Return your signed further submission to Hamilton City ... · I do OR I do not wish to attend and...

Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Return your signed further submission to Hamilton City Council by 4:30pm on 2 July 2013. Further submissions may be:

posted to Hamilton City Council, Private Bag 3010, Hamilton 3240 delivered direct to Hamilton City Council offices at Garden Place, Hamilton or emailed to [email protected]

Note: online further submissions can also be made at www.hamilton.co.nz/submissions

1. Submitter Details (all fields required)

Full name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board

Contact name if different Chris Dawson from above:

Organisation or Company (if relevant): Bloxam Burnett & Olliver

Postal address for service of the submitter: P O Box 9041, Hamilton Post code: 3204

Phone number(s): 07 838 0144 or 0275 333 899

Email: [email protected]

Preferred method of contact: Email □ Post

2. Further Submitter Relevance I am: (select one)

□ A person representing a relevant aspect of the public interest; or

A person who has an interest in the proposal that is greater than the interest the general public has; or □ The local authority for the relevant area.

3. Public Hearing

I do OR □ I do not wish to attend and speak at the Council hearing in support of my further submission If others make a similar submission, I will consider presenting a joint case with them at the hearing

Yes □ No

4. Signature of Further Submitter (note a signature is not required if sending your submission by electronic means, but please type your name below)

Signature of further submitter: ___ _____________Date: 1 July 2013 (or person authorised to sign on behalf of further submitter)

Note: Please turn over to make further submission

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.hamilton.co.nz/submissions


The specific part of the original submission to which my further submission relates is: (list one provision per box)

State whether you support or oppose this specific part of the original submission

State the reasons for your support or opposition What decision do you seek from Council on this submission (or part of a submission) I seek that the whole (or part [describe below]) of the submission be either: Allowed / Disallowed

Deborah June Fisher 282.001

□ Support Oppose

The proposed requirements listed in the submission prior to it being included in the District Plan are unnecessary and duplicate the requirements contained in the Resource Management Act (RMA). In particular item 4 suggesting that current structure plans could be removed from the District Plan is inappropriate and ultra vires. Any structure plan is required to confirm to the requirements of the RMA with respect to the management of adverse effects on the environment and community consultation.

Disallowed


□ Support Oppose

Objectives are written in the positive context and set out the goal or end point to be achieved. It is inappropriate to mix that approach with the inclusion of adverse or positive effects. Adverse and positive effects are better included in Policies that sit underneath the Objective and demonstrate how it can be achieved.

Disallowed


□ Support Oppose

The inclusion of the word “avoid” in the policies is inappropriate as it presupposes that this is the best approach to managing the adverse effect. The Act provides the choice of “avoid, remedy or mitigate” adverse effects on the environment and it is inappropriate for the policy to fetter that choice.

Disallowed


Robert W Belbin 291.003

Support □ Oppose

It is appropriate and timely to undertake a Structure Planning exercise for the area of Future Urban land surrounding Temple View. The most appropriate way to achieve this is to include a section within Rule 3.0 Structure Plans that refers to Temple View and signals that such an exercise is planned and will be undertaken in consultation with the community.

Allow

W J & MR Laverty 313.001

Support □ Oppose


Allow

WR & JM Falconer 360.001

Support □ Oppose


Allow

Wilson David Jolly 1244.001

Support □ Oppose


Allow


Simon Dyke Farms Ltd 1245.001

Support □ Oppose


Allow

Jon Francis & Elizabeth Howie Jarvis 1245.001

Support □ Oppose


Allow

Rakaipaka Puriri 63.001

□ Support Oppose

The matters raised in the submission are incorrect and do not reflect the true nature of the proposed changes.

The closure of the Church College of New Zealand in 2009 provides an opportunity to repurpose the former school site. This will benefit the Temple View village and the wider Hamilton City by enabling the protection of the temple precinct along with opportunities for additional worship facilities, housing for the elderly, general housing for a range of family types and a small area of local purpose shops.

This will also enable future development that is in keeping with the Temple View character along with recognising the heritage aspects of a number of the existing buildings.

The repurposing of the former school site will

Disallow


promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources' as defined in section 5(2) of the Act.


□ Support Oppose

The matters raised in the submission are incorrect and do not reflect the true nature of the proposed changes.

