BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 2010 (Auckland Transitional Provisions) AND IN THE MATTER of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 2013 (PAUP), Topic 032 – Historic Heritage Schedules Statement of Evidence by Heike Brigitte Lutz on behalf of The Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland Dated 28 August 2015 Executive Summary 1. My name is Heike Brigitte Lutz. I am a building conservation consultant providing evidence for the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland with regards to Topic 032-Historic Heritage Schedules. My evidence includes four properties owned by the Bishop, St Mary’s Church in Northcote, St Michael’s School in Remuera, St Joseph’s Primary School in Otahuhu, and St Patrick’s Presbytery in Pukekohe. 2. Auckland Council proposes to schedule St Mary’s Church, St Joseph’s Primary School building, and St Patrick’s Presbytery in Appendix 9.1 of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. For St Michael’s Church, School and Presbytery the Council proposed to enlarge the extent of place of the existing scheduling of the church and presbytery, and to include the original school building in the schedule. 3. The Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland requests to remove St Mary’s Church , St Joseph’s Primary School building and St Patrick’s Presbytery from the schedule in Appendix 9.1 on the basis that these places have not sufficient cultural heritage values to warrant scheduling. 4. For the St Michael’s precinct the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland desires to reduce the extent of place proposed by Council and remove the original school building from the schedule and delete the reference to the school in the name. The school building should be removed from the schedule because of its only moderate overall heritage significance. The request for the reduction in the extent of place is based on the requirement of the school to expand and the view that extending the currently included surrounds is not justified. 5. I have assessed the buildings in question with regards to their heritage values and have reviewed evaluations that the Page | 2 council has provided. I have considered heritage provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and the Resource Management Act and council’s evidence provided for Topic - 032 Historic Heritage Schedules and relevant parts of Topic 010 Heritage and Special Character. 6. It is my professional opinion that: (a) St Mary’s Church, Northcote does not warrant scheduling and should be removed from the schedule in Appendix 9.1; (b) St Joseph’s Primary School building does not warrant scheduling and should be removed from the schedule in Appendix 9.1; (c) St Patrick’s Presbytery does not warrant scheduling and should be removed from the schedule in Appendix 9.1; and (d) St Michael’s School does not warrant scheduling and should be removed from the schedule in Appendix 9.1. The extent of place should be reduced to exclude the King’s Lawn and the original school building; and the name should not refer to the school. Introduction 7. My name is Heike Brigitte Lutz. I am the director of BCon Consultants Limited, an Auckland based architectural building conservation practice. 8. I hold a Master of Architecture degree from the Technical University of Applied Sciences in Berlin, Germany. I have over 20 years of experience in the field of professional building conservation and over 25 years of architectural practice Page | 3 experience in New Zealand and Europe. Full details of my qualifications and experience are attached in Appendix 1. 9. The matters which I give expert opinion evidence on are within my area of expertise and on which I am qualified to express an opinion. 10. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court’s Consolidated Practice Note 2014. I agree to comply with the Code and confirm that my evidence has been prepared in accordance with it. 11. In June 2014 the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland (CDA) engaged BCon Consultants Ltd to undertake Heritage Assessments for a number of properties that are in the ownership of the Diocese. The work was undertaken to determine the heritage values of places that had changes proposed in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) regarding their existing scheduling status and extent or that were proposed to be scheduled. The scope of work involved also the review of existing Heritage Assessments for some properties, undertaken by others. 12. Following completion of that work I attended meetings with Council to discuss and narrow down the issues regarding planning and heritage matters. 