii) Amend the Exclusions description to read “Refer Schedule 14.3” and replace the plans for ID#01965 included therein with the plans attached to this appeal in Schedule A;

(c) Such other, further or consequential relief as may be reasonable and within scope to address the issues raised by the Auckland Hebrew Congregation in its submissions on PC10;

(d) Direct the Respondent to amend the AUP consistent with accepting the relief in paragraph 8(b) and 8(c) above;

(e) Costs against the Respondent.

9. The following documents are attached to this notice:

(a) A copy of the relevant submission on PC10;

(b) A copy of the relevant decisions;

(c) A list of names and addresses of persons to be served with a copy of this notice.

Signature: THE AUCKLAND HEBREW CONGREGATION by its authorised agent:

K R M Littlejohn

4


Date: 6 May 2019

Address for service: K R M Littlejohn Quay Chambers Level 7, 2 Commerce Street P O Box 106215 AUCKLAND CITY 1143

Telephone: (09) 374 1669 or 021 657 376

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Advice to Recipients of Copy of Notice

How to Become Party to Proceedings

You may be a party to the appeal if you made a submission or a further submission on the matter of this appeal.

To become a party to the appeal, you must:

a) within 15 working days after the period for lodging a notice of appeal ends, lodge a notice of your wish to be a party to the proceedings (in form 33) with the Environment Court and serve copies of your notice on the relevant local authority and the appellant; and

(b) within 20 working days after the period for lodging a notice of appeal ends, you serve copies of your notice on all other parties.

Your right to be a party to the proceedings in the court may be limited by the trade competition provisions in section 274(1) and Part 11A of the Resource Management Act 1991.

You may apply to the Environment Court under section 281 of the Resource Management Act 1991 for a waiver of the above timing requirements (see Form 38).

How to obtain copies of documents relating to appeal

The copy of this notice served on you does not attach a copy of the relevant submissions or the relevant decisions. These documents may be obtained, on request, from the appellant.

Advice If you have any questions about this notice, contact the Environment Court in Auckland, Wellington or Christchurch.


SCHEDULE A


ANNEXURE (a) – SUBMISSION

1

Submission on Proposed Plan Change 10 to the Auckland Unitary Plan

Clause 6 of Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991

Auckland Hebrew Congregation

Attn: Planning Technician

Auckland Council Level 24, 135 Albert Street

Private Bag 92300

Auckland 1142

Via email: [email protected]

1. SUBMITTER DETAILS

Name of Submitter:

Auckland Hebrew Congregation (AHC)

Address for service of Submitter:

C/- Barker & Associates Ltd

PO Box 1986

Shortland Street

AUCKLAND 1140

Attn: Nick Roberts

DDI: 375 0999

Mobile: 029 666 8330

Email: [email protected]

2. SCOPE OF SUBMISSION

This is a submission on the following proposed plan change / variation to an existing plan: Plan Change/Variation Number:

PC 10 Plan Change/Variation Name:

Historic Heritage Schedule (Errors, Anomalies and Information Update) The specific provisions that AHC’s submission relates to are: The proposed amendments to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) Historic Heritage Overlay Schedule 14.1 as they relate to 108-116 Greys Avenue, Auckland (ID01965).



2

3. SUBMISSION

The AHC supports PC10 in principle but seeks further amendments to the Historic Heritage Overlay

Schedule 14.1 as it relates to 108-116 Greys Avenue, Auckland (ID01965) to ensure it properly

reflects the historic heritage values of this property.

The AHC could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission.

3.1 REASONS FOR SUBMISSION

3.1.1 Background

The AHC owns the property at 108-116 Greys Avenue, Auckland. The site is on the southern side of

Greys Ave and adjoins Myers Park to the south and east. Nearby and neighbouring properties

include Auckland Fire Station, a hotel, and YMCA Auckland. A site location plan is attached at

Appendix 1. The site has an area of 3091m2 held in two titles.

The subject site is the current home of the AHC’S Community Centre, which includes two

Synagogues, a Mikveh, a Holocaust memorial, the Greys Avenue Deli (including New Zealand’s only

Kosher café, and store), offices, the Kadimah School, function rooms, accommodation and car

parking. A further detailed description of the site is set out in section 5 of the Heritage Assessment

prepared by Heike Lutz of BCon Limited (updated September 2017) and attached at Appendix 2

(‘the BCon Heritage Assessment’).

The original buildings were constructed between 1965 and 1968. The AHC has been at this site

since 1967 and alterations to the buildings have been made over this time, including between 1987

and 1991, after 1991, and significant changes in 2007. A summary of these changes are set out in

detail in section 5.3 of the BCon Heritage Assessment. The 2007 changes included adaptions to the

majority of buildings to accommodate the expanded Kadimah College, including alterations and

additions, and refurbishments to the entirety of buildings.

3.1.2 The Auckland Unitary Plan and PC10

The site is subject to the following under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (‘the AUP’):

Zone: Business – City Centre Zone

Precinct: City Centre Residential Precinct

Overlays: Natural Heritage: Regionally Significant Volcanic Viewshafts And Height Sensitive

Areas Overlay [rcp/dp] - E10, Mount Eden, Viewshafts

Built Heritage and Character: Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place [rcp/dp] -

3

01965, Auckland Synagogue (Category A heritage place)

Controls: Controls: Macroinvertebrate Community Index - Urban

With respect to the subject site and ID01965, PC10 proposes to:

Amend the place name to include the community centre;

Amend the legal description to align with the amended extent of place;

Amend the details of the primary feature;

Amend the heritage values to add values A, B, E and H, and delete value F;

Extend the extent of place for the subject site; and

Add exclusions.

