Plans, policies and reports

YOU ARE IN: Your council > Plans, policies and reports

District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

(Notified version 2006)

Hearing reports index

Summary report on submissions to the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

Topic:	Part 7 – Heritage (Buildings, objects, properties and places of special value)
Report to:	The Hearing Panel
Author:	Sarah Smith and Richard Osborne
Date:	1 September 2008
Group file:	314/274010-002

1.0 Introduction

For ease of use and understanding, the heritage submissions and further submissions have been divided into the seven themes which relate to different heritage disciplines:

archaeological sites
buildings, objects, properties and places of special value
conservation areas
ecological sites
geological items
Maori heritage
trees.

Each heritage theme has been addressed in a separate hearing report. Each hearing report addresses all matters within the Plan that relate to that discipline. For example, this report addresses submissions relating to buildings, objects, properties and places of special value in:

part 7 – Heritage
appendix 1b – Schedule of buildings, objects, properties and places of special value – inner islands
appendix 2b – Schedule of buildings, objects, properties and places of special value – outer islands
appendix 4 – Criteria for scheduling heritage items.

There are submissions that relate to more than one discipline; these have been addressed in the general heritage hearing report.

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to buildings, objects, properties and places of special value of the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006 ('the Plan'). The Plan was publicly notified on 18 September 2006. The closing date for lodging submissions was 11 December 2006. The submissions and summary of decisions requested were publicly notified for further submission on 29 April 2007. The closing date for lodging further submissions was 28 May 2007.

This report has been prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 ('the RMA'), to assist the hearings panel to consider the submissions on buildings, objects, properties and places of special value. This report discusses the submissions (grouped by subject matter or individually) and includes recommendations from the planner who prepared this report. The recommendations identify whether each submission should be accepted or rejected (in full or in part) and what amendments (if any) should be made to the Plan to address matters raised in submissions. Further submissions are not specifically addressed but are dealt with in conjunction with the submissions to which they relate.

The recommendations contained in this report are not decisions of the council. The council will issue its decisions following consideration of the submissions, further submissions, any supporting evidence presented at the hearing, and this report. The council's decisions will be released after all the hearings to the Plan have been completed.

2.0 Statutory framework

This section of the report briefly sets out the statutory framework within which the council must consider the submissions. In preparing this report the submissions and, in particular, the decisions requested in the submissions, have been considered in light of the relevant statutory matters. These were summarised by the Environment Court in Eldamos Investments Limited v Gisborne District Council W 047/05 where the court set out the following measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in district plans:

1. The objectives of the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
1. a. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(3)(a)); and
2. b. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and
3. c. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1).
2. The policies, rules, or other methods in the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
1. a. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan (s32(3)(b)); and
2. b. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and
3. c. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and
4. d. (If a rule) achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan (s76(1)(b)).

The purpose of the RMA is "to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources", and "sustainable management" is defined in section 5(2) as meaning:

"... managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while—

(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

Along with section 5, part 2 of the RMA includes sections 6 (matters of national importance), 7 (other matters) and 8 (Treaty of Waitangi), which set out a range of matters that the council needs to recognise and provide for in achieving the purpose of the RMA. Those matters are also relevant when considering submissions.

The Plan must assist the council to carry out its functions under section 31 of the RMA. These functions are:

"(a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district:

(b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of—

(i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and

(ii) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and

(iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development, subdivision, or use of contaminated land:

(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:

(d) The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:

(e) The control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in rivers and lakes."

In addition to the matters listed above from the Eldamos decision:

1. The Plan must "give effect to" any national policy statement and any New Zealand coastal policy statement (s75(3)(a) and (b)).
2. The Plan must "give effect to" the regional policy statement (made operative after 10 August 2005) (s75(3)(c)).
3. The Plan must be "not inconsistent with" any regional plan (s75(4)).
4. The council must ensure that that the Plan does not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 ("the HGMPA"). Section 10 of the HGMPA requires that sections 7 and 8 of that Act be treated as a New Zealand coastal policy statement under the RMA.

3.0 Background

This section of the report sets out background information about the topic under consideration. It identifies how the Plan deals with buildings, objects, properties and places of special value. The heritage buildings, objects, properties and places of special value in the islands are an important cultural link with the past. They are a unique, non-renewable resource that should be protected and preserved for present and future generations. The Plan seeks to preserve, protect and conserve these valued heritage items by identifying and scheduling individual buildings, objects, properties and places of special value worthy of protection in the public interest.

To ascertain whether a particular building, object or place has sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling under the Plan, any proposed heritage item is researched and is then assessed and evaluated against the criteria outlined in appendix 4. The criteria for scheduling are necessarily stringent and numerically based, with an item being required to reach a fixed numeric score based on a range of assessment criteria before being able to be considered for scheduling. Any score over 50 points warrants consideration for scheduling as a category B heritage item, while any score 75 points and over warrants consideration for scheduling as a category A heritage item.

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about buildings, objects, properties and places of special value and recommends how the panel could respond to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions. The submissions are addressed under subject headings. While the relevant statutory matters (identified in section 2.0 of this report) will not necessarily be referred to directly, the discussion and recommendations have given appropriate consideration to these and any other relevant matters.

A list of the submissions which raise issues about buildings, objects, properties and places of special value together with the related further submissions is contained in appendix 1. Appendix 2 contains the summary of the decisions requested by the submissions considered in this report. Any amendments to the Plan recommended in response to submissions are identified in this section of the report and are further detailed in appendix 3.

The list of submissions contained in appendix 1 may include some submissions and further submissions which were received 'late', ie they were received after the closing date for lodging submissions (11 December 2006) or further submissions (28 May 2007). All late submissions were considered by the hearing panel at the start of the hearing process and the panel has already waived the failure to comply with the time limit for any late submissions or further submissions listed in appendix 1. This has been done in accordance with sections 37 and 37A of the RMA.

4.2 Submissions about clause 7.9.2

Submissions dealt with in this section: 498/1, 546/1

4.2.1 Decisions requested

These submissions seek for the words "recognise and protect" to be replaced with "recognise, protect and, where possible, replace" in clause 7.9.2.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The objective states:

"To systematically recognise and protect buildings, objects, properties and places of special value valued as part of the islands' heritage."

The submitters' reasoning is to enable the replacement of baches on Rangitoto Island.

The Plan recognises buildings, objects, properties and places of special value that already exist and protects them through scheduling. The Plan does not seek to provide for the replacement of existing heritage buildings, or for rebuilding buildings, such as Rangitoto baches, that used to exist. A new building is unlikely to have sufficient heritage value to make it worthy of scheduling. It is therefore considered inappropriate to include the word "replace" in this objective and it is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to clause 7.9.2

That submissions 498/1 and 546/1 be rejected.

4.3 Submissions about clause 7.9.3

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2091/8

4.3.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2091/8 seeks to amend the heading for clause 7.9.3 to read 'Criteria for ~~evaluating~~ scheduling buildings, objects, properties and places of special value.' Also to amend clause 7.9.3 by adding the following wording at the end of the second paragraph:

"The council uses a scoring system to rank buildings, objects, properties and places against the evaluation criteria. Under this scoring system, items which rank highly enough to warrant scheduling are given a category A or B status as follows:

category A – 75 points and over
category B – 50-74 points."

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.3.2.1 Title and new text

The amendment to clause 7.9.3 proposed by submission 2091/8 is supported as the clause currently refers to appendix 4 incorrectly.

The inclusion of the proposed text is not supported. Appendix 4 of the Plan sets out the criteria for scheduling heritage items including trees. The appendix does not state the method of evaluation nor explain the points system used. It is considered that this information is not necessary as an experienced heritage specialist is the only person to use this evaluation method.

Therefore to include the above paragraph as requested by the submitter would cause further confusion and is meaningless without the reasoning of how points are allocated.

Therefore it is recommended that submission 2091/8 be accepted in part.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to clause 7.9.3

That submissions 2091/8 be accepted in part and the title of clause 7.9.3 be amended to state:

Criteria for ~~evaluating~~ scheduling buildings, objects, properties and places of special value.

4.4 Submissions about clause 7.9.4

Submissions dealt with in this section: 149/2, 387/1, 393/1, 394/1, 395/1, 396/1, 397/1, 398/1, 399/1, 400/1, 401/1, 402/1, 403/1, 404/1, 413/1, 414/1, 415/1, 416/1, 417/1, 544/3, 969/1, 970/1, 996/1, 997/1, 998/1, 999/1, 1000/1, 1002/1, 1003/1, 1004/1, 1005/1, 2065/1, 2589/3, 2641/36, 3582/2

4.4.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 149/2, 387/1, 393/1, 394/1, 395/1, 396/1, 397/1, 398/1, 399/1, 400/1, 401/1, 402/1, 403/1, 404/1, 413/1, 414/1, 415/1, 416/1, 417/1, 544/3, 969/1, 970/1, 996/1, 997/1, 998/1, 999/1, 1000/1, 1002/1, 1003/1, 1004/1, 1005/1, 2589/3 and 3582/2 seek for the Plan to provide for solar panels on the Rangitoto baches.

Submission 2065/1 seeks for provision of 'solar panel lighting and enlarged toilets' to take self composting types.

Submission 2641/36 seeks for clause 7.9.4.1 to be amended to state the following or similar (changes underlined):

"Any change of use otherwise permitted on the site which is unrelated to the purpose for which the item was scheduled and which does not detract from the values for which it was scheduled.

In relation to scheduled site surrounds, routine maintenance including all normal work required to use, maintain, and enjoy existing garden or landscape features or structures to make minimal modifications or additions to these features or structures (but excluding substantial new structures, buildings or excavations) , where these actions do not destroy, compromise, damage or impair the appreciation of the heritage values of the site surrounds.

In relation to scheduled interior, routine maintenance including all normal work required to use, maintain, and enjoy the existing fittings, decoration, trim, surfaces, materials or structures and to make garden or landscape features or structures and to make minimal modifications or additions to these features or structures (but excluding substantial new structures, buildings or excavations) , where these actions do not destroy, compromise, damage or impair the appreciation of the heritage values of the interior."