The closure of the Church College of New Zealand in 2009 provides an opportunity to repurpose the former school site. This will benefit the Temple View village and the wider Hamilton City by enabling the protection of the temple precinct along with opportunities for additional worship facilities, housing for the elderly, general housing for a range of family types and a small area of local purpose shops.

This will also enable future development that is in keeping with the Temple View character along with recognising the heritage aspects of a number of the existing buildings.

The repurposing of the former school site will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources' as defined in section 5(2) of the Act.

Disallow


Support □ Oppose

The submission is supported as it provides for the repurposing of the former school site through the provisions in 5.1.4.

Allow


Support

The submission is supported as it provides for the repurposing of the former school site through the provisions in 5.1.4.2.

Allow


□ Oppose


Support □ Oppose

The submission is supported as the proposed 250 m2 maximum gross floor area is too small and most community facilities will require more space than this.

A larger gross floor area as a permitted activity is supported as it can still be accommodated on most sites (subject to the other development constraints such as site coverage, setbacks etc) without adverse environmental effects.

Allow


Support □ Oppose

The submission is supported as the potential for home based professional services as well as goods can be accommodated in a Home based business without adverse environmental effects.

Allow


□ Support Oppose

The submission is opposed as activities and structures developed within the Temple View Heritage Area and Temple View Character Area should be able to be considered without notification or the need to obtain approval from affected persons.

Disallow

Simon Puttick Friar 294.002

□ Support Oppose

The submission in relation to the Mixed Use CDP, Community Facilities CDP and the Temple CDP in Table 5.4.6b is opposed. A 3 m setback as contained in the table is more appropriate as it enables a better and more efficient use of the site and higher densities of residential development. The site specific setbacks in relation to curtilage wall and teacher housing area

Disallow


are supported as they reflect the existing character and a blanket 5 metre setback would not be appropriate in these situations.

Simon Puttick Friar 294.003

□ Support Oppose

The submission is opposed in that it will result in a poor urban design outcome that reduces the activated frontage and subsequent amenity of the streetscape.

Disallow

Maari Rose Thompson 739.001

□ Support Oppose

The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products, coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be addressed through District Plan provisions. They are matters between landowner and purchase or lease.

Disallow

Chris Thompson 744.001

□ Support Oppose


Disallow

Stella Neale Kenyon 745.001

□ Support Oppose


Disallow

Max Walker Verran 855.001

□ Support Oppose

The submission is opposed in that it will not result in the most efficient use the scarce urban land supply in the City. Maintaining a minimum density of 600 m2 would not enable high density developments to occur

Disallow


and would result in an inefficient use of land. It would also mean that the Regional Policy Statement direction on minimum densities would not be met.

Max Walker Verran 855.004

□ Support Oppose

The submission is opposed in that it will not enable the efficient and effective use of land within the Temple View Zone. The site specific nature of the notified rules on maximum height provide for the efficient and appropriate use of the land in the Zone without adverse effects on surrounding properties.

Disallow


□ Support Oppose

The substance of this submission point is opposed. It is inappropriate to allow posts on a blog site to be used as submissions. This is not transparent as no other submitters are aware of the blog content.

Disallow

College Old Boys 974.001

□ Support Oppose

The closure of the Church College of New Zealand in 2009 provides an opportunity to repurpose the former school site. This will benefit the Temple View village and the wider Hamilton City by enabling the protection of the Temple precinct along with opportunities for additional worship facilities, housing for the elderly, general housing for a range of family types and a small area of local purpose shops.

The Mixed Use CDP and Community Facilities CDP are appropriate statutory mechanisms to allow development in each of these areas consistent with their character, purpose and future use.

All of the Heritage buildings on campus have been assessed by Council and ranked in the District Plan

Disallow


according to that assessment. It is inappropriate to arbitrarily increase the heritage ranking of buildings without undertaking an assessment to justify such a change.

The Church has requested that a Structure Plan process be undertaken for its land along with other landholdings surrounding the Temple View village and this will assess the long term use and purpose of this land.

College Old Boys 974.003

□ Support Oppose


Disallow

Lynette Joyce Williams 1050.016

□ Support Oppose

This submission point is opposed. Section 5.1c appropriately characterises the Special Character Zone and in particular the Temple View Character Area. There are a number of Heritage items located within the Temple View Character Area and these are listed in the District Plan and require resource consent should work be required to be carried out on those buildings.