For this site, PC10 notes that the amendments to heritage values are to reflect the historic values

identified in ‘recent historic heritage evaluations’. It is understood that the relevant evaluation in

this case is the Historic Heritage Evaluation commissioned by Auckland Council and prepared by

Burgess Treep Knight Architects in June 2017 (‘the BTK Heritage Evaluation’).

3.1.3 Other Heritage Assessments Commissioned by the AHC

AHC has obtained its own heritage assessment of the buildings on the site from a respected heritage

consultant (the BCon Heritage Assessment). A draft Heritage Impact Statement (‘the HIS’) has also

been obtained (Appendix 3). The findings of this assessment have guided the AHC’s submission on

PC10.

The BCon Heritage Assessment concludes that while the AHC continues to use the synagogue the

building has considerable historical and social significance, but due to the extensive changes made to

it over time, it is more appropriate for it to be identified as a Category B heritage place (rather than a

Category A heritage place). A summary is set out in the Recommendations section on page 16 of the

HIS, which notes that the significance relates to factors A (historical) and B (social), not F (physical

attributes) or G (aesthetics) as scheduled in the AUP.

The AHC has commissioned a peer review of the BCon Heritage Assessment and HIS. This peer

review was undertaken by Ian Bowman, Architect and Conservator in January 2018. The peer review

concluded that the BCon Heritage Assessment sets out a thorough assessment of the heritage values

of the building which presently exist, and that the HIS is a thorough description and assessment of

the changes in the complex which have resulted in a reduction in heritage values over time. Mr

Bowman considers that the HIS makes an appropriate recommendation to change the existing

Category A to Category B. A copy of this peer review is attached at Appendix 4.

4

In contrast, the earlier BTK Heritage Evaluation concludes in section 10.0 that the synagogue and

community centre meet the threshold for scheduling as Category A. The recommendations are that

the place is considered to be of exceptional heritage significance in relation to A (historical), B (social)

and F (physical attributes), and considerable heritage significance in relation to values E

(technological), G (aesthetic) and H (context). In section 12, the overall significance is described as

Category A, with known heritage values A, B, E, G, and H (not F). The section 12 summary in the BTK

Heritage Evaluation appears to have informed the proposed changes to Schedule 14.1 in PC10.

Comparison of assessments

There are a number of differences between the AUP, PC10 and the two recent heritage

assessments/evaluations. With respect to the scheduling, the BTK Heritage Evaluation recommends

scheduling as Category A, while the BCon Heritage Assessment recommends scheduling as Category

B.

With respect to identified heritage values, there is some contradiction within the BTK Heritage

Evaluation, where the recommendations section identifies F (physical attributes) as of exceptional

value, however the overall significance table does not include any reference to F. PC10 also does not

include F in the amended list of heritage values. It is not known whether this is intentional or an

error, as neither the evaluation or PC10 provide any explanation for the removal of F.

For ease of reference and comparison, Table 1 below compares the heritage values across the

reports, the AUP and PC10.

Table 1: Comparison of heritage values identified for 108-116 Greys Avenue

(a) Historical

(b) Social

(c) Mana Whenua

(d) Knowledge

(e) Technology

(f) Physical Attributes

(g) Aesthetic

(h) Context

Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (November 2016)

BTK Heritage Evaluation (June 2017) Recommendations Overall significance

PC 10 (notified January 2018)

BCon Heritage Assessment (September 2017) and draft HIS

5

(December 2017)

3.2 RELIEF SOUGHT

The AHC seeks to amend Schedule 14.1 as it relates to the subject site / ID 01965 as shown in

Appendix 5.

The changes are sought in order to reflect accurately the current heritage status and value of the

buildings on the site, as assessed in the BCon Heritage Assessment.

By way of summary, the changes sought to the listing for heritage place ID 01965 in Schedule 14.1

are as follows:

1. Change the category from A to B;

2. Amend the primary feature to reflect that the synagogue building is no longer original;

3. Amend the heritage values to retain A and B, and delete E, G and H (and to delete F, if this

omission was an error and the Council seeks by way of submission to have this included);

and

4. Amend the exclusions to delete the upper level hall exclusion and include further

exclusions namely:

a. The interior of all levels of the administration and school wings (these have been

heavily modified);

b. The interior of the deli / cafe and former club rooms in front of the hall (these

have been altered and are not the 1968 layout);

c. The entrance to the complex (the entrance is not from 1968 and has changed the

relationship of the courtyard with the outside dramatically).

The Auckland Hebrew Congregation wishes to be heard in support of this submission.

_____________________________ Date: 7 March 2018

Nick Roberts, Barker & Associates Ltd

(Person authorised to sign on behalf of submitter)


ANNEXURE (b) - DECISIONS

1 Plan Change 10: Historic Heritage Schedule (errors, anomalies and information update)

Decision following the hearing of a Plan Modification under the Resource Management Act 1991

Proposal Plan Change 10 seeks to amend details associated with 146 historic heritage places listed in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) Historic Heritage Overlay, as contained in Schedule 14.1, Schedule 14.2 and the GIS viewer/planning maps. The amendments are to largely correct errors and update place information in Schedule 14.1 and 14.2 and the GIS viewer/planning maps.