4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.4.2.1 Solar panels

It is assumed that the submitters seek special provision for solar panels as a permitted activity. For category A and B scheduled buildings the Plan provides for redecoration, maintenance and repair as a permitted activity. It is considered unlikely that new solar panels will fall within the permitted activity standard and will therefore be considered through clause 7.9.4.2:

"The following are discretionary activities:

1. Any alteration or modification to a category A item, where the work does not amount to substantial demolition as defined in clause 7.9.4.3.
2. The destruction, removal, addition to, alteration of, modification to, or damage to any part of a category B scheduled building, objects, property or place of special value unless otherwise provided for as a permitted activity."

The rationale for this approach is to enable works to occur 'as of right' when it is reasonably certain these will not detract from the heritage value of the building. However, as additions and alterations to a building may detract from that heritage significance the Plan requires consent as a discretionary activity and assessment is required in accordance with clause 7.9.5. It is considered that this approach is appropriate in meeting the heritage objectives and policies. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected.

In relation to composting toilets the Plan the heritage section does not address these types of issues. They are more appropriately addressed through a building consent or ARC wastewater discharge permit. However, submitter 2065 may seek to clarify this further at the hearing. It is recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.4.2.2 Clause 7.9.4.1

Submission 2641/36 seeks for text amendments to clause 7.9.4.1 to clarify the permitted activities.

The first change sought is to 7.9.4.1(2): "Any change of use otherwise permitted on the site which is unrelated to the purpose for which the item was scheduled and which does not detract from the values for which it was scheduled."

This provision permits any change of use to the site that is permitted through the relevant land unit. The provisions in the land unit determine whether activities are appropriate for the land or not. The proposed wording is considered to be subjective and would create uncertainty as to whether a consent is required or not. It is therefore considered unnecessary to add the proposed wording.

The other changes seek to include the following sentences at the end of 7.9.4.1(3) and (4) respectively:

"where these actions do not destroy, compromise, damage or impair the appreciation of the heritage values of the site surrounds.

where these actions do not destroy, compromise, damage or impair the appreciation of the heritage values of the interior."

The submitter states that further clarification is required to ensure no works are undertaken that will destroy the site surrounds and interiors. It is considered that more than minor modifications would need to occur to destroy the site surrounds and interior of buildings and thus would not be a permitted activity. The clauses as notified include the following sentences respectively:

"but excluding substantial new structures, buildings or excavations."

And

"excluding demolition or substantial new work."

It is considered that these sentences provide clarification that no substantial work is to be undertaken. It is also considered that the suggested amendments would add uncertainty to the permitted activity standards.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to clause 7.9.4

That submissions 149/2, 387/1, 393/1, 394/1, 395/1, 396/1, 397/1, 398/1, 399/1, 400/1, 401/1, 402/1, 403/1, 404/1, 413/1, 414/1, 415/1, 416/1, 417/1, 544/3, 969/1, 970/1, 996/1, 997/1, 998/1, 999/1, 1000/1, 1002/1, 1003/1, 1004/1, 1005/1, 2065/1, 2589/3, 2641/36 and 3582/2 be rejected.

4.5 Submissions about scheduling below MHWS

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3719/1

4.5.1 Decisions requested

This submission seeks for council to formally request that the ARC schedule the Rocky Bay boatsheds (below MHWS) for heritage protection.

4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

While it is acknowledged that the Rocky Bay boatsheds have some character/heritage value the Plan review process is not the mechanism for requesting the Auckland Regional Council to schedule an item. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected. This information will be passed on to the ARC if the Panel deem it necessary.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking scheduling below MHWS

That submission 3719/1 be rejected.

4.6 Submissions in support

Submissions dealt with in this section: 128/1, 493/1, 709/4, 833/1, 1055/37, 1404/1, 2556/1, 2582/1, 2586/1, 2622/1, 2637/1, 2641/35, 2641/37, 2641/38, 2641/39, 2641/40, 2658/1, 2912/5

4.6.1 Decisions requested

The following submissions are supportive of specific parts of the Plan:

Submissions 2641/35, 2641/37, 2641/38, 2641/39, 2641/40 and 2912/5 seek to retain clauses 7.9, 7.9.2, 7.9.4.2, 7.9.4.3, 7.9.4.4 and 7.9.6 respectively.
Submissions 709/4 and 1055/37 support the methodology for identifying heritage items in appendix 1b.
Submissions 1404/1, 2622/1 and 2658/1 support the category B classification of bach 2 (map ref 30-31).
Submissions 833/1 and 2637/1 support the category B classification of bach 5.
Submission 493/1 supports the category B for the swimming pool area (map ref 30-54).
Submission 128/1 supports the scheduling of bach 25.
Submission 2582/1 supports the scheduling of bach 12 in the Plan.
Submission 2556/1 supports the heritage protection of the bach community's as a whole on Rangitoto.
Submission 2586/1 supports the heritage protection of the baches on Rangitoto.

4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

These submissions support the Plan in various ways, from the methodology used for scheduling to individual items that have been scheduled. There is also support for the clauses in part 7.

It is recommended that these submissions be accepted as they support the provisions and methodology the council uses to protect heritage buildings, objects, properties and places of special value in the islands that have a cultural link with the past.

Planner's recommendations about submissions in support

That submissions 128/1, 493/1, 709/4, 833/1, 1055/37, 1404/1, 2556/1, 2582/1, 2586/1, 2622/1, 2637/1, 2641/35, 2641/37, 2641/38, 2641/39, 2641/40, 2658/1 and 2912/5 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

4.7 Submissions about consistency with ARC

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3521/147

4.7.1 Decisions requested

This submission seeks to retain appendix 1b in a manner that is consistent with the lists contained in the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal, subject to amendments sought elsewhere in this submission.

4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The council assesses items against the criteria in the Plan. If the landward component of the item scores sufficiently high to warrant scheduling then it will be included in the heritage schedule. Some of the heritage items identified in the Plan include land/items below MHWS. However, as noted in the Plan, these areas below MHWS are indicative and shown for information purposes only. In relation to scheduling items in the proposed HGI Plan that are scheduled in the Regional Plan: Coastal, Auckland City Council has different criteria and processes to the ARC and does not schedule the landward component of an item in the proposed HGI Plan because the seaward component is scheduled in the Regional Plan: Coastal. Quite simply the landward component may not have sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling in the Plan. Therefore, it is not considered appropriate for the Plan to include all buildings, objects, properties and places of special value from the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal.

In relation to the issue of consistency it is considered that the proposed HGI plan is consistent with the Regional Plan: Coastal in relation to its broad approach for heritage. Accordingly, it is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted in part.

It is recommended that ARC attend the hearing to identify any discrepancies between the coastal plan and the district plan.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking consistency with ARC

That submission 3521/147 be accepted in part with no amendments.

4.8 Submissions about scheduling baches on Rangitoto – general issues

Submissions dealt with in this section: 264/1, 387/2, 478/1, 491/1, 495/1, 501/2, 952/2, 952/3, 965/1, 969/2, 970/2, 980/1, 987/1, 988/1, 989/1, 990/1, 991/1, 1005/2, 1034/2, 1126/1, 1126/2, 2047/1, 2557/1, 2558/1, 2589/1, 2877/15, 2877/16, 3075/1, 3517/1

4.8.1 Decisions requested

These submissions in relation to Rangitoto baches raise the following general issues:

scheduling all baches
scheduling empty baches
scheduling all outhouses
scheduling all paths and roads
upgrading all baches to category A status
amendments to 'absentee' baches
retention of all remaining baches
support of the overall provisions.

4.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Scheduling all baches

Submissions 264/1, 491/1, 495/1, 952/2, 965/1, 980/1 and 3075/1 seek for all the bach sites and baches, the Islington Bay bach community to be scheduled. The Rangitoto baches were evaluated against the criteria set out in appendix 4 of the Plan to see whether they have sufficient heritage value to warrant protection in the Plan. Some of the baches were scheduled in the Plan and others may be added to the list through the submission process if individual baches have high heritage values and reach the threshold score. Other baches may not have sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling. It is therefore considered inappropriate to schedule all of the bach community as each bach is assessed individually and not all baches and structures may be worthy of protection in the Plan. Therefore it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Upgrade all baches

Submission 952/3 seeks for the council to re-assess the bach community for category A listing in appendix 1b. The Rangitoto baches were assessed against the relevant criteria and those that had sufficient heritage value were scheduled. Based on the information available none reached the threshold for a category A building. However, should information be made available that increases the score past that threshold then the relevant bach can be reassessed accordingly. At this stage it has not been recommended that any of the baches be upgraded to category A and therefore it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Scheduling all outhouses on Rangitoto

Submissions 387/2, 969/2, 970/2 and 1005/2 seek for the inclusion of the outhouses in the buildings scheduled for protection on Rangitoto. It is noted that some of the outhouses are already scheduled within the bach site surrounds. However, it is considered inappropriate to schedule all outhouses for buildings that have been scheduled as the council has not received evidence of their locations and direct associations with the baches. As noted in this report, further work may need to be undertaken to assess additional heritage items. However, until such work is undertaken it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Empty baches

Submission 501/2 seeks a list of all currently empty bach sites included and protected in the appropriate appendices of the Plan. The Plan schedules items that have sufficient heritage values to reach the threshold score for scheduling. Sites that used to contain a bach are not listed in the appendix as they do not have sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling in the Plan. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Paths and roads

Submissions 987/1, 988/1, 989/1, 990/1 and 991/1 seek for all the paths and roads on Rangitoto to be scheduled. It is considered inappropriate to place a blanket provision on all roads and paths. It is acknowledged that many paths and roads may have some historic value, however these are assessed on a case by case basis. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Submission 2877/16 seeks amendments to "absentee" baches on Rangitoto that may otherwise not be correctly listed. It is not entirely clear what the submitter is requesting and it may be useful to provide clarification at the hearing. In the absence of any clarification it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation Trust and private restorations

Submission 2877/15 seeks Trust restorations of the Rangitoto baches. It is not clear as to what 'Trust restorations' involve. However, it is noted that the Plan provides for the redecoration, maintenance and repair as a permitted activity when the works are undertaken with similar materials and appearance to when the scheduled item was established. When the restorations consist of more significant work such as the destruction, removal, additions to, alterations of, modifications to, or damage to the baches then it becomes a discretionary activity in the Plan and requires a resource consent. As it is unclear exactly what restorations means, it is recommended that this submission be rejected, however further clarification may be provided at the hearing.

