The LDS Trust Board Proposed district plan further submission (lds church) 1 july version (1)

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


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

Deborah June Fisher

282.021

□ 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

Deborah June Fisher

282.022

□ 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.

Rakaipaka Puriri

63.002

□ Support

� Oppose

• The matters raised in the submission are incorrect

and do not reflect the true nature of the proposed

changes.





protection of the temple precinct along with




• 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.




Act.

Disallow

Robert W Belbin

291.006

� 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

Robert W Belbin

291.010

� 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

Robert W Belbin

291.012

� 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

Robert W Belbin

291.014

� 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

Robert W Belbin

291.015

□ 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

Rakaipaka Puriri

898.001

□ 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





protection of the Temple precinct along with




• 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


□ 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.


1050.020

□ 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.

Disallow


1050.021

□ 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


1050.022

□ 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.


1050.023

□ Support

� Oppose


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.



happen. The development plan provides a broad

outline of how future uses on the site would be laid

out.




Act.

Disallow


1050.025

□ 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


□ Support




Disallow


1050.026

� Oppose





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





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.




to be repurposed.

Disallow


Niall Baker

1158.022

□ 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

Niall Baker

1158.023

□ Support

� Oppose







• 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


Niall Baker

1158.024

□ 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.




to be repurposed.

Disallow

Niall Baker

1158.025

□ Support

� Oppose


5.2.6 Temple View Heritage Area are focussed around

maintaining the special character of the Temple and

its surrounding grounds and related buildings.



happen.

Disallow

Niall Baker

1158.026

□ Support

� Oppose


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.



happen. The development plan provides a broad

Disallow


outline of how future uses on the site would be laid

out.




Act.

Niall Baker

1158.028

□ Support

� Oppose








• The use of CDPs will not prejudice future decision

making but provides a framework within which such

processes can be assessed.

Disallow

Niall Baker

1158.029

□ 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

� Support in part

□ Oppose

• 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

� Support in part

□ Oppose


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


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











Allow.


Shona Betty Shaw

Murray V Shaw builders Ltd

884.018

� Support in part

□ Oppose











Allow in part

Shona Betty Shaw

Murray V Shaw builders Ltd

884.019

� Support

□ Oppose


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.


1050.006

□ 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


1050.010

□ Support

� Oppose


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.


1050.013

□ Support

� Oppose


to insert Matters of Discretion and Assessment

Criteria to control alterations and additions to the





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

Niall Baker

1158.007

□ Support

� Oppose


rules to control alterations and additions to the





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.

Niall Baker

1158.013

□ Support

� Oppose


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.

Niall Baker

1158.016

□ Support

� Oppose


to insert Matters of Discretion and Assessment

Criteria to control alterations and additions to the





additional regulation.

Disallow.

Tram Lease Ltd

1163.012

� Support

□ Oppose



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







Disallow in part



1284.051

□ Support

� Oppose



application for work on a Heritage item or building is



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


1284.052

□ Support

� Oppose



application for work on a Heritage item or building is



Proposed Plan. It is inappropriate to duplicate the

requirements of Appendix 1 into Section 19 of the


Disallow

Robert W Belbin

291.001

� Support

□ Oppose




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






Allow





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


Robert W Belbin

291.024

□ 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








system.

Disallow

Grace McCarthy

302.002

□ Support

� Oppose





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






Disallow




system.

Tom Roa

1285.001

□ Support

� Oppose








system.

Disallow

Andrew Bydder

1289.001

□ Support

� Oppose








system.

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

The LDS Trust Board Proposed district plan further submission (lds church) 1 july version (1)

News & Politics

Transcript of The LDS Trust Board Proposed district plan further submission (lds church) 1 july version (1)