The decision of the Commissioners is that Plan Change 10 is APPROVED, subject to the modifications set out.

Plan modification number: 10

Hearing commenced: Thursday 1 November 2018, 9.30am Hearing panel: David Mead

Shona Myers Lisa Whyte

Appearances: For the Submitters: Auckland Hebrew Congregation represented by:

− Kitt Littlejohn, Legal − Rachel Learner, from the congregation − Heike Lutz, Heritage − Nicholas Roberts, Planning − Ian Bowman, Heritage

Cooper and Company NZ represented by: − Vicki Morrison-Shaw, Legal − Vijay Lala, Planning − Campbell Williamson, Corporate

Devonport Heritage represented by: − Margot McRae, Deputy Chair

Margaret and Wayne Lee’s supported by: − Cherie Lane

Joseph Bulbulia Civic Trust Auckland represented by:

− Alan Matson The Minister of Education represented by:

− Claire Kirman, Legal − Orchid Atimalala, Ministry of Education

The University of Auckland represented by:


− Francelle Lupis, Legal − Karl Cook, Planning

For Council: Megan Patrick, Reporting Officer Tanya Sorrell, Team Leader Heritage Emma Rush, Planning Megan Walker, Historic Heritage Rebecca Fogel, Historic Heritage Graeme Burgess, Consultant Historic Heritage Anne Buchanan, Legal – DLA Piper Jane Hurley, Plans and Places coordinator Tanisha Hazelwood, Hearings Advisor

Hearing adjourned Thursday 1 November 2018

Commissioners’ site visit Wednesday 31 October 2018 (Auckland Hebrew Centre only)

Hearing Closed: Monday 26 November 2018

INTRODUCTION

1. The Commissioners have been given delegated authority by the Auckland Council (Council) under section 34A of the Resource Management Act (the “RMA”) to make a decision on Proposed Plan Change 10 (“PC 10”) to the Auckland Council Unitary Plan (“the Unitary Plan”)after considering all the reports, submissions, statements and evidence presented.

2. PC 10 has been initiated by the Council to amend a number of details relating to historic heritage places included in the Unitary Plan’s Historic Heritage Overlay, as contained in Schedule 14.1, Schedule 14.2 and the GIS viewer/planning maps. The amendments are to correct errors, anomalies and update place information.

3. PC 10 does not seek to add any historic heritage places to Schedule 14.1 or 14.2. Neither does PC 10 seek to introduce or amend any objectives and policies. The Unitary Plan policy approach and its purpose and function remain unchanged.

4. PC 10 was notified by the Council on 25 January 2018. To ensure the plan change procedure set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the RMA was followed in developing and notifying PC 10, an additional notification period was provided for the owners and/or occupiers of 24 places subject to PC 10. These owners and/or occupiers had not been previously notified in writing of PC 10 due to an administrative error.

5. The closing date for submissions for the original notification period was 8 March 2018. 19 submissions were received during this period. The closing date for the additional


notification period for identified owners and occupiers was 24 July 2018, with no submissions received.

6. The Council’s Summary of Decisions Requested report was publicly notified on 12 April 2018, with the period for making further submissions closing on 4 May 2018. Three further submissions were received.

7. By way of background, the Historic Heritage Overlay contains over 2,200 scheduled historic heritage places, as listed in Schedule 14.1, Schedule 14.2 and identified on the GIS viewer/planning maps. The Schedules were compiled through the creation of the Unitary Plan, with each historic heritage place identified in the Historic Heritage Overlay either “rolled over” from a legacy plan and/or introduced through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) process.

8. A number of places identified in the Historic Heritage Overlay require relevant information to be updated, for example changes to align with Council’s property information, including legal descriptions and street addresses. Some places require amendments to ensure there is consistency with how similar places are identified, particularly within Schedule 14.1.

9. A number of errors were also identified by Council staff administering the plan, as well as the public. Further errors were identified through a systematic review of Schedule 14.1 and the GIS viewer/planning maps undertaken by staff of the Council’s Heritage Unit.

10. As described in the Section 32 report the range of errors and inconsistencies identified include: the extent of place is incorrect; primary features and/or exclusions are not identified or are incorrect; Category A places have no primary feature identified; a place has duplicate entries within Schedule 14.1 and should be merged; and minor amendments are required for consistency.

11. As part of this review, a principle of “refining management” was introduced by the Council. This was defined as ensuring the management of a historic heritage place is specific to the values and significance of that place. To refine management, once a place was identified as containing an error, the place was then subject to further review. The nature of this review was specific to each place, but has involved:

a) If the place was Category A*, a review to clarify if a place is Category A or B;

b) Identification of a primary feature;

c) Correction/updating of any other column, including name, legal description, exclusions, and heritage values, as required; and/or

d) Revising or, where required, identifying the mapped extent of place.

12. PC 10 includes ten places that were subject to A* reviews. Category A* places are the scheduled historic heritage places from legacy plans where the total or substantial


demolition or destruction was a discretionary or non-complying activity under the legacy plans (rather than a prohibited activity, as identified in the Unitary Plan for a primary feature of a Category A place). Category A* is identified as an interim category until each place can be reviewed – known as an A* review.