The proposed objectives, policies and rules relating to character are appropriate in that they strike a balance between maintaining character and enabling the land to be repurposed.

Disallow

Lynette Joyce Williams

□ Support

This submission point is opposed. Figure 4-5 provides an appropriate level of guidance as to the future use of the former school site when assessed in

Disallow


1050.019 Oppose

combination with the objectives, policies and rules of the Temple View Zone and other sections of the Proposed District Plan.


□ Support Oppose

This submission point is opposed. Figure 4-5 provides an appropriate level of guidance as to the future use of the former school site when assessed in combination with the objectives, policies and rules of the Temple View Zone and other sections of the Proposed District Plan.

It is inappropriate to elevate the Temple View Character Area to a Heritage Area. The distinctive character of the Temple View Character Area will be retained and enhanced by allowing its ongoing use and development so that it can continue to be play a valuable role in the future of the Temple View community.

The Temple View Character Area is designed to complement the Temple View Heritage Area (centred around the Temple) but requires separate and different provisions as it is to serve a different function in the community.

Disallow


□ Support Oppose

This submission point is opposed. The Objectives and Policies in the Proposed District Plan as notified provide an appropriate emphasis on the role of heritage and do not require amendment.

Disallow


□ Support

This submission point is opposed. The provisions of 5.2.6 Temple View Heritage Area are focussed around maintaining the special character of the Temple and its surrounding grounds and related buildings.

Disallow


Oppose

The ongoing use of the site is important and the objectives and policies as notified will enable this to happen.


□ Support Oppose

This submission point is opposed. The provisions of 5.2.7 Temple View Character Area objectives and policies will enable this area to be repurposed and developed in a manner that maintains its special character.

The Church wants to both undertake and facilitate development on the school site that will benefit the community and enhance the environment.

The ongoing use of the site is important and the objectives and policies as notified will enable this to happen. The development plan provides a broad outline of how future uses on the site would be laid out.


Disallow


□ Support Oppose

The use of Comprehensive Development Plans in Chapter 5 is supported as it provides for future development to be assessed on a site by site basis and also in relation to its linkages to neighbouring areas. In this manner the overall site is developed with an appropriate overview in relation to transport, utility servicing and urban design.

Disallow

Lynette Joyce Williams

□ Support

The use of Comprehensive Development Plans in Chapter 5 is supported as it provides for future development to be assessed on a site by site basis

Disallow


1050.026 Oppose

and also in relation to its linkages to neighbouring areas. In this manner the overall site is developed with an appropriate overview in relation to transport, utility servicing and urban design.

Hata Puriri (Temple View Heritage Society) 1098.001 Continued

□ Support Oppose

It is inappropriate to elevate the Temple View Character Area to a Heritage Area. The distinctive character of the Temple View Character Area will be retained and enhanced by allowing its ongoing use and development so that it can continue to be play a valuable role in the future of the Temple View community. The Temple View Character Area is designed to complement the Temple View Heritage Area (centred around the Temple) but requires separate and different provisions as it is to serve a different function in the community.

It is inappropriate to add Historic Heritage to the provisions of Appendix 1.5. The management of Historic Heritage is already addressed under section 19 – Historic Heritage and does not require duplication.

Figure 4-5 Temple View Comprehensive Development Areas & Precincts provides an appropriate level of guidance as to the future use of the former school site when assessed in combination with the objectives, policies and rules of the Temple View Zone and other sections of the Proposed District Plan.

Council has no power to dictate to the Church as to the future use of a specific building such as the David O McKay. This is a matter for the Church to decide and the Church will follow the appropriate statutory processes for any future use or removal of this

Disallow


building.

This submission point refers to section 7 (h) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board

Empowering Act 1957. The provisions in section 7 of the Empowering Act are powers given to the Trust Board by that Act and do not impose any general or specific obligations. The purpose of the Empowering Act, as set out in its Long Title and Preamble, was to enable the Church to use trust funds for a variety of purposes, including the maintenance of its buildings. When read in the context of the whole Act and the rest of section 7, it is clear that section 7(h) does not require the Church to do anything in relation to any particular building. There is no power under the RMA that would enable the Council to direct the Trust Board to take any particular action of that kind.

