District plan - Isthmus section

• The buildings are worth full protection.
• Once these heritage buildings go, Ponsonby Road will be just like any other suburban road instead of a strip of heritage.

• This building is an excellent example of a Victorian construction and fits in with the overall heritage plan of Ponsonby.
• Preserve this building in its existing state and have heritage status attached to it.

• The provisions of plan change 217 do not actively promote the sustainable management of the physical resources of the site and environs in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their well-being while addressing the matters contained in section 5(2)(a)-(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991

• The property is in the business 2 zone, which provides for specific development controls, including height and floor area ratio controls. The property owners' ability to develop the property further in a manner consistent with these development controls will be seriously impeded if change 217 becomes effective in relation to the property. 

• The submitters seek that plan change 217 as it relates to this property should be modified to include provisions that actively promote and encourage incentives for heritage protection.

• The submitters consider that heritage protection should not be only the role of the private landowner but also the role of the community.

• The heritage notation in the schedule should only relate to the front (northeastern face) and side elevations of the two storey part of the building, and to parts of the interior of the building, but not to:
  • the rear (southwestern facing) parts of the building, and
  • the greater surrounds within the certificate of title, and
  • other parts of the interior of the building, and
  • the land within 4 metres of all pointer along the Ponsonby Rd elevation immediately to the north and south of the subject building.
• Amend the provisions of change 217 (as above) or delete the building from change 217.

In principle I support the idea of classifying the building as a heritage site but with the provision that this classification in no way interferes with it's current use and that any future proposals for developments of a commercial nature which do not unduly affect the character of the building are looked at in a favourable light.

• Council's assessment of heritage significance may be understated in relation to:
  • Ambassador Theatre - 1218-1220 Great North Rd, Pt Chev
• If justified in light of re-assessment of existing information, or new information that may come to light prior to or during any hearing, Council should be prepared to adjust the heritage point ranking.

• 123 Grafton Rd is a landmark building for Grafton and the city as a whole in terms of its close visual association with Grafton Bridge and as a reminder of what this area once used to be.  
• We feel that the rating in this category does not acknowledge the importance of 123 Grafton Road for the city and does not accurately pay tribute to the landmark character of the house as attributed by everybody who lives or frequently travels through Grafton.

• The NZ body Corporate Services Ltd supports the Council to have the building at 123 Grafton defined as a Heritage Building.

• The house on 123 Grafton Road is clearly a heritage home and should be given heritage status and protection.
• The existing home is not being maintained.
• If allowed to be demolished and a new 5 storey block erected in its place, our property will be in shadow the whole day

• HNZC opposes the inclusion of 123 Grafton Road.
• The property has irreplaceable strategic importance to HNZC for two primary reasons. Firstly, its proximity to Auckland Hospital and other social services and public amenities provides the HNZC with a unique opportunity to provide targeted accommodation to those in need of these services. Secondly, the property is afforded significant development potential under the Plan.
• PC 217 prevents the organisation form fulfilling its key function as a housing provider for New Zealanders' in need on this site.
• HNZC feels that the heritage value of the site is limited and is not viable for protection.
• The listing of the building should have occurred while the property was in Auckland City Council's ownershipp
• The listing of 123 Grafton Road reduces the development potential of the site and is contrary to the objectives and policies for residential zone 7c.
• This submission seeks that 123 Grafton Road is not listed as a protected heritage building in the Auckland City operative district plan. 

• Council's assessment of heritage significance may be understated in relation to:
  • house - 123 Grafton Rd, Grafton
• If justified in light of re-assessment of existing information, or new information that may come to light prior to or during any hearing, Council should be prepared to adjust the heritage point ranking.

• Oppose Council planning restrictions in principle
• Building dilapidated and approaching a state of disrepair worthy of demolition.
• Seek that the heritage listing be removed (that a five year moratorium of any heritage listing be made to allow reasonable development of the site, to be made before the listing). OR
• That the heritage listing as per plan modification 217 is modified to only include the following elements:

1. Newton Road façade and entry steps
2. Newton Road entry foyer and ticket office
3. Upstairs lodge room
4. Main auditorium and cornice detail
   And to exclude the following elements:
5. East façade of the auditorium
6. South and west building facades
7. Basement generally
8. Toilets off foyer
9. Stair to basement
10. Roof structure and roofing configuration
11. Other ancillary, storage, toilet spaces.