Submissions 1034/2, 1126/2, 2047/1, 2557/1 and 2558/1 request that baches 71, 72, 75, 78, 79, 80, 92, 93 and 114 be faithfully rebuilt to original and care-taken by the original family descendents where possible with a historical type village being the best outcome. It is noted that of these baches only bach numbers 78 and 114 are scheduled in the Plan. As baches 78 and 114 are scheduled in the Plan, any renovations must comply with the provisions in clause 7.9. It would be a discretionary activity to rebuild a bach and therefore a resource consent would be required.

For the other baches which are not scheduled in the Plan, these have not been scheduled as they either do not exist anymore or they do not have sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling. The land on which these baches exist, or once existed on, is classified as Conservation land unit and therefore the provisions of this land unit apply. The construction of a building has a restricted discretionary activity status in this land unit and therefore a resource consent would be required. It is also noted that Rangitoto Island is scheduled as a site of ecological significance and a geological item and therefore the provisions in clauses 7.11 and 7.12 also apply. Therefore rebuilding baches would require a resource consent under the Plan and as it is conservation land there would also be DoC processes. It is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 2047/1 also seeks for the council to support the group 'Islington Bay – Reinstate our Baches' in talks with the Department of Conservation in determining the future of these sites and baches. This is a matter outside of the Plan review process and therefore it is recommended that this submission is rejected.

Submission 1126/1 seeks for bach 93 to be preserved. The submission further states that the bach was destroyed in 1981. As noted above, the Plan has scheduled some of the baches that have sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling. It does not seek to enable or require the rebuilding of baches. The relevant land unit provisions and other heritage overlays place controls on new buildings on Rangitoto and it is also noted that a lease would be required from DoC. It is therefore recommended that submission 1126/1 be rejected.

Heritage structures and the community

Submission 478/1 appears to seek inclusion of the Rangitoto Wharf, Islington Bay and Beacons End settlements in the Plan as heritage items, as well as recognition of the community as key stakeholders pursuant to the High Court decision which recognises the Rangitoto bach owners as a distinct community warranting recognition under sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA. Stakeholders are not listed in the Plan as they are consulted on a case by case basis when appropriate. Therefore it is not considered necessary to recognise the Rangitoto Island Bach Community Association as a stakeholder in the Plan.

The submission also seems to seek for the wharf, Islington Bay and Beacons End settlements to be included/recognised in the Plan as heritage items. In relation to that item and those areas as noted above buildings have been assessed on an individual basis. Those buildings that had sufficient heritage value were scheduled, and those that did not were not scheduled. However, it is acknowledged that further information may be provided that increases a building or structures heritage 'score' and therefore may result in it being scheduled. It would be useful if the submitter could bring any further information to the hearing about these items/areas and further work may be required to consider their heritage value. Therefore, in the absence of further information it is recommended that this submission be rejected, but that the submitter attends the hearing to clarify if there are any new items that they wish to be scheduled.

Retention of all baches

Submission 3517/1 supports the heritage schedule and in particular the inclusion of Bach 118, as part of the Rangitoto Bach community. As the submission supports the heritage schedule it is recommended that it is accepted.

Support and more consideration

Submission 2589/1 supports the overall provisions to protect Rangitoto Baches but would like more consideration regarding the heritage valuation in relation to Bach 8. This submission is supported to the extent to which it supports the provisions. This bach scored 53 points and consequently it is category B and is far from being classed as category A. It is therefore recommended that submission 2589/1 be accepted in part.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to general issues

That submission 2589/1 be accepted in part with no amendments to the Plan.

That submission 3517/1 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

That submissions 264/1, 387/2, 491/1, 495/1, 478/1, 501/2, 952/2, 952/3, 965/1, 969/2, 970/2, 980/1, 987/1, 988/1, 989/1, 990/1, 991/1, 1005/2, 1034/2, 1126/1, 1126/2, 2047/1, 2557/1, 2558/1, 2877/15, 2877/16 and 3075/1 be rejected.

4.9 Submissions about scheduling baches on Rangitoto – interiors

Submissions dealt with in this section: 122/2, 431/1, 432/1, 433/1, 437/1, 544/1, 557/1, 967/2, 1042/2, 1045/2, 2057/1, 2058/1, 2110/1, 2550/2, 2593/1, 2621/1, 2623/1, 2641/45, 2877/11, 2879/1, 2889/3, 2890/2, 2893/2, 2895/2, 2896/2, 2898/2, 2899/2, 2900/2

4.9.1 Decisions requested

These submissions in relation to the interiors of the Rangitoto baches seek the following:

scheduling all interiors
scheduling interiors of specific baches.

4.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Various submissions seek that the interior of all the Rangitoto baches, or that the interior of some of the Rangitoto baches are scheduled. It is inappropriate to schedule all of the interiors of the baches on Rangitoto as some are not considered worthy of protection. It is also noted that scheduling the interior of a building can obviously restrict a bach owners ability to upgrade its interior, unless it fits with the definition of routine maintenance as outlined in clause 7.9.4.1(4), or they go through a discretionary activity resource consent. While council has information about some of the Rangitoto bach interiors, some of it is dated and it is considered preferable that if interiors are to be included in the heritage schedule further information would need to be provided at the hearing and/or a site visit would be required so that heritage significance of individual bach interiors could be considered. In the absence of this work being done or further information being provided it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking interiors to be scheduled

That submissions 122/2, 431/1, 432/1, 433/1, 437/1, 544/1, 557/1, 967/2, 1042/2, 1045/2, 2057/1, 2058/1, 2110/1, 2550/2, 2593/1, 2621/1, 2623/1, 2641/45, 2877/11, 2879/1, 2889/3, 2890/2, 2893/2, 2895/2, 2896/2, 2898/2, 2899/2, 2900/2 be rejected and that the Panel recommend that the scoping work for these submissions be started in the 2008/09 financial year.

4.10 Submissions about scheduling baches and other related structures on Rangitoto Island

Submissions dealt with in this section: 114/1, 116/1, 122/1, 140/1, 143/1, 144/1, 145/1, 145/2, 149/1, 268/1, 393/2, 394/2, 395/2, 396/2, 397/2, 398/2, 399/2, 400/2, 401/2, 402/2, 403/2, 404/2, 405/1, 406/1, 407/1, 408/1, 409/1, 410/1, 411/1, 412/1, 413/2, 414/2, 415/2, 416/2, 417/2, 418/1, 419/1, 420/1, 421/1, 422/1, 423/1, 424/1, 425/1, 426/1, 427/1, 428/1, 429/1, 480/1, 481/1, 485/1, 491/2, 510/1, 522/1, 524/1, 525/1, 543/1, 544/2, 555/1, 946/1, 950/1, 952/1, 971/1, 972/1, 973/1, 974/1, 975/1, 976/1, 977/1, 978/1, 979/1, 996/2, 997/2, 998/2, 999/2, 1000/2, 1002/2, 1003/2, 1004/2, 1006/1, 1007/1, 1008/1, 1009/1, 1010/1, 1034/1, 2046/1, 2046/2, 2057/2, 2058/2, 2066/1, 2067/1, 2068/1, 2069/1, 2069/2, 2069/3, 2069/4, 2069/5, 2546/2, 2546/3, 2546/4, 2546/5, 2546/6, 2550/1, 2567/1, 2568/1, 2580/1, 2580/2, 2580/4, 2580/5, 2582/3, 2589/2, 2593/2, 2593/3, 2593/4, 2599/1, 2599/2, 2599/3, 2621/2, 2623/2, 2641/46, 2877/8, 2877/9, 2877/10, 2885/1, 2886/1, 2887/1, 2889/1, 2889/2, 2890/1, 2890/3, 2893/1, 2894/1, 2895/1, 2896/1, 2897/1, 2898/1, 2899/1, 2900/1, 3582/1, 3604/2, 3809/1, 3812/1

4.10.1 Decisions requested

These submissions in relation to the Rangitoto baches and other related structures raise the following issues:

scheduling baches
guardianship of baches
scheduling related structures such as sheds, outhouses, boat shed, solar panels
renovations
permanent built-in furniture.

4.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Scouts bach

It is noted that the council has not had the time and resources to assess this bach. It is therefore recommended that submission 2580/4 be rejected.

Bach 58

Submissions 2580/5 and 2885/1 seek for bach 58 to be scheduled in the Plan. Submission 2599/3 wants recorded in appendix 1b that bach 58 was built prior to 1930. Submission 2599/1 seeks that the outhouse/long drop associated with bach 58 to be scheduled and 2599/2 seeks for the ramp directly in front of the bach to be scheduled. This bach did not reach the threshold score when evaluated and therefore neither the building or its surrounds are worthy of protection in the Plan. It is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Bach 80

Submissions 2641/46, 2877/10 and 2887/1 seek for bach 80 to be scheduled. Submission 524/1 seeks for the kiosk previously known as Gemmells bach 80 to be scheduled. This bach did not reach the threshold score when evaluated and therefore it is not worthy of protection in the Plan. It is recommended that submissions 524/1, 2641/46, 2877/10 and 2887/1 be rejected.

Bach 16

Submission 2046/1 seeks for bach 16 (map ref 30-38) be scheduled as category B. Bach 16 is a category B item in the Plan as notified and therefore this submission is accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

Bach 19

Submissions 393/2, 394/2, 395/2, 396/2, 397/2, 398/2, 399/2, 400/2, 401/2, 402/2, 403/2 and 404/2 seek the inclusion of the outhouse/long drop for bach 19. Bach 19 is scheduled as a category B item and already includes the outhouse. Therefore it is recommended that these submissions be accepted as the Plan already schedules the outhouse.