The Church has undertaken substantial consultation with the Temple View Community including two public open days and many other meetings with stakeholders, over and above meetings with individuals. The future purposes for the former school buildings is a matter for the Church to decide.

The Church has asked the Council to facilitate a Structure Plan process for the land surrounding the Temple View village (including the areas of land owned by the Church). Depending on the outcome of this process it may be that some areas are zoned for Residential use at some stage. This is a matter for the Structure Plan process to determine.


Continued The Church supports the retention of the former campus sports ground as passive open space, however the future management of these areas has not been determined. This is a property management issue and is not a matter for the District Plan to determine.

The Church will be applying to the Council to upgrade Tuhikaramea Road through the Temple View Village to address a number of road alignment, servicing and amenity issues. This proposal is more appropriately addressed via a consent process rather than a District Plan process.

Helena Maddison 1133.002

□ Support Oppose

The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products, coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be addressed through District Plan provisions. They are matters between landowner and purchaser or leasee.

Disallow

Genevieve Van Eden 1134.002

□ Support Oppose


Disallow

Eileen Phillips 1137.002

□ Support Oppose


Disallow


Sue Nikora 137.002

□ Support Oppose


Disallow

Kasmin Joy Nikora 1139.002

□ Support Oppose


Disallow

Janellen Moana Nikora 1140.002

□ Support Oppose


Disallow

Sheree Maree Nikora 1141.002

□ Support Oppose


Disallow

Anthea Ruth Kingi 1142.002

□ Support Oppose


Disallow


Kasmin Joy Nikora 1139.002

□ Support Oppose


Disallow

Wallace Reihana 1143.002

□ Support Oppose


Disallow

Te Rina Ngawaka 1144.002

□ Support Oppose


Disallow

Lynette Cassidy 1145.002

□ Support Oppose


Disallow

Christine Makata 1147.002

□ Support Oppose


Disallow


Niall Baker 1158.019

□ Support Oppose

This submission point is opposed. Section 5.1c appropriately characterises the Special Character Zone and in particular the Temple View Character Area. There are a number of Heritage items located within the Temple View Character Area and these are listed in the District Plan and require resource consent should work be required to be carried out on those buildings.


Disallow



□ Support Oppose

This submission point is opposed. Section 5.1.4.1 provides an appropriate description of the character and purpose of the Temple View Heritage Area and the location and principles behind the Temple Comprehensive Development Plan is supported.

Figure 4-5 provides an appropriate level of guidance as to the future use of the former school site when assessed in combination with the objectives, policies and rules of the Temple View Zone and other sections of the Proposed District Plan.

Disallow


□ Support Oppose

This submission point is opposed. Figure 4-5 provides an appropriate level of guidance as to the future use of the former school site when assessed in combination with the objectives, policies and rules of the Temple View Zone and other sections of the Proposed District Plan.

The Temple View Character Area is designed to complement the Temple View Heritage Area (centred around the Temple) but requires separate and different provisions as it is to serve a different function in the community.

Disallow



□ Support Oppose

This submission point is opposed. The Objectives and Policies in the Proposed District Plan as notified provide an appropriate emphasis on the role of heritage and do not require amendment.

There are a number of Heritage items located within the Temple View Character Area and these are listed in the District Plan and require resource consent should work be required to be carried out on those buildings.


Disallow


□ Support Oppose

This submission point is opposed. The provisions of 5.2.6 Temple View Heritage Area are focussed around maintaining the special character of the Temple and its surrounding grounds and related buildings.

The ongoing use of the site is important and the objectives and policies as notified will enable this to happen.

Disallow


□ Support Oppose

This submission point is opposed. The provisions of 5.2.7 Temple View Character Area objectives and policies will enable this area to be repurposed and developed in a manner that maintains its special character.

The Church wants to both undertake and facilitate development on the school site that will benefit the community and enhance the environment.

The ongoing use of the site is important and the objectives and policies as notified will enable this to happen. The development plan provides a broad

Disallow


outline of how future uses on the site would be laid out.



□ Support Oppose


The use of CDPs will not prejudice future decision making but provides a framework within which such processes can be assessed.

