BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 AND IN THE MATTER of Topic 032 Historic Heritage Schedules CLOSING REMARKS ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL IN RELATION TO TOPIC 032 HISTORIC HERITAGE SCHEDULES Barristers & Solicitors W S Loutit / R J O'Connor Telephone: +64-9-358 2222 Facsimile: +64-9-307 0331 Email: [email protected] DX CX10092 Private Bag 92518 Auckland 26917803_1.docx MAY IT PLEASE THE PANEL 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This memorandum records the matters that Auckland Council (Council) wishes to raise by way of summary closing remarks in respect of a number of issues that emerged at the hearing held on 21, 22, 23, 24 and 30 September 2015 for Topic 032 Historic Heritage Schedules (Topic 032). 1.2 The approach taken in this memorandum is not to address all matters raised by the parties at the hearing on Topic 032. Nor is it to repeat the Council's evidence. Rather, this memorandum addresses the key points of difference between the matters raised by submitters in evidence and during the hearing, and the Council's position. Not referring to particular submissions or evidence, should not be taken to indicate the Council's acceptance of or agreement to the matters raised. 1.3 This memorandum addresses the following general matters: (a) The use of transferable development rights (TDR) as incentives to manage historic heritage; (b) The practical application of the rules relating to the total destruction or demolition of a historic heritage feature, in light of the proposed prohibited activity status and definition from the Historic Heritage topic (Topic 031); (c) An updated explanation of the historic heritage continuum, the table of activity statuses and the criteria for restricted discretionary activities; (d) The proposed addition of places to the Historic Heritage Schedule1 (Schedule) agreed between parties not addressed in the Council's evidence, and how these additions should be reflected consistently in the Schedule; (e) The implications of the demolition, removal or relocation of a feature within a scheduled historic heritage place and its effect on the associated extent of place; (f) The Council Built and Cultural Heritage Policy Unit's (Heritage Unit) proposed future work programme in respect of identifying and scheduling proposed places, including possible Historic Heritage Areas; (g) Matters relating to public access to, or views of, historic heritage places (including their extents of place); (h) Site specific matters; and 1 The Historic Heritage Schedule includes Appendices 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 to the PAUP. 26917803_1.docx Page 1 (i) Corrections. 2. TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 2.1 During the hearing, Panel Member Crawford sought clarification from the Council as to the use of TDR as regulatory incentives to landowners to assist in the management of scheduled historic heritage places. 2.2 The Auckland Council District Plan Operative Auckland City (Central Area Section) 2005 contains development bonuses to incentivise landowners in respect of the ongoing management of heritage. Council officers consider that TDR appear to be of most value to owners who have multiple Auckland properties and wish to transfer unused floorspace (or height) from one historic heritage place to another site they own. The value of these bonuses appears dependent on the development restrictions on potential recipient sites, and these restrictions may have been changed in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) across the region. The market value of bonus floor space is not known, and would be likely to change with fluctuations in the property market. 2.3 The existing bonus provisions, particularly in the CBD's Core Strategic Management Area/Queen Street Valley area with its generous light and outlook bonus and/or the 4:1 accommodation bonus, means that the heritage bonus is often not relied on to reach the maximum total floor area ratio. 2.4 The Council has had some consent applications in the western side of the CBD for heritage TDR. In particular the Victoria Quarter, which has the lower accommodation bonus of 0.5:1 means that the heritage bonus is more likely to be utilised. 2.5 A copy of the Council's Heritage Floorspace Bonus Register is set out in Attachment 1. 2.6 In addition to the use of TDR, Ms Sorrell noted during the hearing that there are a number of other incentives available to landowners and non-regulatory methods by the Council in respect of historic heritage places. These include free heritage advice in respect of pre-application discussions, and the use of the Regional Historical Heritage Fund in respect of Category A places.2 2 See also [12.2]-[12.3] in the Council's Closing Remarks on Topic 031. 