13. All places in PC 10 were included within the Historic Heritage Overlay primarily for their built heritage values.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

14. The Council planning officer’s report was circulated prior to the hearing and taken as read. Expert evidence from submitters was pre-read. A number of additional statements were provided at the hearing, along with written and oral presentations from a number of submitters.

15. The following is a summary of the key points raised.

Auckland Hebrew Congregation

16. The Auckland Hebrew Congregation (AHC) seek that their complex at 108 Greys Avenue be listed as a ‘B’ category place, rather than an ‘A’ category place, as is presently the case. PC 10 proposes some modifications to the schedule for the Greys Avenue site, with amendments to the description, details of the primary feature, listed heritage values, exclusions and extent of place. PC 10 as notified did not modify the category of protection applying. The AHC submitted that the category should be amended to reflect a number of changes made to the building in the mid-2000s, along with consequential changes to the heritage values.

17. The Commissioners visited the site before the hearing and were given a tour of the building by Ms Learner.

18. Mr Littlejohn presented legal submissions. He did not see there to be any scope issues with the submission seeking amendment to the category of protection. He noted that PC 10 made changes to the schedule applying to the site, and as a result, this ‘opened the door’ to changes to the current A category.

19. He further submitted that as currently applied to the 108 Greys Avenue site, Schedule 14.1 did not give effect to the Regional Policy Statement of the Unitary Plan. This was on the basis that 108 Greys Avenue no longer met the standard for an A category listing, being a place with outstanding heritage values.

20. Ms Learner is a member of the Congregation. She is very familiar with the building and the various changes made to it since it was originally built. She considers that the building will need significant upgrading and modifications to meet current and future needs. In her view, Greys Avenue is no longer fit for purpose. Modifications in the mid 2000s created more space for educational activities and reduced the amount of space for religious activities. Further changes are needed.


21. Ms Lutz has undertaken a heritage assessment of the building. In her assessment the building has important heritage values that warrant a B classification. She did not consider the building meets the criteria of being ‘outstanding heritage value’; this being the standard for an A category listing. She referred to the extent of internal changes since the building was built, and in particular changes to the main synagogue space. She suggested a somewhat different list of exclusions to that proposed by the Council. In her opinion, heritage values were associated with the social aspects of the building, rather than its physical or aesthetic values.

22. Mr Bowman had completed a peer review of Ms Lutz’s assessment. He agreed with her assessment. In his view, changes to the building had sufficiently weakened the integrity and authenticity of the place such that a B category was appropriate.

23. Mr Roberts provided planning evidence and a section 32AA assessment. In his opinion, the B category better implemented the Regional Policy Statement policies relating to heritage protection, as well as those related to urban growth and development.

24. Council staff responded by remaining of the opinion that the building retained the qualities and values associated with an A category place.

Cooper and Company

25. Cooper and Company were represented by Ms Morrison (legal counsel) with Mr Williamson in attendance. Cooper and Company manages the Britomart Precinct and has upgraded and restored a number of heritage buildings in the Precinct. Cooper and Company are supportive of aspects of PC 10, but otherwise have discussed and agreed with Council officers that certain changes not proceed until further investigations have been undertaken. As a result they agree that some parts of their submissions should be rejected.

26. Mr Lala provided planning evidence. He clarified that Cooper and Company support the changes made in PC 10 to the extent of place maps and the physical description applying to the various buildings in the Britomart Precinct. However other changes should not proceed until further discussions are held with the Council. Council staff support this approach.

Devonport Heritage

27. Devonport Heritage was represented by Margot McRae. Devonport Heritage support the plan change. In particular, they support the revised extent of place proposed for two Stanley Bay school buildings and oppose the submission from the Minister of Education seeking removal of the two buildings from Schedule 14.1.


Margaret and Wayne Lees

28. The Lees’ own a property in Devonport, 37 King Edward Parade that is listed in Schedule 14.1. They do not object to this. PC 10 clarifies the extent of place applying to the site with the extent of place reduced at the rear of the site. The extent of place is retained over the footpath in front of their building.

29. Their submission questioned the rationale for retaining the extent of place over the footpath and sought that it be removed from this area. The Lees were represented by Cherie Lane. Ms Lane said that the Lees were looking for some guidance as to the implications of the extent of place covering the footpath, should they come to make changes to their building. For example, would they need to install a verandah over the footpath, similar to other heritage buildings in the area (and apparently as used to exist on their building)?

30. Council staff responded that the purpose of the extent of place was to control development in the road corridor (footpath) that had the potential to diminish the heritage values of the building. There was no intention to seek that a verandah be installed.

Joseph Bulbulia

31. Professor Bulbulia owns a property in Awhitu (1189 Awhitu Road), where a former church building is located which is listed in Schedule 14.1. PC 10 amends the extent of place applying to the building, amongst other amendments. Professor Bulbulia made a submission seeking to extend the extent of place over part of a neighbouring property (which he now owns). At the hearing he requested changes to the description of the building and sought a reassessment of the interior of the building being protected.

32. These later matters are outside the scope of his submission. However as they relate to a specific, isolated property, we requested that the Council staff consider his requests and report back. Council staff responded by way of a memo on 13 November 2018. This outlined the following:

• That the place be described as Kohekohe Presbyterian Church (former) and plaque

• That the primary feature be listed as “Former church building”

• That exclusions be listed as “Exterior door; interior features of pulpit, doors and plastic circuit breaker”.