Disallow


□ Support Oppose


The use of CDPs will not prejudice future decision making but provides a framework within which such processes can be assessed.

Disallow


Elizabeth Patricia Witehira 1165.002

□ Support Oppose

1. The submission point is opposed. The provisions of 5.1.4.2 Temple View Character Area sets the scene and provides a background for the future of the site. This will enable the former school site to be repurposed and developed in a manner that maintains its special character. The Church wants to both undertake and facilitate development on the school site that will benefit the community and enhance the environment. The ongoing use of the site is important and the objectives and policies as notified will enable this to happen. The development plan provides a broad outline of how future uses on the site would be laid out.

2. The heritage listed buildings that are located within the former school site will be managed in accordance with the District Plan provisions on Heritage Buildings.

3. Any proposal for a Stake Centre or similar building will need to assess issues of character and demonstrate the manner in which its scale, form and design will enhance and maintain this character. Retain 5.1.4.2 f).

4. The special character of the teacher housing corridor does not mean that other future uses for this land that provide a similar spatial treatment and retain the general character are not appropriate. Any application to realign Tuhikaramea Road would require resource consent.

5. Opposed. The submitter has not provided any heritage assessment to support the contention


Continued

that the ranking of these buildings should be increased from B to A. The Church supports the retention of the Heritage ranked buildings as notified.

6. Opposed. No heritage assessment has been provided to support the contention that the Matthew Cowley building, feature wall and Mendenhall Library should be ranked as A in Schedule 8A. The Church supports the retention of the Heritage ranked buildings as notified.

Pita Witehira 1166.004

□ Support Oppose

1. The submission point is opposed. The provisions of 5.1.4.2 Temple View Character Area sets the scene and provides a background for the future of the site. This will enable the former school site to be repurposed and developed in a manner that maintains its special character. The Church wants to both undertake and facilitate development on the school site that will benefit the community and enhance the environment. The ongoing use of the site is important and the objectives and policies as notified will enable this to happen. The development plan provides a broad outline of how future uses on the site would be laid out.

2. The heritage listed buildings that are located within the former school site will be managed in accordance with the District Plan provisions on Heritage Buildings.

3. Any proposal for a Stake Centre or similar building will need to assess issues of character and demonstrate the manner in which its scale,


Continued

form and design will enhance and maintain this character. Retain 5.1.4.2 f).

4. The special character of the teacher housing corridor does not mean that other future uses for this land that provide a similar spatial treatment and retain the general character are not appropriate. Any application to realign Tuhikaramea Road would require resource consent.

5. Opposed. The submitter has not provided any heritage assessment to support the contention that the ranking of these buildings should be increased from B to A. The Church supports the retention of the Heritage ranked buildings as notified.

6. Opposed. No heritage assessment has been provided to support the contention that the Matthew Cowley building, feature wall and Mendenhall Library should be ranked as A in Schedule 8A. The Church supports the retention of the Heritage ranked buildings as notified.

7. This submission point refers to section 7 (h) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Trust Board Empowering Act 1957. The provisions in section 7 of the Empowering Act are powers given to the Trust Board by that Act and do not impose any general or specific obligations. The purpose of the Empowering Act, as set out in its Long Title and Preamble, was to enable the Church to use trust funds for a variety of purposes,


Continued

including the maintenance of its buildings. When read in the context of the whole Act and the rest of section 7, it is clear that section 7(h) does not require the Church to do anything in relation to any particular building. There is no power under the RMA that would enable the Council to direct the Trust Board to take any particular action of that kind.

The New Zealand Historic Places Trust 1196.009

Support □ Oppose

The submission is supported as the Temple View Heritage Area provisions are the most appropriate means of protecting and enhancing the Temple and its surroundings for the future.

Allow

Generation Zero Waikato 1284.015

□ Support Oppose

The submission point is opposed as this introduces unnecessary duplication into the District Plan. If an application for new building and development is Restricted Discretionary then the limits of that Discretion are already set in Appendix 1 of the Proposed Plan. If an application is Discretionary then those provisions will apply as relevant. It is inappropriate to duplicate the requirements of Appendix 1 into the Special Character Zones Rule 5.4.10 f).