Bach 108

Submissions 543/1 and 3812/1 seek for bach 108 to be allowed to remain under the guardianship of the Girls Brigade North Shore area and for use of the Girls Brigade and other community organisations at their discretion. This is outside of the scope of the Plan as it does not have jurisdiction regarding tenure. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Bach 8

Submission 2589/2 questions the allotted land surrounding bach 8. This submission has not sought any relief and therefore it is recommended that it be rejected.

Submission 2567/1 seeks that the following scores be amended to figures shown:

A significant/few 8

B significant/some 4

E significant/national 12

F low/national 3

G significant/local 8

L significant/national 6

M significant/moderate 12

O form 4

design 4

interior 1

In the absence of supporting evidence in the submission, it is recommended that the submitter explain their reasoning at the hearing. In the absence of further information it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Bach 96

Submission 122/1 seeks to include the shed and toilet in the schedule for bach 96. Submissions 116/1, 144/1 and 268/1 seek for the interior of the bach, the shed and the toilet to be scheduled for bach 96. In regard to the interior and the external items it is recommended that the submitter attends the hearing and provides evidence of the heritage value of these items and their association to the bach. It is anticipated that scoping work will be started in the 2008/09 financial year and that any changes to the Plan will be made after the decision version of the Plan has been released. It is therefore recommended that these submissions are rejected as the scoping work and possible scheduling will be undertaken outside of this Plan review process.

Bach 14

Submission 2069/2 seeks to increase the size of the toilet to take in the physical size of a self composting toilet. It is unclear whether the submitter is suggesting that this item is part of the heritage value of the bach, or whether a provision is sought to enable the works to continue without a further consent. At this stage it is recommended that this submission be rejected. It is noted that if the toilet is scheduled in the Plan as requested, any modifications to the toilet will require a resource consent.

Submission 2069/3 states that it has had a solar panel operating on the bach since 1999 and seeks the inclusion of this if need be. It is unclear whether the submitter is suggesting that this item is part of the heritage value of the bach, or whether a provision is sought to formally establish this use. In the interim it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 2069/4 states that bach 14 has permanent built in furniture, and the drop blinds on veranda are not listed but should be listed. The interior of bach 14 is not protected. As with the interior of other baches unless its relative importance to the heritage item is confirmed it is not supported to protect the interior. At this stage it is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 2069/5 seeks to include an outside chip heater for bach 14. It is unclear whether the submitter is suggesting that this item is part of the heritage value of the bach, or whether a provision is sought to formally establish this use. It is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Bach 60

Submissions 418/1, 419/1, 420/1, 421/1 and 422/1 seek for the original public foreshore path in front of bach 60 to be scheduled. It is considered that scheduling a small part of the foreshore path in front of this bach would be inconsistent with the approach taken in other areas and therefore it is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Bach 52

Submission 140/1 seeks for bach 52 and the associated boat shed to be included in the Plan.

Bach 52 is already scheduled as Category B in the Plan. The council does not have specific evidence of the association with a boat shed. It is recommended that submission 140/1 be accepted in part in so far as it supports the bach 52 as a scheduled item in the Plan.

Bach 114

Submission 2066/1 supports the inclusion of generator tower outer shed and a toilet block in map ref 30-49 and submissions 485/1 and 544/2 seek for the outhouse to be scheduled. It is recommended that the submitters provide further information at the hearing, but until a site visit is undertaken to consider the heritage value of these items it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Submission 2890/3 seeks for the Plan to recognise that bach 114 is being restored/ renovated by the Trust and will include upgrading the electrical system to 12v with solar panel, composting toilet, shower and gas cooker. As bach 114 is scheduled in the Plan as a category B heritage item then all activities relating to the bach must comply with the rules in the Plan, or a resource consent will be required. It is a permitted activity to undertake redecoration, repair and maintenance of the bach with similar materials and appearances to when the scheduled item was established. However, it is a discretionary activity for:

"the destruction, removal, addition to, alteration of, modification to, or damage to any part of a category B scheduled building, object, property or place of special value unless otherwise provided for as a permitted activity."

Therefore the renovations that are described in the submission may require a resource consent. The Plan recognises that buildings may be renovated or modified in the future and has provided for this as a discretionary activity in the Plan to ensure that the heritage values are maintained. It is therefore recommended that submission 2890/3 be rejected as a resource consent is most likely required for the proposed works to bach 114.

Bach 95

Submission 555/1 wishes to carry on required upkeep of bach 95, with particular mention of a track. The Plan states that the following are permitted activities:

"1. Any of the following works undertaken with similar materials and appearance (including colours) to when the scheduled item was established:

redecoration
maintenance
repair.

...

3. In relation to scheduled site surround, routine maintenance including all normal work required to use, maintain, and enjoy existing garden or landscape features or structures and to make minimal modifications or additions to these features or structures (but excluding substantial new structures, buildings and excavations.)"

Therefore, the upkeep of the Bach and the maintenance of an existing track may be a permitted activity if it complies with the provisions set out in clause 7.9.4.1, as well as other relevant rules in the Plan. However, without specific information on the activities proposed it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Bach 78

Submission 2889/2 states that bach 78 is currently under restoration and will include a 12 volt electrical system including solar panel, composting toilet, shower and gas cooker that should be included in appendix 1b. It is unclear whether the submitter is suggesting that these new items will become part of the heritage value of the bach when they are installed, or whether a provision is sought to enable the works to continue without a further consent. In the interim it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Bach 53

Submissions 149/1 and 2568/1 seek that for Bach 53 (map reference 30-36) there should be special provision for allowing solar power, protection of the interior, exterior, rock walls surrounding the property (built by prisoners), preservation/protection of the Pohutukawa entranceway (dating from the 1940s), the shell pathway, the hand made water tank, the outhouse/long drop, the boat ramp immediately in front of the bach, and protection of the native trees surrounding the bach.

In relation to provision for allowing solar power, solar panels would be considered an addition to the building and therefore would require discretionary activity consent in the Plan.

In relation to the protection of the Pohutukawa and other native trees, these trees will be protected if they are within the scheduled site surrounds for bach 53. There are also other rules in the Plan that protects the vegetation around the bach.

The remaining items requested need further research as there has been no evidence submitted by the submitter. It is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Bach 103

Submission 2893/1 states that the digitised points for map ref 30-48 are correct but should include: the bach itself, including the back door veranda to large outbuildings, toilet and retaining wall at the front. This submission is taken as one in support of the current site surrounds boundaries. It is therefore recommended that submission 2893/1 be accepted.

Further evidence required

There are numerous submissions that seek for specific baches and related structures to be scheduled in the Plan. The council does not have any record of these items, and little specific information has been provided by the submitters. It is recommended that no additional work be undertaken on Rangitoto due to a lack of time and resources available. It is also noted that there is an inherent level of protection on Rangitoto due to the Department of Conservation's management and mandate. However, if the Panel wish to undertake a review to determine the heritage value of these items, it is recommended that the Panel recommend that officers undertake this scoping work and report to the City Development Committee with recommendations. It is anticipated that this scoping work will be done in the 2008/09 financial year and therefore any changes to the Plan will be made after the decision version of the Plan has been released. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected as the scoping work and possible scheduling will be undertaken outside of this plan review process.

It is therefore recommended that the following submitters attend the hearing and provide evidence that the structures are directly related to the specific baches and therefore worthy of protection:

Submission Number(s)	Bach Number	Topic
2057/2, 2058/2, 2621/2, 2623/2	8	Outhouse
2068/1	11	Boatshed ramp and pathway to bach rear of Bach Road access to Back Road. General storage shed, ablution block and outside fish smoke, outside mosaic's garden backs retaining wall outside BBQ area.
2593/2	11	Outbuildings and foundations of the generator shed
2593/3	11	Mosaic artefacts
2593/4	11	Boat shed and boat ramp
2900/1	11	Include the road entrance, with ferry chain gate, "Launville" mosaic and food safe, other mosaics, Wallaby fish and deer, party dell, prison camp toilet, laundry, water tank, smokehouse, bach itself, garden, fences, BBQ area, garden ornaments, paths, flagpole, boatshed, ramp and changes to the foreshore for boat access.
413/2, 414/2, 415/2, 416/2, 417/2	12	Outhouse
2582/3	12	Boatshed – evidence of an historic association between boatshed and bach 11.
2069/1	14	Outhouse, toolshed - toilet - generator/battery shed. Rock walls and paths down to the bay and around the bach
2046/2	16	Boat shed and boat ramp
405/1, 406/1, 407/1, 408/1, 409/1, 410/1, 411/1, 412/1, 971/1, 972/1, 973/1, 974/1, 975/1, 976/1, 977/1, 978/1, 979/1	19	Outhouse, boat shed, boat ramp, fuel storage shed, smokehouse, generator and gear shed.
2894/1	20	Path and seat
525/1	22	Boat ramp, old smokehouse and the grotto
423/1, 424/1, 425/1, 426/1, 427/1, 946/1, 950/1	27	Outhouses, boat ramps, generator shed, boat and kayak sites.
2580/1, 2580/2	34	Outhouse and rampway
2895/1	34	Bach shed, BBQ area, toilet building, fences and gates, significant rock wall at front, old bath, boat shed with wooden launch ramp and paths.
2546/2	36	Board and battens are 12"x1½" pit sawn kauri planks – need evidence
2546/3	36	Interior is still pink and grey paint which was done in the 1920's – need evidence
2546/4	36	Important associations – need evidence
2546/5	36	Long drop and path from front door.
2546/6	36	Boat ramp
2899/1	38	Include path, walls, workshop/shed, toilet shed, bach itself, steps, concreted area and retaining walls
2877/8, 2886/1	45	Schedule bach.
2896/1	52	Laundry lean to, concrete capped stone water tank stands, 2 sheds, toilet block, the paths, a boat shed in the bay with step and wooden ramp and an outside bench supported by a tree.
2897/1	54	Location of hand tooled fence
3582/1	54	Outhouse and two sheds
2877/9	57	Schedule bach.
428/1, 429/1, 1006/1, 1007/1, 1008/1, 1009/1, 1010/1	60	Boat shed and concrete boat ramp to the west of bach 60
996/2, 997/2, 998/2, 999/2, 1000/2, 1002/2, 1003/2, 1004/2	60	Outhouse
2898/1	65	Outbuildings, wooden boat ramp or the foreshore.
1034/1	72	Original bath, bottom step of path to house, steps to boatshed site and the boatshed concrete winch block.
143/1, 480/1, 522/1, 2067/1, 2550/1, 2889/1	78	Boat skid, "Honey shed" outbuilding and site of the original long drop. Outdoor engine shed, wash basin and bench. Boat shed and ramp, bunkroom, generator and workshop, toilet block. Path and built up concrete water stand.
510/1	86	Boat ramp
481/1	86	Shed, toilet and steps at the rear of the bach
114/1	97	Exclude the public foreshore track and include the toilet, and area my grandfather levelled out to the west/left side.
145/2	100	Remnants of bach site and its steps – what is left of this bach?
145/1	101	Solar panel and outhouse
491/2, 952/1, 3604/2, 3809/1	108	Boat shed, boat ramp and outbuildings.
2890/1	114	The path, generator tower/windmill, laundry workshop/implement shed, old toilet, remains of the chicken shed, outside perimeter, path to the hall, steps, bach itself, concrete in places, old boiler/water tank