13. For the following properties heritage and planning matters were discussed and agreement was reached: (a) St Francis de Sales Catholic Church and Graveyard, 2a & 2b Albert Rd, Devonport; (b) St Vincent de Paul Catholic Church, 2 Shakespeare Rd, Milford; (c) St Vincent de Paul House, 92 Onewa Rd, Northcote; (d) St Joseph’s Convent, 2 Taharoto Rd, Takapuna: (e) St Joseph’s Catholic Church, 6-8 Taharoto Rd, Takapuna; Page | 4 (f) Merchant House (Newman Hall), 16 Waterloo Quadrant, Auckland Central; (g) Liston House, 2 St Patrick’s Square, Auckland Central; (h) Sisters of St Joseph Convent (Sinclair House), 28 Telford Ave, Balmoral; (i) St Joseph and St Joachim Catholic Church, 118 Church St, Otahuhu; (j) Church of the Assumption, Graveyard, Presbytery and Gateposts, 130 Church St and 87-97 Galway St, Onehunga; (k) St Joseph’s School Hall and remnant stone wall, 125 Church St, Onehunga; (l) Bishop’s House, 30 New St, Ponsonby; (m) St Benedict’s Catholic Church and Presbytery, 5-7 Alex Evans St, Newton; (n) St Johns the Baptist Church and Convent, 204-212 Parnell Rd, Parnell; (o) Catholic Presbytery, 14 Lavelle Rd, Henderson; (p) Holy Family Catholic Church, 92 Taikata Rd, Te Atatu; 14. No agreement could be achieved regarding the proposed scheduling of four places. 15. I have been asked to present evidence to this hearing as expert witness regarding the heritage values and significance of : (a) St Mary’s Church, 113-117 Onewa Rd, Northcote; (b) St Joseph’s Primary School Building, 29 High St, Otahuhu; (c) St Michael’s Church, Presbytery and School, 6 Beatrice Road, Remuera; and (d) St Patrick Presbytery, 131 Seddon St, Pukekohe. Page | 5 16. CDA seeks the deletion of three of the above buildings from Appendix 9.1. Schedule of Significant Historic Heritage Places. For one property they seek changes in the Extent of Place and identification of primary features for a Category B place. Scope of evidence 17. My evidence addresses: (a) The heritage provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) and the Resource Management Act (RMA); (b) The assessment of heritage significance of the places and their appropriate protection where warranted; and (c) Consideration of and responses to evidence prepared by others in relation to Historic Heritage Schedules (Topic 032) and Heritage and Special Character (Topic 010). Heritage protection under the RMA 18. Following the requirements to protect historic heritage under the RMA, the PAUP provides for a protective methodology for all buildings in the Auckland area that are identified as places of historic heritage significance to be safeguarded. 19. This evidence is regarding the heritage significance of these individual places, the obligation under the RMA to protect historic heritage and the requirements of the Catholic Diocese to provide appropriate and adequate services for their parishioners and the community and how this affects heritage values. 20. Heritage protection is an important factor in achieving people’s social, cultural and economic wellbeing and the comparative assessment of the significance a heritage item possesses is crucial to achieving a balance between Page | 6 worthwhile protection for future generations and sustainable living. 21. The Catholic Diocese of Auckland (CDA) has a proven record of valuing heritage and safeguarding many historic buildings in their care. In the process of the PAUP submissions the CDA has successfully discussed a large number of properties with the Auckland Council and has achieved agreement in most cases. 22. Unlike other property owners most properties of the CDA consist of larger precincts that have grown over time, combining a number of buildings of various ages with various functions. Many of the older precincts hold considerable heritage significance per se. RMA provisions 23. Under the RMA Section 2 the concept of historic heritage is defined. 24. In the RMA Section 6(f) it is set out that historic heritage is to be protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. This duty applies regardless of any scheduling of the place. 25. Sections 7(b), 7(c), and 7(g) require persons exercising powers under the RMA to have regard to the efficient use and development of physical resources and any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources, including historic buildings and trees. Consideration of Council evidence 26. I have read and considered the following evidence of Council: Page | 7 (a) Closing Statement and Points of Clarification on behalf of Auckland Council, Topic 010 RSP Heritage and Special Character; (b) Joint Statement of Primary Evidence of Planners and Heritage Experts on behalf of Auckland Council (Planning and Heritage) for – Topic 032 Historic Heritage Schedules, 14 August 2015; (c) Statement of Primary Evidence of Cara Elizabeth Francesco on behalf