Disallow

Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Inc 610.018

Support in part □ Oppose

The Church supports the submission point that requests an amendment to Rule 19.3 i) to make the demolition of building ranked B a Discretionary Activity. The notified version of this rule makes the demolition of both A and B ranked buildings as a Non

Allow in part.


Complying activity which does not recognise the potential differences between these two rankings in terms of both heritage values and significance. A difference in consent status is appropriate to recognise this difference.

Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Inc 610.019

Support □ Oppose

The Church supports the submission point. In some situations, the works required to earthquake proof a building are so substantial that the heritage values would be lost. Safety risks are also a significant concern with some heritage buildings that may require prompt attention. The policy needs to reflect this.

Allow.

Waitomo Properties Ltd 631.007


The intent of this submission is supported however the Church only seeks Discretionary or Restricted Discretionary status for any structure or Building ranked B.

Allow

Waitomo Properties Ltd 631.008


The Church supports the submission point. In some situations, the works required to earthquake proof a building are so substantial that the heritage values would be lost. Safety risks are also a significant concern with some heritage buildings that may require prompt attention. The policy needs to reflect this.

Allow

Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton 704.004

Support □ Oppose

The Church supports the submission point. In some situations, demolition of or effects on historic heritage may be appropriate, particularly with earthquake prone buildings and those buildings that pose a safety hazard. The Objectives and Policies should be amended to reflect this.

Allow


Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton 704.005

□ Support Oppose in part

The Church opposes the submission point in relation to Rule 19.3 b). Internal alterations to buildings that have a heritage ranking should be a permitted activity to allow for refurbishment and reuse. Any controls on internal alterations (other than Building consent requirements) would create unnecessary compliance issues that could discourage building owners from continuing to utilise and upgrade the building.

Disallow in part

Waikato Regional Council 714.050

□ Support Oppose in part

This submission point is opposed only as it relates to the Church’s submission point requesting amendments to Policy 19.2.2 b) whereby the loss of heritage values associated with scheduled items shall be avoided to the fullest extent practicable.

Disallow in part

Waikato Regional Council 714.053

□ Support Oppose

The Church opposes the submission point in relation to Rule 19.3 b). Internal alterations to buildings that have a heritage ranking should be a permitted activity to allow for refurbishment and reuse. Any controls on internal alterations (other than Building consent requirements) would create unnecessary compliance issues that could discourage building owners from continuing to utilise and upgrade the building.

Disallow

Isobel Anne Bennett YWCA of Hamilton Inc 879.001

Support □ Oppose

The Church supports the submission point that requests an amendment to Rule 19.3 i) to make the demolition of building ranked B a Discretionary Activity. The notified version of this rule makes the demolition of both A and B ranked buildings as a Non Complying activity which does not recognise the potential differences between these two rankings in terms of both heritage values and significance. A difference in consent status is appropriate to recognise this difference.

Allow.


Shona Betty Shaw Murray V Shaw builders Ltd 884.018


The Church supports the submission point that requests an amendment to Rule 19.3 i) to make the demolition of building ranked B a Discretionary Activity. The notified version of this rule makes the demolition of both A and B ranked buildings as a Non Complying activity which does not recognise the potential differences between these two rankings in terms of both heritage values and significance. A difference in consent status is appropriate to recognise this difference.

Allow in part

Shona Betty Shaw Murray V Shaw builders Ltd 884.019

Support □ Oppose

The Church supports the submission point. In some situations, demolition of or effects on historic heritage may be appropriate, particularly with earthquake prone buildings and those buildings that pose a safety hazard. The Objectives and Policies should be amended to reflect this.

Allow

Skycity Hamilton Ltd 900.003

Support □ Oppose

The Church supports the submission point. The requirement for a Restricted Discretionary activity for internal alterations for a Heritage Item is inconsistent with Rule 19.3 b) which states that internal alterations of heritage ranked buildings are a Permitted activity. Controls on internal alterations is inappropriate, particularly when in some cases such as the New Zealand Temple the interior of the building has significant spiritual value to church members.

Allow

Sink or Swim 1009.011

□ Support Oppose

The Church opposes the submission insofar as it requests non-complying activity status for the demolition of both Category A & B buildings. This is inappropriate and does not reflect the different nature of a Category B building and the reduced

Disallow in part


significance of that building. A Discretionary or Restricted Discretionary status is more appropriate for a Category B building.