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking baches and structures to be scheduled

That submissions 114/1, 122/1, 116/1, 143/1, 144/1, 145/1, 145/2, 149/1, 268/1 405/1, 406/1, 407/1, 408/1, 409/1, 410/1, 411/1, 412/1, 413/2, 414/2, 415/2, 416/2, 417/2, 423/1, 424/1, 425/1, 426/1, 427/1, 428/1, 429/1, 480/1, 481/1, 485/1, 491/2, 510/1, 522/1, 525/1, 544/2, 946/1, 950/1, 952/1, 971/1, 972/1, 973/1, 974/1, 975/1, 976/1, 977/1, 978/1, 979/1, 996/2, 997/2, 998/2, 999/2, 1000/2, 1002/2, 1003/2, 1004/2, 1006/1, 1007/1, 1008/1, 1009/1, 1010/1, 1034/1, 2046/2, 2057/2, 2058/2, 2066/1, 2067/1, 2068/1, 2069/1, 2069/4, 2546/2, 2546/3, 2546/4, 2546/5, 2546/6, 2550/1, 2568/1, 2580/1, 2580/2, 2582/3, 2593/2, 2593/3, 2593/4, 2621/2, 2623/2, 2877/8, 2877/9, 2886/1, 2889/1, 2890/1, 2894/1, 2895/1, 2896/1, 2897/1, 2898/1, 2899/1, 2900/1, 3582/1, 3604/2 and 3809/1 be rejected and the Panel recommend that officers undertake the scoping work in the 2008/09 financial year and report to City Development Committee with recommendations.

That submissions 418/1, 419/1, 420/1, 421/1, 422/1, 524/1, 543/1, 555/1, 2069/2, 2069/3, 2069/5, 2567/1, 2589/2, 2599/1, 2599/2, 2599/3, 2641/46, 2877/10, 2580/4, 2580/5, 2887/1, 2885/1, 2889/2, 2890/3 and 3812/1 be rejected.

That submissions 393/2, 394/2, 395/2, 396/2, 397/2, 398/2, 399/2, 400/2, 401/2, 402/2, 403/2, 404/2, 2046/1, and 2893/1 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

That submission 140/1 be accepted in part with no amendments to the Plan.

4.11 Submissions about upgrading the category of heritage items

Submissions dealt with in this section: 967/1, 1042/1, 1045/1, 2877/1, 2877/2, 2877/3, 2898/3, 2899/3, 2900/3, 3599/1, 3600/1, 3601/1, 3602/1, 3602/2, 3603/1, 3604/1

4.11.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 967/1, 1042/1, 1045/1, 3599/1, 3600/1, 3601/1, 3602/1, 3603/1 and 3604/1 seek for bach 108 to be scheduled as a category A item and for the boat ramp, interior, boat shed and outbuildings to be scheduled.

Submission 3602/2 seeks for recognition of the long history the house has and its significance in being shared by thousands of girls over the years giving them the opportunity to experience life as it was.

The following submissions seek for specific baches to be upgraded to a category A status building:

Submissions 2877/3 and 2898/3 - bach 65
Submissions 2877/1 and 2900/3 - bach 11
Submissions 2877/2 and 2899/3 - bach 38.

4.11.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Bach 108

The evaluation of bach 108 did not take into account the long term association with the Girls' Brigade. If this is taken into account, it will achieve sufficient points to be scheduled as category A. It is therefore recommended that the submitters provide evidence at the hearing of the association between the Girls' Brigade and bach 108. The submission also seeks for the interior, boat ramp, boat shed and outbuildings to be scheduled. These parts of the submission are addressed above. In the interim and in the absence of any further information it is recommended that these submissions are rejected.

Bach 65

Bach 65 was originally assessed at 55 points, which determined its Category B status. Of the information supplied, it appears that the association with the 'Wallaby Lady' has not been taken into account, however it would appear that any points attributable would be well short of those required to schedule the building in Category A. It is therefore recommended that submissions 2877/3 and 2898/3 be rejected.

Bach 11 and 38

Bach 11 and 38 did not meet the threshold score for a category A items and therefore it is inappropriate to upgrade their category. It is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking category upgrade

That submissions 967/1, 1042/1, 1045/1, 2877/1, 2877/2, 2877/3, 2898/3, 2899/3, 2900/3 3599/1, 3600/1, 3601/1, 3602/1, 3602/2, 3603/1 and 3604/1 be rejected.

4.12 Submissions about the swimming pool and Rangitoto wharf

Submissions dealt with in this section: 139/1, 141/1, 388/1, 388/2, 389/1, 389/2, 390/1, 391/1, 392/1, 434/1, 435/1, 436/1, 438/1, 493/2, 495/2, 521/1, 521/2, 981/1, 982/1, 983/1, 984/1, 985/1, 986/1, 992/1, 993/1, 994/1, 995/1, 2070/1, 2111/1, 2580/3, 2599/4, 2877/5, 2877/6, 2877/7, 2877/12, 2877/13, 2877/14, 2877/17, 2877/18, 2883/1, 2884/1, 2884/2, 2884/3, 2884/4, 2888/1, 2888/2, 2891/1, 2892/1

4.12.1 Decisions requested

These submissions in relation to the swimming pool and other structures at Rangitoto Wharf raise the following issues:

scheduling the swimming pool
upgrading the swimming pool
amendments to the swimming pool
amendments to the swimming pool site surrounds to include changing sheds, toilets and concrete pads
scheduling the rock archway to the old men's toilet
amendments to the Hall
scheduling of furniture in the Hall
support for the Rangitoto Hall and tennis courts
amendments to the summit
scheduling Wilson Park, the prison camp, the causeway and the wharf.

4.12.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.12.2.1 Swimming pool & wharf

Scheduling the swimming pool

Submissions 388/1, 389/1, 521/2 and 2580/3 seek for the Rangitoto wharf swimming pool to be scheduled. This swimming pool is scheduled in the Plan as notified as map reference 30-54. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be accepted as the Plan currently schedules this item.

Upgrading the pool

Submission 2599/4 seeks for the swimming pool to be upgraded. It is unclear as to what the submitter means by upgrade. It is assumed that the submitter wishes the pool to be upgraded to a category A heritage item. This is inappropriate as the pool did not score sufficient points. It is recommended that submission 2599/4 be rejected.

Amendments to the pool

Submission 2877/13 seeks for amendments to the swimming pool. This submission does not elaborate on what amendments are sought. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Various submissions seek that numerous structures are scheduled due to their relation to the swimming pool and wharf. The council does not have any record of these items, and little specific information has been provided by the submitters. It is recommended that no additional work be undertaken on Rangitoto as there is an inherent level of protection on Rangitoto. However, if the Panel want to undertake a review to determine the heritage value of these items it is recommended that the Panel recommend that officers undertake this scoping work and report to the City Development Committee with recommendations. It is anticipated that this scoping work will be done in the 2008/09 financial year and therefore any changes to the Plan will be made after the decision version of the Plan has been released. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected as the scoping work and possible scheduling will be undertaken outside of this plan review process.

It is recommended that the following submitters attend the hearing and provide evidence that the structures are directly related to the swimming pool or that they are worthy of protection in their own right:

Submission Number	Structure	Comments
2070/1	Prison camp and 5 court tennis court Running green and old BBQ picnic area Stone arches old men's toilet Swimming pool and changing sheds and retaining sea walls and boat ramps Kiosk area and water tanks All existing tracks and paths Mountain water tank and caves C.M. Base – yankee wharf – paths and roading around old bach areas. Hall and tennis court areas, tracks to Bolder Bay and those around McKenzie Bay and quarries.	The swimming pool is currently scheduled in the Plan. (map ref 30-54) The Rangitoto Hall and tennis courts are currently scheduled in the Plan. (map ref 30-20)
495/2, 986/1, 992/1, 993/1, 994/1, 995/1	The rock archway to the previous men's toilet.
2892/1	All buildings, structures and areas associated with the Rangitoto Wharf swimming pool (including changing sheds and site of original playground).
139/1	Swimming pool, the concrete pad and adjacent changing rooms.	The swimming pool is already scheduled in the Plan.
388/2, 389/2, 390/1, 391/1, 392/1, 493/2	Changing sheds and toilets
2877/5, 2877/6, 2877/7	Wilson Park, the prison camp, and the causeway and wharf respectively.
981/1, 982/1, 983/1, 984/1, 985/1	Tennis courts at the wharf	Provide evidence of their significance.
2888/1	The public toilet structures that are further down the road in the direction of Rangitoto Wharf including the path access to them.	Provide evidence of a historical association between the Hall and the toilets.
2877/17	Controlled mine base at entrance of Islington Bay
2877/18	Pill Boxes along Motukorea Channel on the Rangitoto foreshore.
2883/1	Wilson Park and water tanks
2884/1	All objects, artefacts, structures associated with the era of the prison camp and work force.
2884/2	Summit track
2884/3	Both wharves at Islington Bay and Rangitoto built prior to WWI.
2884/4	Causeway at Islington Bay to Motutapu.
141/1	Rangitoto Wharf

4.12.2.2 Rangitoto Hall and tennis courts

Submissions 434/1, 435/1, 436/1, 438/1 and 2111/1 are accepted as they support the inclusion of Rangitoto Hall including the tennis courts in appendix 1b.