26917803_1.docx Page 2 3. THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE RULES RELATING TO THE TOTAL DEMOLITION OR DESTRUCTION OF A HISTORIC HERITAGE FEATURE 3.1 Mr D McKenzie on behalf of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) disagrees with Mr Vinall's interpretation on behalf of the Council of the total demolition threshold as it relates to the Civic Administration Building. Mr D McKenzie considers that the proposed works to the façade of the Civic Administration Building, and the removal of asbestos would not trigger the total demolition threshold and therefore that a Category A status for the building is appropriate. Mr Vinall in his evidence considers that the proposed works are significant and would trigger the total demolition or destruction control which is a prohibited activity if the building has a Category A status. 3.2 The Panel identified the importance of having workable provisions (including definitions) that manage total demolition or destruction, especially given its importance in respect of places with a Category A status, of which the total demolition or destruction of their Primary Features is proposed to be a prohibited activity. The Panel sought clarification from various parties as to the practical application of the total demolition or destruction definition as it relates to historic heritage places, and encouraged parties to work together to discuss and provide a possible solution that avoids any ambiguity and uncertainty. 3.3 Various planning representatives from the Council and HNZPT have participated in these discussions.3 The focus of the discussion was to: (a) ascertain the various metrics that can be used to measure the level of change to a feature within a scheduled historic heritage place; (b) understand the way these metrics are measured; and (c) determine which matters should trigger the prohibited activity status as it applies to the Primary Features of Category A places. 3.4 The representatives agreed that there appear to be four ways in which the level of change to a feature (and which may constitute demolition or destruction) can be measured. These will apply differently to the different 'types' of features generally found in scheduled historic heritage places: (a) Volume as measured from the exterior surface of the feature (essentially the entire feature); (b) ‘Footprint’ of the feature; 3 Mr D McKenzie on behalf of HNZPT, Mr Vinall, Ms Rowe, Ms Rush, Ms Richmond, Ms Patrick on behalf of Auckland Council. 26917803_1.docx Page 3 (c) Surface area of the feature; (d) Volume of the scheduled interior (applies to buildings only). 3.5 The relationship between these matters is broadly summarised in the table below, including whether or not each metric is applicable as a method to measure the level of change to each type of feature: Metric Buildings Archaeological Objects4 Designed features landscapes/ gardens Volume of Applicable Applicable5 Applicable Not the whole applicable feature Surface area Applicable6 Applicable Not Not applicable applicable ‘Footprint’ Applicable Applicable Not Applicable applicable Volume of Applicable Not applicable Not Not scheduled applicable applicable interiors of buildings 3.6 As a result of this analysis, the representatives consider that it is inappropriate for works that demolish or destroy 70% or more of the surface area of a building to trigger the prohibited activity status as it applies to the Primary Features of Category A places. This is particularly important in the case of some modern buildings, where experimental materials or construction methods were often used that are now proving to be ineffective. 3.7 In light of this, it may be inappropriate to prevent the ability to apply for consent to undertake remedial works to address these issues (on the basis that the surface area metric could be interpreted in such a way that a prohibited activity status is triggered). Proposed amendments 3.8 Amendments to the structure and content of the thresholds describing 'total demolition and destruction' and 'substantial demolition and destruction' may be necessary as a result of these discussions. These thresholds are currently 4 Objects may include items such as plaques and statues. 5 While less likely to apply to archaeological features, there is the potential for this. 6 This is a generally a measure of change to the exterior surface (façade and roofs) of a building. 26917803_1.docx Page 4 outlined in proposed definitions of these terms in Chapter E2 as set out through Topic 031 - Historic Heritage. 3.9 The Council notes that Mr Buxton in his evidence on behalf of Auckland Council for Topic 065 (Definitions), addresses these particular terms and proposes certain consequential amendments.7 Ms Rowe has reviewed the amendments Mr Buxton proposes in relation to these terms as they appear in Activity Tables 1 and 3 in Chapter J2 of the PAUP. Ms Rowe considers that Mr Buxton's amendments appropriately address the thresholds of these terms, and does not consider that any further amendments are necessary. 3.10 The Council proposed definitions of 'total demolition or destruction' and 'substantial demolition or destruction' through Topic 031 (Historic Heritage).