33. Professor Bulbulia agreed to these amendments by way of subsequent correspondence with Council staff. We agree that the changes are appropriate.


Auckland Civic Trust

34. Mr Matson represented the Auckland Civic Trust. Their submission relates to 23 Alten Road. The Trust consider that there has been an error in defining the extent of place applying to the property.

35. PC 10 makes no changes to the extent of place, nor any other aspects of the places’ listing.

36. The Trust referred to the extent of place identified by Plan Change 36 to the former Auckland City District Plan. This extent of place is somewhat larger than the extent of place applying under the Unitary Plan. They further referred to advice provided by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (Heritage NZ) which considered a number of options as to possible subdivision (lot) boundaries around the cottage at 23 Alten Road. These options show possible lot configurations which are larger than the extent of place included in the Unitary Plan.

The Minister of Education

37. PC 10 seeks to amend the extent of place applying to two buildings at Stanley Bay Primary School. Both buildings are listed in Schedule 14.1. Currently, the Unitary Plan shows a ‘dot’ on the two buildings, rather than a mapped extent of place. PC 10 introduces an extent of place map that covers the physical footprint of the two buildings.

38. The Minister was represented by Claire Kirman, legal Counsel and Orchid Atimalala, Principal Advisor RMA. The Minister’s submission sought that either the current extent of place be retained or the two buildings be removed from Schedule 14.1.

39. Ms Atimalala outlined the Ministry of Education’s on-going efforts to provide fit for purpose schools and the issues that can arise when the Ministry comes to redevelop school sites. Schools are designated for educational purposes, and while these designations over ride district-level plan provisions, the content of district plans can influence Outline Plan processes that requiring authorities have to comply with. In addition, should proposed works or activities on a school site fall outside a designation purpose, then district-level provisions will apply.

40. Ms Kirman provided legal submissions outlining problems the Ministry has had with Outline Plans, where sites have features identified for protection within district plans and the potential associated constraints on the Ministry’s abilities to provide for growing school rolls. It was clarified that the Ministry included conditions to its designations for sites where there are buildings and places listed by Heritage NZ (as the Ministry has to abide by the relevant Act). These conditions identify how heritage resources should be managed and as a result, reduce uncertainties around consent processes. However these conditions do not apply to designated sites with Unitary Plan scheduled heritage items on them, where those items are not on Heritage NZ’s list. Ms Kirman noted that removal of the two buildings from the schedule was likely to be outside the scope of the plan change.


University of Auckland

41. The University of Auckland was represented by Francelle Lupis, legal counsel, and Karl Cook, planning. The University’s further submission concerned the Auckland Civic Trust’s submission relating to the extent of place applying to 23 Alten Road. The University’s view was that there was no error or omission when it came to the extent of place applying to the cottage.

42. The extent of place was determined through the PAUP process. This extent of place is somewhat different to that set out in Plan Change 36, a plan change that pre dated the PAUP process. However there is no evidence that the amended (reduced) extent of place in the PAUP and subsequently confirmed in the Unitary Plan is wrong or an error.

43. Council staff advised that they could find no record of any reasons for the change in the extent of place between the legacy plan and the Unitary Plan. They did not see there to be a mistake.

ISSUES IN CONTENTION

44. After analysis of the plan change and associated evidence the principal issues in contention are:

• 108 Greys Avenue: A or B category

• Stanley Bay Primary School: extent of place

• 23 Alten Road: extent of place.

108 Greys Avenue

45. By way of context, the complex at 108 Greys Avenue was built in the mid-1960s. The complex was scheduled in the legacy Auckland City District Plan, Central Area Section as an A category building. The exact date of scheduling is not certain. Ms Learner said that the membership of the congregation only became aware of the listing when recent plans for redevelopment were being considered. The Auckland Hebrew Congregation did not submit on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

46. The Auckland City District Plan, Central Area Section identified the complex as an A category (with protection of its interior and surrounds, including the courtyard) on the basis of the following factors: A,b,d,E,F,g,I,j,l,N,O. The use of capital letters denotes that the scheduled heritage place scored significantly (i.e. above the median) in this category, a lower-case letter indicates moderate value in this category. The main features are therefore:

• Style (A)

• Design (E)


• Interior (F)

• Social Context (I)

• Location (N)

• Intactness (O).

47. Since the 1960s a range of additions have been made to the building, mostly on the eastern side, facing Myers Park. In the mid-2000s extensive interior modifications were undertaken, including changes to the main synagogue space. These modifications were authorised by way of resource consent (although the exact details were not available). The modifications included expanding educational space and reducing space for worship. Partly as a result of these modifications, Ms Lutz and Mr Bowman consider that the complex has lost some of its integrity, and hence there is a basis for a re-assessment of its values.

48. The Unitary Plan (prior to PC 10) lists the heritage values as:

F: Physical attributes

G: Aesthetic.

No exclusions are listed.

49. PC 10 seeks to amend the heritage values and introduce identified exclusions, amongst other amendments. On the basis of an heritage evaluation completed in June 2017, the PC 10 proposes that the following heritage values be listed:

A: Historical

B: Social

E: Technological

G: Aesthetics

H: Context.