Submission 521/1 seeks to schedule the tennis courts (map ref 30-20). This submission is accepted as the Plan currently has these tennis courts scheduled in the Plan as a category A item.

Submission 2877/12 seeks amendments to the hall. As the submitter does not elaborate on what amendments are sought it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 2888/2 seeks for items currently in the Rangitoto Hall to remain and be included in the Plan, especially the piano and benches. In the past, the council has not adopted the practice of scheduling loose furniture and other moveable items because of practical difficulties. It is considered that these items should be protected outside of the Plan. It is recommended that submission 2888/2 be rejected.

4.12.2.3 Summit of Rangitoto

Submission 2877/14 seeks amendments to the summit. This submission does not state what amendments it seeks to the summit and therefore it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 2891/1 seeks to schedule all areas associated with the summit of Rangitoto in particular the area associated with the military camp. It further states that they believe the digitised points include all structures and places associated with the summits history but seeks research to ensure these areas have been scheduled, in particular the area associated with the military camp. These structures will need to be checked on the ground and this can only be undertaken through a further work stream. It is recommended that submission 2891/1 be accepted in part as it supports the scheduling of the Rangitoto summit. In relation to further research it is noted that further research is recommended but the decision on this is outside the Plan review process.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to the swimming pool

That submissions 388/1, 389/1, 434/1, 435/1, 436/1, 438/1, 521/1, 521/2, 2111/1 and 2580/3 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

That submission 2891/1 be accepted in part.

That submissions 2599/4, 2877/12, 2877/13, 2877/14 and 2888/2 be rejected.

That submissions 139/1, 141/1, 388/2, 389/2, 390/1, 391/1, 392/1, 493/2, 495/2, 981/1, 982/1, 983/1, 984/1, 985/1, 986/1, 992/1, 993/1, 994/1, 995/1, 2070/1, 2877/5, 2877/6, 2877/7, 2877/17, 2877/18, 2883/1, 2884/1, 2884/2, 2884/3, 2884/4, 2888/1 and 2892/1 be rejected and that the Panel recommend that officers start the scoping work in 2008/09 financial year and report to the City Development Committee with recommendations.

4.13 Submissions about historical village and restorations on Rangitoto

Submissions dealt with in this section: 262/1, 1036/1, 1038/1, 2557/2

4.13.1 Decisions requested

In general these submissions seek for the council to support the bach community in proposing a heritage style village to DOC.

4.13.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

These submitters are seeking that the council support them in reinstating past leases and for the outcome of existing baches once the leases expire. It is considered that this is a matter outside of the district plan and therefore it is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking a historical village

That submissions 262/1, 1036/1, 1038/1 and 2557/2 be rejected.

4.14 Submissions about reinstatement of leases

Submissions dealt with in this section: 3541/1, 3541/2, 3542/1, 3543/1

4.14.1 Decisions requested

Submission 3541/1 seeks for provision for previous bach holders on Rangitoto to replace a bach of similar plan as that which was removed by the authorities.

Submissions 3541/2, 3542/1 and 3543/1 seek support of the council for the reinstatement of the leases of previous owners of baches on Rangitoto.

4.14.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.14.2.1 Provision to replace a bach

Rangitoto Island is classified as land unit Conservation where the construction and relocation of buildings is a restricted discretionary activity. There are also a number of other heritage controls in relation to buildings, geology and ecology. Therefore, all new buildings would be required to go through a resource consent application. It is also noted that approval from DOC as landowner would also be required. Notwithstanding that, while council scheduled existing baches as heritage buildings it does not seek to encourage the construction of new replica baches. It is therefore recommend that these submissions be rejected.

4.14.2.2 Reinstatement of leases

This is outside of the scope of the Plan review process. The Plan cannot support a proposed lease. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking reinstatement of leases

That submissions 3541/1, 3541/2, 3542/1 and 3543/1 be rejected.

4.15 Submissions about names of baches in appendix 1b

Submissions dealt with in this section: 107/1, 114/2, 2546/1, 2582/2, 2593/5

4.15.1 Decisions requested

Submission 107/1 seeks for the item with map reference 30-44 to be correctly named as Te Hira Bach 101 (not Davidson).

Submission 114/2 seeks for the name to be amended to Rae/Goodwin.

Submission 2582/2 seeks for the name reference for bach 12 (map ref 30-22) to be changed from Eric Hart to John Walsh.

Submission 2546/1 seeks to amend the names for bach 36 from Jones/Parkes/Collins to Jones/Parker/Collins.

Submission 2593/5 seeks for the reference names for bach 11 to be amended to Andrew/Pardington.

4.15.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Baches 101, 12 and 11

In all sections of the Plan, the council has adopted the practice of referring to the original names of buildings, or their originators. It is considered that to change the reference to these baches would be inconsistent and confusing. It is therefore recommended that submission 107/1, 2582/2 and 2593/5 be rejected.

Bach 97

Use of the reference 'RockyNook' is inconsistent with councils approach to referring to original owner's name. It is therefore recommended that submission 114/2 is accepted in part and the name 'RockyNook' is removed.

Bach 36

This is a typographical error and therefore it is recommended that this submission be accepted.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking name changes

That submissions 107/1, 2582/2 and 2593/5 be rejected.

That submission 114/2 be accepted in part and remove 'Rocky Nook'.

That submission 2546/1 be accepted and the appendix 1b be amended accordingly to change the name of bach 36 from 'Jones/Parkes/Collins' to 'Jones/Parker/Collins'.

4.16 Submissions about proposed heritage items on the inner islands

Submissions dealt with in this section: 56/1, 154/4, 298/7, 380/7, 628/7, 634/7, 646/7, 673/7, 696/7, 709/5, 731/7, 736/7, 748/7, 828/7, 850/7, 889/7, 893/7, 925/7, 957/7, 568/7, 586/7, 802/7, 837/7, 706/7, 819/7, 844/7, 858/7, 871/7, 902/7, 928/7, 1011/7, 1055/38, 1055/45, 1123/7, 1152/7, 1204/7, 1216/7, 1228/2, 1228/3, 1228/4, 1232/7, 1234/1, 1234/2, 1234/3, 1291/7, 1375/7, 1636/7, 1637/7, 1638/7, 1639/7, 1640/7, 1641/7, 1642/7, 1643/7, 1644/7, 1645/7, 1646/7, 1647/7, 1648/7, 1649/7, 1650/7, 1651/7, 1652/7, 1653/7, 1654/7, 1655/7, 1656/7, 1657/7, 1658/7, 1659/7, 1660/7, 1662/7, 1663/7, 2056/1, 2124/7, 2131/7, 2133/7, 2278/7, 2283/7, 2463/7, 2503/8, 2503/9, 2503/10, 2549/4, 2549/3, 2641/41, 2641/42, 2641/43, 2641/44, 2641/47, 2641/48, 2641/49, 2652/1, 2652/2, 2675/7, 2679/7, 2684/7, 2691/7, 2695/7, 2706/7, 2710/7, 2780/7, 2782/7, 2791/7, 2826/7, 2830/7, 2842/7, 2561/7, 2994/7, 3009/7, 3011/7, 3025/7, 3061/50, 3080/1, 3080/2, 3513/7, 3536/7, 3561/7, 3569/7, 3573/7, 3578/1, 3589/7, 3628/7, 3786/7, 3806/7, 3814/7, 3817/7, 3836/7, 3838/6

4.16.1 Decisions requested

These submissions in relation to heritage items on the inner islands request for the following buildings and objects to be considered for scheduling:

old wrecks – the Rahiri and Patiki
old boatsheds, especially the Matiatia kayak sheds and those at Oneroa, Mawhitipana Bay and Rocky Bay
remnants of the old wharves e.g. on the Esplanade end of Wharf Road
old post offices in Oneroa, Surfdale and Ostend
community halls at Oneroa, Blackpool, Surfdale, Ostend and Palm Beach
Oneroa Fruit and Vege shop, jewellers, old butchers shops at Oneroa and Surfdale
beach shops at Little Oneroa, Rocky Bay, Palm Beach, Onetangi
Alison Homestead
Coach house
Janet Frame's cottage
Red Cross
the Red Shed
library and artworks
Kissling Homestead
old Onetangi Hotel
Te Huruhi Native School
interior of Blackpool School
appropriate houses within the proposed Omiha (Rocky Bay) conservation area. Examples include house in Pohutukawa avenue built for S. Henderson and G. Buddle; two houses in Omiha Road built by R. Beadnall; house built for F. Gregory in Omiha Road; A. O'Brien's cottage in Glenbrook
interiors of the detention cells (26-6)
various military items
Home Bay Wharf
Reid Homestead
Reid family grave site.

4.16.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.16.2.1 Submissions seeking the inclusion of additional buildings within the Plan

There are submissions that seek for many buildings and objects to be scheduled on the inner islands. Some of these buildings have been considered, for others Council may not have any record of these items, and little specific information has been provided by the submitters. If a building has been assessed no further work will be undertaken. Due to a lack of time and resources to undertake further work prior to the decision version of the Plan it is recommended that these submissions be rejected as the scoping work and possible scheduling will be undertaken outside of this plan review process. If the Panel want to undertake a review to determine the heritage value of these items, it is recommended that the Panel recommend that officers undertake this scoping work and report to the City Development Committee with recommendations. It is anticipated that this scoping work will be done in the 2008/09 financial year and therefore any changes to the Plan will be made after the decision version of the Plan has been released.

It is recommended that the following submitters attend the hearing and provide any further information and evidence of location for these buildings.