The Church opposes the submission requiring that Category B ranked building alterations and additions must be publicly notified. It is more appropriate that the requirements of the RMA with respect to notification be applied than applying notification requirements through a rule in the District Plan.


□ Support Oppose

The Church opposes the submission insofar as it seeks rules to control alterations and additions to the interior of heritage items. The control of interior aspects of heritage is inappropriate and unnecessary and could discourage building owners from undertaking interior improvements through additional regulation. In some cases, such as the Hamilton Temple, the interior of the building is significant and sacred to church members.

The Church opposes the submission requiring a single unitary built heritage feature whereby all scheduled items would be non complying to demolish. This does not recognise that different categories of heritage building have different levels of significance. The Church supports the proposal to make the demolition of Category B buildings a Discretionary or Restricted Discretionary activity.

Disallow in part


□ Support Oppose

The Church opposes the submission insofar as it seeks the full support of Policy 19.2.3a. The Church supports the presumption against the loss of scheduled heritage values, it contends that in situations where adaption and re-use are neither feasible nor practicable, recording and demolition are

Disallow in part


potentially last-resort options in exceptional circumstances. The wording of policy 19.2.3a should be amended to reflect this.


□ Support Oppose

The Church opposes the submission insofar as it seeks to insert Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria to control alterations and additions to the interior of heritage items. The control of interior aspects of heritage is inappropriate and unnecessary and could discourage building owners from undertaking interior improvements through additional regulation.

Disallow.

Barry Harris Hamilton City Council 1146.056

Support □ Oppose

The Church supports the submission point. The requirement for a Restricted Discretionary activity for internal alterations for a Heritage Item is inconsistent with Rule 19.3 b) which states that internal alterations of heritage ranked buildings are a Permitted activity. Controls on internal alterations is inappropriate, particularly when in some cases such as the New Zealand Temple the interior of the building has significant spiritual value to church members.

Allow


□ Support Oppose

The Church opposes the submission insofar as it seeks rules to control alterations and additions to the interior of heritage items. The control of interior aspects of heritage is inappropriate and unnecessary and could discourage building owners from undertaking interior improvements through additional regulation. In some cases, such as the Hamilton Temple, the interior of the building is significant and sacred to church members.

Disallow


The Church supports the submission point in relation to the need to clearly establish the hierarchy of management for A and B Ranked buildings with regards to demolition. Different ranked heritage building have different levels of significance and this should be reflected in the level of assessment and consideration required for any work on those buildings. The Church supports the proposal to make the demolition of Category B buildings a Discretionary or Restricted Discretionary activity.


□ Support Oppose

The Church opposes the submission insofar as it seeks to control alterations and additions to the interior of heritage items. The control of interior aspects of heritage is inappropriate and unnecessary and could discourage building owners from undertaking interior improvements through additional regulation.

Disallow.


□ Support Oppose

The Church opposes the submission insofar as it seeks to insert Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria to control alterations and additions to the interior of heritage items. The control of interior aspects of heritage is inappropriate and unnecessary and could discourage building owners from undertaking interior improvements through additional regulation.

Disallow.

Tram Lease Ltd 1163.012

Support □ Oppose

The Church supports the submission point that requests an amendment to Rule 19.3 i) to make the demolition of building ranked B a Restricted Discretionary Activity. The notified version of this rule makes the demolition of both A and B ranked buildings as a Non Complying activity which does not

Allow


recognise the potential differences between these two rankings in terms of both heritage values and significance. A difference in consent status is appropriate to recognise this difference.

New Zealand Historic Places Trust 1196.015

□Support Oppose in part

The Church opposes the submission point insofar as it relates to Policy 19.2.2b and contends that it is appropriate that the policy specify that the loss of heritage values be avoided to the fullest extent practicable. This recognises that where adaption and re-use are neither feasible or practical, then recording and demolition are last resort options in exceptional circumstances.

Disallow in part

New Zealand Historic Places Trust 1196.018

□Support Oppose in part

The Church opposes the submission point insofar as it relates to Rule 19.3 b) and 19.3 i) Activity Status Table. Rule 19.3 b) sets a Permitted activity status for the internal alterations of buildings. This is inappropriate and unnecessary, in particular where a building such as the Temple (Ranked A) has high heritage significance but is also of spiritual significance to Church members. It is inappropriate for there to be a statutory process associated with internal alterations to a building that is not open to the general public.