50. It was pointed out that, as notified, the plan change deleted ‘F’ physical attributes and that there was no submission seeking the re-insertion of this value.

51. Exclusions, as further amended in the section 42 A report are to cover:

Extension to primary feature; interior of main synagogue, except 1968 roof/ceiling structure and form; interior of basement level, except stairwell and safe; rest rooms/changing rooms for upper level hall/gymnasium.


52. The evaluation notes that while there have been extensive modifications to the interior, the fabric of the building including courtyard remains intact.

53. The AHC submission is that the building be a B category on the basis of historical and social factors only, and that more extensive exclusions be identified. The suggested exclusions are:

Interior of main synagogue and interior of all levels of administration and school wings, except stairwells alongside main synagogue and safe; interior of the café/deli and former club rooms in front of the hall; entrance to the complex.

54. They also sought in the submission that the Primary Feature be described as “Minor synagogue building”, whereas the Unitary Plan (prior to PC 10) identifies the Primary Feature as ‘Synagogue’.

55. We received expert evidence and assessments from three recognised and experienced heritage experts. All evidence is thorough and well-reasoned, however methodologies do vary. Ms Lutz and Ms Bowman refer to a number of principles and practices derived from guidance like ICOMOS. Mr Burgess refers to the criteria in the Regional Policy Statement. Reference to guides and documents that sit outside the main RMA document is appropriate if they help shed light on how to make the evaluative judgements required by the Regional Policy Statement.

56. Fundamentally the differences between the evidence appears to come down to one of opinion as to whether sufficient qualities of the place remain for it to warrant retention of the ‘A’ category.

57. Both parties agree that the place has social and historical significance, albeit with a difference between whether these values are ‘considerable’ or ‘outstanding’. Our view, having reviewed the evidence, is that the place can be described as having considerable social and historical significance, but we are not convinced that these values extend to a place with outstanding social and historical values. To a great extent this finding rests on the specific role of the place in providing for the community, educational and spiritual needs of the Jewish community. That is, we did not receive any evidence which suggested a wider or greater role in terms of social and historical values. We also note that the Unitary Plan as notified and subsequently adopted did not list social or historical features as a reason for protection. This may have been a mistake, but we did not receive any evidence that there was an error or omission.

58. The main difference between the Council and submitter lies around whether technological, aesthetic and contextual attributes are present, and whether these values are considerable or outstanding. Ms Lutz and Mr Bowman did not support listing the place for these reasons, due mainly to the extent of changes to the interior as well as changes to the setting of the building. Council’s expert – Mr Burgess – maintained that the essence of the building and place remain, for example the modulated frontage to the street, the internal courtyard, the roof form of the synagogue and the rampart like relationship with Myers Park.


59. We agree that the interior changes to the building have weakened the aesthetic integrity of the place to a degree but note that those changes have not altered the basic exterior structure and form of the building. The context of the site and surrounds has changed since the building was opened. Nevertheless, contextual values are still present. Our finding is that the place does have considerable value in terms of technology, aesthetics and context.

60. We did consider whether physical values were also present, as it appeared to us that much of the comment and analysis relating to the place did relate to its physical attributes. We also note that Council’s heritage assessment did identify physical attributes as a reason for listing. However, that was not translated into the proposed plan change, nor raised in submissions. Being mindful of scope issues, we do not consider that we have the jurisdiction to introduce a new value.

61. Turning to the category of protection, our finding is that a B category listing is appropriate, having regard to the key test in the Regional Policy Statement as to places having to have outstanding qualities well beyond their immediate environs to merit a category A listing. We are not convinced that the place reaches this standard in relation to technological, aesthetics and contextual values. This was not an easy decision to make, as regional policy and associated expert evidence is very ‘judgement-based’. In our opinion, an A category listing with the associated stringent controls involves a very high bar needing to be passed in terms of heritage values.

62. Finally, we agree with the Council’s identification of exclusions and extent of place, including the addition of a diagram to Schedule 14.3. These result in a more inclusive approach to the main exterior and interior features of the building. The Primary Feature should be identified as ‘Building and courtyard’.

63. As a result, the AHC submission is accepted in part.

Stanley Bay Primary School

64. The Minister of Educations’ submission sought that a mapped extent of place not be included in the GIS viewer/planning maps or that the two buildings identified in Schedule 14.1 be removed from that schedule.

65. The Minister did not present any expert evidence as to the heritage values of the two school buildings. At the hearing the Ministry’s representatives acknowledged that there was no justification for removal of the two school buildings from the schedule, even if this action was within scope of the Minister’s submission.

66. As to the extent of place, it is apparent to us that identifying the extent of place as covering the building footprints is preferable to the retention of the current ‘dot’ notation. The current dot notation would appear to leave open room for debate as to how the plan provisions might be interpreted. The Ministry’s position appeared to be that uncertainty relating to the current dot notation might be able to be used to limit the application of the associated heritage provisions. We note that Schedule 14.1 currently


lists both buildings and so there is likely to be a presumption that the heritage provisions apply to the whole of both buildings, even if the extent of place is a notional dot. The amended extent of place removes this source of debate.

67. We find that the extent of place map proposed by PC 10 is appropriate and will better implement the provisions of the Unitary Plan. Retention of a ‘dot’ on the plan maps denoting the extent of place is not a tenable option. As a result, the Minister’s submission is rejected.