Submission Number	Item	Comment
298/7, 380/7, 628/7, 634/7, 646/7, 673/7, 696/7, 731/7, 736/7, 748/7, 828/7, 850/7, 889/7, 893/7, 925/7, 957/7, 568/7, 586/7, 802/7, 837/7, 706/7, 819/7, 844/7, 858/7, 871/7, 902/7, 928/7, 1011/7, 1055/45, 1123/7, 1152/7, 1204/7, 1216/7, 1232/7, 1291/7, 1375/7, 1636/7, 1637/7, 1638/7, 1639/7, 1640/7, 1641/7, 1642/7, 1643/7, 1644/7, 1645/7, 1646/7, 1647/7, 1648/7, 1649/7, 1650/7, 1651/7, 1652/7, 1653/7, 1654/7, 1655/7, 1656/7, 1657/7, 1658/7, 1659/7, 1660/7, 1662/7, 1663/7, 2124/7, 2131/7, 2133/7, 2278/7, 2283/7, 2463/7, 2675/7, 2679/7, 2684/7, 2691/7, 2695/7, 2706/7, 2710/7, 2780/7, 2782/7, 2791/7, 2826/7, 2830/7, 2842/7, 2561/7, 2994/7, 3009/7, 3011/7, 3025/7, 3061/50, 3513/7, 3536/7, 3561/7, 3569/7, 3573/7, 3589/7, 3628/7, 3786/7, 3806/7, 3814/7, 3817/7, 3836/7, 3838/6	Old wrecks – the Rahiri and Patiki.
	Old boatsheds, especially the Matiatia kayak sheds and those at Oneroa, Mawhitipana Bay and Rocky Bay.
	Remnants of the old wharves e.g. on the Esplanade end of Wharf Road.
	Old post offices in Oneroa, Surfdale and Ostend.	The Ostend Post Office did not reach the threshold score to be scheduled. The other post offices have not been assessed.
	Community halls at Oneroa, Blackpool, Surfdale, Ostend and Palm Beach.	The Palm Beach Hall did not reach the threshold score to be scheduled. The other halls have not been assessed.
	Oneroa Fruit and Vege shop, jewellers, old butchers shops at Oneroa and Surfdale.
	Beach shops at Little Oneroa, Rocky Bay, Palm Beach, Onetangi.	The Little Oneroa Beach Store did not reach the threshold score to be scheduled. The other shops have not been assessed.
	Alison Homestead	This homestead did not reach the threshold score to be scheduled.
	Coach house
	Janet Frame's cottage
	Red Cross (previously Ascot Picture Theatre)	This building did not reach the threshold score to be scheduled.
	The Red Shed
	Library and artworks
2641/43	Interiors of the Omiha Welfare Recreation Society Memorial Hall	Provide evidence of the nature of the interior of this building.
56/1	Cottage (map ref 25-1)	Seeks for removal as heritage item.
2549/3	Hangaura (Church Bay) urupa (map ref 3.28 in operative plan)	Seeks for urupa to be scheduled.
2549/4	Okoka Bay	Seeks for this place to be scheduled.
3578/1	Western Te Huruhi (site of Piritahi Marae)	Seeks for this place to be scheduled.
154/4	Appropriate houses within the proposed Omiha (Rocky Bay) conservation area. Examples include house in Pohutukawa avenue built for S. Henderson and G. Buddle; two houses in Omiha Road built by R. Beadnall; house built for F. Gregory in Omiha Road; A. O'Brien's cottage in Glenbrook Road; A. Gouk's cottage in Glenbrook Road.	These buildings already have a level of protection through the provisions in clause 7.10.4 – Rules for conservation areas.
2641/44	interiors of the detention cells (26-6)
2503/8	Water tower (HMNZS Tamaki) Wharf shed (HMNZS Tamaki) WWII gun emplacements Cemetery (1870-1918)
2503/9	Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp 6 inch gun battery Battery command post Battery observation post and radar room Emu observation post Engine rooms Plotting rooms Miniature range Plotting room building Underground plotting rooms Above ground wireless room Billy Goat Point searchlight station Pill boxes (17) US navy magazines Home Bay Wharf Reid Homestead Reid family grave site
2503/10	Fire command post Wireless room RDF station WAAC's guard room Engine room Fortress observation post Fire command post camp structures Searchlight emplacement 12 pounder gun emplacements Observation post Controlled mine base

4.16.2.2 Kissling homestead

Submissions 2056/1 and 2641/47 seek for the council to reconsider the decision not to schedule the former Kissling homestead. Submissions 3080/1 and 3080/2 seek for the re-evaluation of the historic value of the homestead at Woodside Bay and for it to be scheduled.

Submitter 2056/1 challenges the council's score within a wider context of concern about the assessment system. The submitter has applied his own local knowledge and expertise as a historian to the evaluation of this building and believes it should achieve 64 points and be scheduled as a category B item accordingly.

Submissions 2652/1 and 2652/2 seek for the homestead at Woodside Bay (Kissling Homestead) be re-evaluated using the council's own criteria as listed in A3 and as a result of the re-evaluation replace the homestead on the list of protected buildings. The submitter seeks for the council to use the criteria set out in the 'Evaluation criteria for central area heritage object feature or place'. The islands have their own criteria as set out in appendix 4 and so it is inappropriate to assess island heritage items against the central area criteria.

It is noted that the Kissling homestead did not reach the threshold score for scheduling. However, if the submitters can attend the hearing and provide further information about the buildings heritage value and explain why they consider the councils score needs to be modified then it can be considered as part of the process. At this stage no recommendation is made relating to submissions on the Kissling homestead, pending further information being provided at the hearing.

4.16.2.3 Old Onetangi Hotel and Te Huruhi Native School

Submission 2641/48 seeks for the old Onetangi Hotel to be scheduled. Submission 2641/49 seeks for the Te Huruhi Native School to be scheduled. Both the school and hotel were assessed against council assessment criteria and did not reach the threshold score on evaluation and therefore it is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

4.16.2.4 Blackpool School

Submission 2641/42 seeks for the interiors of the Blackpool (Surfdale) School – classroom and library buildings – to be included in appendix 1b. The council records suggest that the interiors of both the scheduled buildings are generally intact. Little change (to the interiors) appeared to have occurred when the building was inspected in 2006. It is therefore recommended that submission 2641/42 be accepted.

4.16.2.5 Rocky Bay store

Submissions 1228/4, 1228/2 and 1228/3 support the submission from the Omiha Welfare Recreation Society which seeks heritage and conservation status for the Rocky Bay store, Rocky Bay Hall and monumental flag pole respectively. These items are scheduled in the Plan and therefore it is recommended that these submissions be accepted.

Submissions 1234/1, 1234/2 and 1234/3 support the scheduling of items 15-2, 15-3, 15-4. These submissions are accepted as they support the protection of the heritage values for these items.

4.16.3 Alison woolshed

Submission 2641/41 seeks for the interiors of the woolshed and yards to be considered for inclusion with in appendix 1b. The council files reveal that, at the time of inspection, the interior of the Alison woolshed was fitted out to reflect its function as a woolshed. This is considered to be integral to its heritage significance, and an important aspect of the building that should be protected. It is therefore recommended that submission 2641/41 be accepted, and the interior is scheduled for protection.

4.16.3.1 Support

Submissions 709/5 and 1055/38 support the 12 items scheduled for Waiheke and seek their retention. It is recommended that these submissions be accepted as they support the Plan.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking to schedule items on Waiheke

That submissions 2641/48 and 2641/49 be rejected.

That submission 2641/42 be accepted and appendix 1b be amended to schedule the interiors of Blackpool School (map ref 8-2).

That submissions 709/5, 1055/38, 1228/4, 1228/2, 1228/3, 1234/1, 1234/2 and 1234/3 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

That submission 2641/41 be accepted and appendix 1b be amended to schedule the interior of Alison Woolshed (map ref 1-2).

That submissions 56/1, 154/4, 298/7, 380/7, 628/7, 634/7, 646/7, 673/7, 696/7, 731/7, 736/7, 748/7, 828/7, 850/7, 889/7, 893/7, 925/7, 957/7, 568/7, 586/7, 802/7, 837/7, 706/7, 819/7, 844/7, 858/7, 871/7, 902/7, 928/7, 1011/7, 1055/45, 1123/7, 1152/7, 1204/7, 1216/7, 1232/7, 1291/7, 1375/7, 1636/7, 1637/7, 1638/7, 1639/7, 1640/7, 1641/7, 1642/7, 1643/7, 1644/7, 1645/7, 1646/7, 1647/7, 1648/7, 1649/7, 1650/7, 1651/7, 652/7, 1653/7, 1654/7, 1655/7, 1656/7, 1657/7, 1658/7, 1659/7, 1660/7, 1662/7, 1663/7, 2124/7, 2131/7, 2133/7, 2278/7, 2283/7, 2463/7, 2503/8, 2503/9, 2503/10, 2549/3, 2549/4, 2641/43, 2641/44, 2675/7, 2679/7, 2684/7, 2691/7, 2695/7, 2706/7, 2710/7, 2780/7, 2782/7, 2791/7, 2826/7, 2830/7, 2842/7, 2561/7, 2994/7, 3009/7, 3011/7, 3025/7, 3061/50, 3513/7, 3536/7, 3561/7, 3569/7, 3573/7, 3578/1, 3589/7, 3628/7, 3786/7, 3806/7, 3814/7, 3817/7, 3836/7 and 3838/6 be rejected and that the Panel recommends that officers start the scoping work in the 2008/09 financial year and report to the City Development Committee with recommendations.

No recommendation has been made in relation to submissions 2056/1, 2641/47, 2652/1, 2652/2, 3080/1 and 3080/2.

4.17 Submissions about reasons in appendix 1b

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2097/2, 2641/50

4.17.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2097/2 seeks to amend the diagrams in appendix 1b by deleting any of the letters 'p,q,r,s' or 'P,Q,R,S' where they appear in the list of 'Reasons' under the diagram.

Submission 2641/50 seeks for appendix 1b to be amended to provide for the protection of all buildings, objects, properties and places of special value. In particular those on Ponui, Motuihe, Pakihi, Motutapu, Browns Island, Pakatoa and Karamuramu.