7/1

8/1

9/1

• Council's assessment of heritage significance may be understated in relation to:
  • Orange Ballroom, 143-149 Newton Rd, Eden Terrace
• If justified in light of re-assessment of existing information, or new information that may come to light prior to or during any hearing, Council should be prepared to adjust the heritage point ranking.

• Deletion of all reference to the building and the property at 24 Mountain Rd, Epsom from PC 217. The proposed plan change is not the most appropriate means for achieving the purpose of the Act.
• The council's assessment and evaluation against the criteria in part 5c.7.1.2(F) is an inappropriate and flawed method of assessing the heritage value of buildings in Auckland City.  The evaluation is inadequate, contains errors of fact and evaluation.

• The submitter neither supports nor opposes the inclusion of the Property as a Category B scheduled heritage item in the Pan.
• Submitter is concerned to ensure that this does not unduly impact upon its opposition to the proposed scheduling of its properties at 2-8 Osborne Street, Newmarket , and 481-487 Khyber Pass Road (Submitters properties) as Category B scheduled heritage items in the plan, in accordance with Proposed Plan Modification 183 (Plan Change 183).
• Any decision to include the property as a category B scheduled heritage item in the Plan should expressly specify that the decision relates to the specific property only.
• The decision should also clearly state that it in no way reflects the intention of the council (or an identified need) to create such a significant heritage area or precinct in the vicinity of the property.

• Council's assessment of heritage significance may be understated in relation to:
  • Excelsior building, 473 Khyber Pass Rd, Newmarket
• If justified in light of re-assessment of existing information, or new information that may come to light prior to or during any hearing, Council should be prepared to adjust the heritage point ranking.

• We wish our usage rights not be affected in any way. Our usage being cinema and associated activities. We wish also supporting areas as to the land next to this building (garden) be used in what ever purpose to support this building.

• Council's assessment of heritage significance may be understated in relation to:
  • Crystal Palace Theatre, 573 Mt Eden Rd, Mt Eden
• If justified in light of re-assessment of existing information, or new information that may come to light prior to or during any hearing, Council should be prepared to adjust the heritage point ranking.

• The proposal is contrary to the purpose and principles of the Resources Management Act and in particular fails to achieve an appropriate balance between the various matters requiring consideration under Part II of the Act.
• The scheduling of the building will make it more difficult, time consuming and expensive to create a viable cinema business within the building.
• The council has not developed any significant incentives or compensatory measures to encourage the maintenance , restoration or refurbishment of scheduled buildings.
• It is not necessary to schedule the building in order to ensure its retention: the building is identified as a "character-defining" building in the Mt.Eden Centre Plan.
• The protection of the site surrounds, particularly the undeveloped land to the south of the building, is unjustified and unnecessary.
• Overall, it is my submission that on an objective analysis of the premises against the council's own evaluation criteria, the premises would not warrant scheduling in the District Plan.
• Delete the proposed scheduling of the Crystal Palace Theatre at 537 Mt.Eden Rd, and/or such other relief as is necessary to meet the concerns expressed in this submission.

• I have lived in Mt.Eden for 17 years and I would like to see the Crystal Palace preserved as a reminder of our heritage and bygone era.

• Seek deletion of building 5 from plan modification 217.
• ADHB has had ACC approval to demolish building 5 (see attached consent BLD20063062201) since early January and intends to affect demolition within the next two months.
• A 100 year old building can never be made compatible with the needs of modern, 21^st Century, medicine and hospital care.
• Cost of upgrading and refurbishing meant that retention of building 5 was not part of the upgrade of the hospital facilities at Grafton and Greenlane approved by the Minister of Health a decade ago and now almost completed.
• In the absence of specific heritage funding ADHB would have to use funds allocated for the provision of healthcare to its resident population to maintain building 5.
• Building 5 is simply one of many buildings that have been part of the evolving provision of public hospital care in Auckland; it is inappropriate for the ACC via the District Plan to place limitations on the continuing evolution of public hospital care by protecting facilities from a particular point in time.
• Essential car parking for patients and staff in those new facilities could not be provided on the site as required by ACC.
• Note that in fact the exterior has been significantly changed by the original red brick being plastered and painted.

• The proposal is inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the resource management act 1991 (RMA).

• Uphold the plan change.