23 Alten Road

68. The Auckland Civic Trust’s submission questioned the extent of place applying to the site. We find that there is no compelling reason to amend the extent of place as advocated by the Trust. While there does appear to be a difference in the extent of place between the legacy plan provisions and those now incorporated into the Unitary Plan, there does not appear to be any obvious error or omission that has led to these differences. As a result, we find that the Trust’s submission be rejected.

Submitters who did not attend the hearing

69. In this section of the decision, we briefly review submissions in opposition to the proposed plan change, where submitters did not attend the hearing.

85b Woodglen Rd, Glen Eden

70. 85b Woodglen Road is currently listed in Schedule 14.1 of the Unitary Plan. PC 10 proposes amendments to the listing for the place, including the relocation of the extent of place to the correct property. A submission from Eric Lester opposed the plan change, stating that the building was shifted onto the site in the 1960s, and has been subject to a number of modifications since then. Mr Lester considers that the heritage values of the place are overstated.

71. Based on the submission, Council staff conducted a specialist review of the heritage significance of the place. This concluded that while the place retains many of its original features, overall the alterations and additions have severely compromised its physical attributes leaving it with little heritage value. As a result of relocation, the house’s values have been significantly compromised and it has lost its aesthetic and contextual significance. The review concludes that, taking into account the information contained in the submission, the building does not meet the threshold for scheduling.

72. Based on the submission and the reporting planner’s recommendation, we find that the submission is accepted and that 85b Woodglen Road be removed from Schedule 14.1.

Mission Hall, 411 Glenfield Road, Glenfield

73. PC 10 seeks to amend details in Schedule 14.1’s listing for 411 Glenfield Road. PC 10 changes the legal description; amends the category of protection from A* to category


B; amends the primary feature to be ‘Hall’; amends the heritage values to be ‘A’ and ‘B’, and amends the listed exclusions.

74. Submissions from Glenfield Community Centre Incorporated (the occupier of the property) seek that the plan change be amended or declined, including that the identified extent of place be further reduced. The submitter seeks the extent of place be restricted to the footprint of the Mission Hall, a small area to the north of the hall, and the road reserve directly in front of the hall. The submission supports the review of the current A* category and its replacement with a B category.

75. Council’s hearing report explained that the Mission Hall was included in PC 10 so as to amend the extent of place and to include a legal description, being the correction of an error in the Unitary Plan. At the same time, a review of the A* rating was also undertaken. This review amended the heritage values and identified the Mission Hall as meeting the threshold for a category B place.

76. Council’s reporting planner recommended accepting in part the submission that sought amendment of the extent of place. Based on the review by Council’s heritage expert, revisions to the extent of place are proposed. We agree with these recommendations, and as a result accept the submissions in part.

15 Findlay St, Ellerslie

77. PC 10 seeks to define the primary feature as ‘Residence’ and to remove a duplicate extent of place currently contained in the GIS viewer / planning maps. These changes are to both refine management of the place and to correct an error currently contained in the schedule.

78. A submission from Victoria Waalkens did not support the plan change. The submission seeks that the place be deleted from Schedule 14.1 based on insufficient evidence for the property to be scheduled in the Historic Heritage Overlay. The reasons include the building not being a representative example of a worker’s cottage; with properties around Findlay Street and Hewson Street more reflective of the workers dwelling style. Furthermore, the Council’s evaluation is non-specific and inadequate.

79. In response to the submission, Council’s Heritage Specialist (Ms Walker) undertook a review of the significance of the place and concluded that the house at 15 Findlay Street is significant for its direct association with the Worker’s Dwelling Act which provided central government with the power to build affordable, sanitary and comfortable public housing. It is located in one of the largest workers dwelling settlements in New Zealand, the Lawry Settlement, and is an excellent, well preserved and intact example of the original workers dwelling constructed under the 1910 Act. It is considered to be one of the best remaining examples in the group of houses in the Lawry Settlement.


80. The reporting planner recommended rejecting the submission based on the review of the heritage significance. We agree with that recommendation, and as a result the submission is rejected.

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS CONSIDERED

81. The RMA sets out a range of matters that must be addressed when considering a plan change, as identified in the section 32 report accompanying the notified plan change. We note that as the plan change is focused on amending details in Schedules 14.1 and 14.2 and the GIS viewer/planning maps, not amending objectives or policies, the main relevant statutory tests relate to ensuring that the proposed amendments assist with the implementation of the plan’s provisions.

82. We also note that Section 32 clarifies that analysis of efficiency and effectiveness is to be at a level of detail that corresponds to the scale and significance of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects that are anticipated from the implementation of the proposal. The changes set out in PC 10 are not of strategic significance.

83. Having considered the evidence and relevant background documents, we are satisfied, overall, that PC 10 has been developed in accordance with the relevant statutory and policy matters. The plan change will clearly assist the Council in its effective administration of the Unitary Plan.

84. We have identified a number of amendments to PC 10. We have referred to these changes in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the further evaluation was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of section 32AA.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

85. That pursuant to Schedule 1, Clause 10 of the Resource Management Act 1991, Proposed Plan Change 10 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) be approved, subject to modifications as set out in this decision.

86. Submissions on the plan change are accepted and rejected in accordance with this decision. In general, these decisions follow the recommendations set out in the Council’s section 42 A report, except as identified above in relation to matters in contention.