4.17.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Error in the diagrams

This amendment is sought because these letters appear in error. They are not listed in appendix 1b where there is a key to reasons for scheduling buildings, objects, properties and places of special value. It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted to correct this error.

Protecting all items

The Plan provides protection to all buildings, objects, properties and places of special value that have been identified in appendix 1b. The submitter is seeking for the council to identify all buildings, objects, properties and places of special value in the inner islands. Clause 7.4.4 of the Plan notes that the heritage values of some of the inner islands were not researched and assessed as part of the Plan review process. However, it is anticipated that this can be undertaken through a plan change or variation. As this work has not been undertaken it is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to appendix 1b.

That submission 2097/2 be accepted and the Plan be amended accordingly to remove the letters p,q,r,s,P,Q,R,S from the diagrams in appendix 1b.

That submission 2641/50 be rejected.

4.18 Submissions about appendix 2b

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2503/11, 2503/12, 2641/51, 3521/152, 3713/1

4.18.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2641/51 seeks for appendix 2b to be amended to provide for the protection of all buildings, objects, properties and places of special value.

Submission 3521/152 seeks for appendix 2b to be amended to note in the first paragraph the hugely incomplete nature of this schedule.

Submission 3713/1 seeks that when a variation or plan change is introduced to the Plan (see clause 7.4.4) that the Old House built by George Blackwell at 12 Medland Road, Tryphena be identified as a new heritage item and added to the list in appendix 2b.

Submissions 2503/11 and 2503/12 seek for the council to undertake the relevant assessments under the criteria contained in appendix 4, and on that basis include the following identified buildings, objects, properties and places of special value on Great Barrier and Kaikoura Island respectively, in appendix 2b and amend the maps accordingly:

DOC ref	Easting	Northing	Description of site	Location
S 8/338	2723050	6560750	SS Wairarapa graves	Onepoto
S 8/280	2728846	6562074	SS Wairarapa graves	Whangapoura
S 9/48	2725200	6548100	Sawmill site	Whangaparapara
S 9/117	2725350	6547720	Whaling station	Whangaparapara
S 9/46	2728200	6549100	Oreville Stamping Battery	Oreville
			Harataonga Homestead	Harataonga
			Harataonga Settlers Graves	Harataonga
S 8/398			Observation Post	Bradshaw Cove
S 8/402			Military bunkers and barracks	Bradshaw Cove

4.18.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.18.2.1 Incomplete nature

Submission 2641/51 further states that a comprehensive heritage study is required to identify and record new buildings, objects, properties and places of special value and provide for appropriate protection of these sites within the Plan.

The Plan provides protection to all buildings, objects, properties and places of special value that have been identified in appendix 2b. The submitter is seeking for the council to identify all buildings, objects, properties and places of special value in the outer islands. It is noted that while not all the heritage resources in the HGI have been identified considerable work has been undertaken leading up to notification of the Plan and a large number of heritage items have been surveyed, researched, assessed and in many instances scheduled in the Plan. Therefore, when comparing the operative Plan to the proposed Plan there is a significant increase in scheduled heritage items. Notwithstanding this, it is acknowledged that the council has not been able to carry out a complete survey of all of the islands. As this work has not been undertaken it is not possible to schedule all items that might have heritage value in the Plan and therefore it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 3521/152 seeks for the Plan to note that appendix 2b is incomplete. Clause 7.4.4 of the Plan outlines that the heritage assessments have not been completed for the entire HGI. It is not considered necessary to add further information in appendix 2b.

It is therefore recommended that submissions 2641/51 and 3521/152 be rejected.

4.18.2.2 Submissions identifying items proposed for scheduling

These submissions seek to schedule various items in appendix 2b. The council does not have any record of these items and therefore further research would need to be undertaken to determine the heritage value of these items. It is recommended that the Panel recommend that officers undertake this scoping work and report to the City Development Committee with recommendations. It is anticipated that this scoping work will be done in the 2008/09 financial year and therefore any changes to the Plan will be made after the decision version of the Plan has been released. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected as the scoping work and possible scheduling will be undertaken outside of this Plan review process.

It is therefore recommended that the following submitters attend the hearing and provide evidence on the location of these buildings and any information that makes these buildings worthy of scheduling.

Submission Number	Item
3713/1	Old house built by George Blackwell at 12 Medland Road, Tryphena.
2503/11	SS Wairarapa graves
	SS Wairarapa graves
	Sawmill site
	Whaling station
	Oreville Stamping Battery
	Harataonga Homestead
	Harataonga Settlers Graves
2503/12	Observation Post
	Military bunkers and barracks

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to appendix 2b

That submissions 2641/51 and 3521/152 be rejected.

That submissions 2503/11, 2503/12 and 3713/1 be rejected and the Panel recommend that officers start the scoping work in 2008/09 financial year and report to the City Development Committee with recommendations.

4.19 Submissions about appendix 4

Submissions dealt with in this section: 298/6, 380/6, 568/6, 586/6, 628/6, 634/6, 646/6, 673/6, 696/6, 706/6, 731/6, 736/6, 748/6, 802/6, 819/6, 828/6, 837/6, 844/6, 850/6, 858/6, 871/6, 889/6, 893/6, 902/6, 925/6, 928/6, 957/6, 1011/6, 1055/44, 1123/6, 1152/6, 1204/6, 1216/6, 1232/6, 1291/6, 1375/6, 1636/6, 1637/6, 1638/6, 1639/6, 1640/6, 1641/6, 1642/6, 1643/6, 1644/6, 1645/6, 1646/6, 1647/6, 1648/6, 1649/6, 1650/6, 1651/6, 1652/6, 1653/6, 1654/6, 1655/6, 1656/6, 1657/6, 1658/6, 1659/6, 1660/6, 1662/6, 1663/6, 2124/6, 2131/6, 2133/6, 2278/6, 2283/6, 2463/6, 2561/6, 2641/62, 2675/6, 2679/6, 2684/6, 2691/6, 2695/6, 2706/6, 2710/6, 2780/6, 2782/6, 2791/6, 2826/6, 2830/6, 2842/6, 2994/6, 3009/6, 3011/6, 3025/6, 3061/49, 3513/6, 3536/6, 3561/6, 3569/6, 3573/6, 3589/6, 3628/6, 3786/6, 3806/6, 3814/6, 3817/6, 3836/6, 3838/5

4.19.1 Decisions requested

These submissions seek to add a criterion that will give priority to scheduling buildings that the community wants safeguarded. Ensuring that since some of these buildings are in private ownership, that owners are fully consulted and that they have real options prior to those buildings being scheduled.

4.19.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

The submitters further state that the methodology's failure to consider the community feeling that has been expressed in campaigns to save the Matiatia kayak sheds, for example, and in relation to buildings identified in the photographic survey during the consultation phase of the review. Few of the buildings which the community identified in this process have been scheduled.

Appendix 4 sets out the criteria used to determine whether a building, object, property or place of special value is worthy of protection in the Plan. It does not give priority to identifying any particular items, nor does it set out how the council will identify heritage items for assessment.

There is a social context component to the criteria for scheduling buildings and objects. This in part addresses the importance an item may have to the local community through its historical and social context. However, this is only one part of the criteria that are considered when assessing an item for scheduling. While it is acknowledged that particular buildings may have important connections for a community, this on its own is considered insufficient basis to warrant scheduling an item. It is considered important to maintain a legally robust system for scheduling an item that is based on its relative heritage worth. Notwithstanding this, the council gives priority to assessing items identified by the community for scheduling. For example, the council is giving priority to assessing items that were identified through this submission process. However, the decision of whether to schedule an item or not will not be based on criteria such as whether the community wants it safeguarded.

Therefore it is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to appendix 4

That submissions 298/6, 380/6, 568/6, 586/6, 628/6, 634/6, 646/6, 673/6, 696/6, 706/6, 731/6, 736/6, 748/6, 802/6, 819/6, 828/6, 837/6, 844/6, 850/6, 858/6, 871/6, 889/6, 893/6, 902/6, 925/6, 928/6, 957/6, 1011/6, 1055/44, 1123/6, 1152/6, 1204/6, 1216/6, 1232/6, 1291/6, 1375/6, 1636/6, 1637/6, 1638/6, 1639/6, 1640/6, 1641/6, 1642/6, 1643/6, 1644/6, 1645/6, 1646/6, 1647/6, 1648/6, 1649/6, 1650/6, 1651/6, 1652/6, 1653/6, 1654/6, 1655/6, 1656/6, 1657/6, 1658/6, 1659/6, 1660/6, 1662/6, 1663/6, 2124/6, 2131/6, 2133/6, 2278/6, 2283/6, 2463/6, 2561/6, 2641/62, 2675/6, 2679/6, 2684/6, 2691/6, 2695/6, 2706/6, 2710/6, 2780/6, 2782/6, 2791/6, 2826/6, 2830/6, 2842/6, 2994/6, 3009/6, 3011/6, 3025/6, 3061/49, 3513/6, 3536/6, 3561/6, 3569/6, 3573/6, 3589/6, 3628/6, 3786/6, 3806/6, 3814/6, 3817/6, 3836/6 and 3838/5 be rejected.

5.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding buildings, objects, properties and places of special value of the Proposed Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 2006.

The report recommends whether submissions should be accepted or rejected and how associated further submissions should be dealt with, and how the Plan should be modified as a result. These recommendations are made prior to the hearing of submissions and therefore without the benefit of evidence which may be presented at that time. At this stage before the hearing, it is recommended that this part of the Plan be approved, with amendments (as outlined in appendix 3), for the reasons outlined in this report.

	Name and title of signatories	Signature
Author	Sarah Smith, assistant planner
Author	Richard Osborne, reporting planner
Reviewer	Nicola Short, Manager: Heritage
Reviewer	Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands
Approver	Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning

Appendix 1

List of submissions and further submissions

Appendix 2

Summary of decisions requested

Appendix 3

Recommended amendments to the Plan
Part A
Part B

Appendix 4

Specialist report

Published September 2008

Home |
Terms of use