Rule 19.3 i) requires a Non complying activity consent for the demolition of any structure or building ranked B. The notified version of this rule makes the demolition of both A and B ranked buildings as a Non Complying activity which does not recognise the potential differences between these two rankings in terms of both heritage values and significance. A difference in consent status is appropriate to recognise this difference.

Disallow in part



□ Support Oppose

The submission point is opposed as this introduces unnecessary duplication into the District Plan. If an application for work on a Heritage item or building is Restricted Discretionary then the limits of that Discretion are already set in Appendix 1 of the Proposed Plan. If an application is Discretionary then those provisions will apply as relevant. It is inappropriate to duplicate the requirements of Appendix 1 into Section 19 of the Proposed District Plan.

Disallow


□ Support Oppose

The submission point is opposed as this introduces unnecessary duplication into the District Plan. If an application for work on a Heritage item or building is Restricted Discretionary then the limits of that Discretion are already set in Appendix 1 of the Proposed Plan. It is inappropriate to duplicate the requirements of Appendix 1 into Section 19 of the Proposed District Plan.

Disallow


Support □ Oppose

It is appropriate and timely to undertake a Structure Planning exercise for the area of Future Urban land surrounding Temple View. The most appropriate way to achieve this is to include a section within Rule 3: Structure Plans, and Appendix 2: Structure Plans that refers to Temple View and signals that such an exercise is planned and will be undertaken in consultation with the community.

Allow

WJ and MR Laverty 313.002

Support □ Oppose

It is appropriate and timely to undertake a Structure Planning exercise for the area of Future Urban land surrounding Temple View. The most appropriate way to achieve this is to include a section within Rule 3: Structure Plans, and Appendix 2: Structure Plans that

Allow


refers to Temple View and signals that such an exercise is planned and will be undertaken in consultation with the community.

WR and JM Falconer 360.003

Support □ Oppose


Allow

Wilson David Jolly 1244.002

Support □ Oppose


Allow

Simon Dyke Farms 1245.002

Support □ Oppose


Allow



□ Support Oppose

The submission is opposed insofar as it relates to Rule 8-1.1 Rankings of Significance for those buildings which are located within the former Church College campus. The Church seeks to retain the Rankings of Heritage Significance in Schedule 8A as notified without change apart from those changes sought by Church submission on the overall Heritage ranking system.

Disallow

Jodi Belbin 298.005

□ Support Oppose


Disallow

Grace McCarthy 302.002

□ Support Oppose

The submission is opposed insofar as it relates to Rule 8-1.1 Rankings of Significance for those buildings which are located within the former Church College campus. The Church seeks to retain the Rankings of Heritage Significance as notified without change apart from those changes sought by Church submission on the overall Heritage ranking system. The submitter has undertaken no heritage assessment of the Matthew Cowley Administration Building that would provide justification for including it in Schedule 8A – Built Heritage.

Disallow

Pita Witehira 839.001

□ Support Oppose

The submission is opposed insofar as it relates to Rule 8-1.1 Rankings of Significance for those buildings which are located within the former Church College campus. The Church seeks to retain the Rankings of Heritage Significance in Schedule 8A as notified

Disallow


without change apart from those changes sought by Church submission on the overall Heritage ranking system.

Tom Roa 1285.001

□ Support Oppose


Disallow

Andrew Bydder 1289.001

□ Support Oppose


Disallow

Note:

A copy of your further submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after it is served on the local authority. This is your responsibility.

Please ensure that you fill in all columns of the table for each submission(s) or submission point(s) you are further submitting on. Use additional sheets of this page if required.

Acknowledgement of further submissions will take place after the further submission period closes in due course. K:\140450 Temple View Developments\02 Templeview rezoning\Proposed District Plan\Further Submissions\Proposed District Plan Further Submission (LDS Church) 1 July version.docx

Return your signed further submission to Hamilton City ... · I do OR I do not wish to attend and...

Documents

Transcript of Return your signed further submission to Hamilton City ... · I do OR I do not wish to attend and...