87. The reasons for the decision are that Plan Change 10:

a) As amended, the revised plan provisions will better enable the Council to implement the relevant provisions of the RMA and the Regional Policy Statement of the Auckland Unitary Plan, as they relate to the protection and management of historic heritage.

b) The plan change addresses a range of errors and inconsistencies contained in Schedule 14 and the Unitary Plan maps. Rectifying these errors and omissions


will assist the Council, landowners and applicants with the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions.

88. The following documents are appended to this decision:

a) Attachment 1: Amendments to Unitary Plan text following decisions on submissions to PC 10

b) Attachment 2: Amendments to Unitary Plan maps following decisions on submissions to PC 10

c) Attachment 3: Schedule 14.3 diagram for the Auckland synagogue and community centre (ID01969) following decisions on submission to PC 10.

David Mead

Chairperson

Date: 6 March 2019


Attachment 1

Decisions Version: PC 10

Schedule 14.1 Historic Heritage following decisions on submissions

Notes:

1. Only the entries in Plan Change 10 are shown 2. Amendments to the Auckland Unitary Plan as proposed by PC10 as notified and

as confirmed by this decision shown as strikethrough and underline 3. Amendments to Plan Change 10 as notified following decisions on submissions

shown as double strikethrough or double underline.

23

Plan

Cha

nge

10: H

isto

ric H

erita

ge S

ched

ule

ID

Plac

e N

ame

and/

or

Des

crip

tion

Verif

ied

Loca

tion

Verif

ied

Lega

l D

escr

iptio

n C

ateg

ory

Prim

ary

Feat

ure

Her

itage

Va

lues

Ex

tent

of

Plac

e Ex

clus

ions

Addi

tiona

l R

ules

for

Arch

aeol

ogic

al

Site

s or

Fe

atur

es

Plac

e of

M

aori

Inte

rest

or

Sign

ifica

nce

0195

3 Br

ookl

yn F

lats

66

-70

Emily

Pla

ce,

Auck

land

Cen

tral

Lot 1

8 D

P 12

881

B Ap

artm

ent b

uild

ing

A,F,

G,H

R

efer

to

plan

ning

m

aps

Inte

rior o

f bui

ldin

g(s)

, ex

cept

all

com

mon

sp

aces

incl

udin

g lo

bbie

s,

stai

rwel

ls a

nd c

orrid

ors,

an

d or

igin

al s

patia

l pl

anni

ng a

nd d

esig

n fe

atur

es, i

nclu

ding

ba

lcon

ies,

doo

r and

w

indo

w d

etai

ling,

and

ce

iling

and

wal

l fea

ture

s

0195

4 Fo

ster

& C

o. B

uild

ing

30 F

ansh

awe

Stre

et, 3

2 Fa

nsha

we

Stre

et, a

nd

34-3

6 Fa

nsha

we

Stre

et, A

uckl

and

Cen

tral

PT D

P 37

65; L

OT

1 D

P 19

3476

; LO

T 1

DP

1934

77; r

oad

rese

rve

B Bu

ildin

g A,

B,F,

G,H

R

efer

to

plan

ning

m

aps

…

0196

5 Au

ckla

nd S

ynag

ogue

an

d co

mm

unity

cen

tre

108-

116

Gre

ys A

venu

e,

Auck

land

Cen

tral

Lot 2

DP

4509

3; L

ot 2

D

P 44

754;

ALL

OT

57

SEC

29

AUC

KLAN

D

CIT

Y; A

LLO

T 58

SEC

29

CIT

Y AU

CKL

AND

A B

Syna

gogu

e O

rigin

al

1968

syn

agog

ue

build

ing

Build

ing

and

cour

tyar

d

A,B,

E F,

G,H

Ref

er to

pl

anni

ng

map

s an

d Sc

hedu

le

14.3

Exte

nsio

n to

prim

ary

feat

ure;

inte

rior o

f mai

n sy

nago

gue,

exc

ept 1

968

roof

/cei

ling

stru

ctur

e an

d fo

rm; i

nter

ior o

f bas

emen

t le

vel,

exce

pt s

tairw

ell a

nd

safe

; res

t roo

ms/

chan

ging

ro

oms

for u

pper

leve

l ha

ll/gy

mna

sium

rest

ro

oms/

chan

ging

room

s

…

0198

4 H

ousi

ng C

orpo

ratio

n Bu

ildin

g (fo

rmer

) 66

-68

Lorn

e St

reet

, Au

ckla

nd C

entra

l

ALLO

T 1

SEC

13

CIT

Y AU

CKL

AND

; ALL

OT

62

SEC

32

CIT

Y AU

CKL

AND

; ALL

OT

63

SEC

32

CIT

Y AU

CKL

AND

; roa

d re

serv

e

B Bu

ildin

g A,

B,F,

G

Ref

er to

pl

anni

ng

map

s

Inte

rior o

f bui

ldin

g(s)

; ve

rand

ah

…

ANNEXURE (c) – PERSONS TO BE SERVED Auckland Council Private Bag 93200 Auckland 1143

6 May 2019 The Appeals Manager - Auckland Council...consultant (the BCon Heritage Assessment). A...

Documents

Transcript of 6 May 2019 The Appeals Manager - Auckland Council...consultant (the BCon Heritage Assessment). A...