of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Transcription

1 McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Limited Further Submitter number 2925 Topic Historic Heritage Schedules Primary Evidence - Planning IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 AND IN THE MATTER of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE FOR MATTHEW FORBES NORWELL ON BEHALF OF MCDONALDS RESTAURANTS (NZ) LIMITED (PLANNING) TOPIC HISTORIC HERITAGE SCHEDULES 28 AUGUST 2015 B J Matheson / F M Lupis Phone Fax PO Box 8 DX CX10085 Auckland

2 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. My name is Matthew Norwell and I am providing planning evidence on behalf of McDonald's Restaurants (NZ) Limited ("McDonald's"). B. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga ("Heritage NZ") has sought that the McDonalds' site at 260 Queen Street be upgraded from a Category B to a Category A site. C. McDonalds opposes this submission and seeks that the building retains its Category B scheduling. D. Auckland Council ("Council") has not produced any evidence on this matter.

3 2 1. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 1.1 My full name is Matthew Forbes Norwell and I am a director of Barker & Associates Limited, an independent, specialist planning consultancy based in Auckland. 1.2 I hold the Degree of a Bachelor of Planning from the University of Auckland and I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. I have 22 years experience covering a wide range of land use planning matters on behalf of local authorities, government departments and private entities in New Zealand. 1.3 During that time I have been involved with many aspects of resource management including preparation and lodgement of resource consent applications, submissions and presentation of evidence to local authorities in respect of proposed plans and plan changes. Code of Conduct 1.4 I confirm that I have read the Expert Witness Code of Conduct set out in the Environment Court's Practice Note I have complied with the Code of Conduct in preparing this evidence and I agree to comply with it while giving oral evidence before the Hearings Panel. Except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person, this written evidence is within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed in this evidence. 2. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 2.1 McDonald s has opposed a submission by Heritage NZ that seeks the scheduling of the building at Queen Street, Auckland Central (ID Auckland Savings Bank Building Head Office (former)') ("McDonald's building") to be amended from Category B (as notified in the Unitary Plan) to Category A. 2.2 I support McDonald's' position in respect of maintaining a Category B status for the building. In this regard, my evidence will address the following:

4 3 (a) (b) the heritage features of the building at Queen Street, Auckland Central; and the planning framework for historic heritage in Auckland. 3. HISTORIC HERITAGE FEATURES OF THE MCDONALD'S BUILDING Heritage at Queen Street 3.1 The McDonalds building at Queen Street is the former head office of the Auckland Savings Bank and was constructed in The building is three storeys in height and is constructed of brick and stone. The building was extended in the early 1900s and was occupied by ASB until The building became a McDonald's restaurant in The architectural features and historic heritage values of the building are described in the specialist heritage evidence prepared by Mr Dave Pearson. McDonald's' further submission on the Unitary Plan 3.4 Heritage NZ made a primary submission ( ) seeking that the Historic Heritage Overlay Schedule be amended, as it relates to the McDonald's' building from Category B to Category A. 3.5 McDonald s made a further submission opposing primary submission point for the following reasons: (a) (b) The building is listed as a Category B building under the Operative Central Area Plan ("Operative Plan"), and that status continues to be appropriate. Under the Operative Plan, resource consent as a restricted discretionary activity is required for demolition or any additions and alterations to the building. Such resource consent applications are required to be subject to heritage assessments and Rule requires approval from

5 4 Heritage NZ for applications where the building is listed by Heritage NZ. 3.6 As I have noted, McDonald s have engaged an independent heritage specialist, Mr Pearson, to undertake an assessment of the McDonald's building, against the evaluation criteria of the PAUP. 3.7 Mr Pearson concluded that the McDonald's building does not meet the threshold tests for a Category A place, however does meet the threshold tests for a Category B place. I have read the evidence of Mr Pearson and agree with his conclusions on this point. 3.8 In this case, the McDonald's building, is also listed by Heritage NZ (No. 4473) as a Category 1 Historic Place. The provisions of the Operative Plan coupled with the Heritage NZ listing have, to date, afforded protection of the historic heritage values of the building whilst providing for the reasonable commercial use of the building by McDonald s. 3.9 As notified, the PAUP requires non-complying activity consent for demolition and discretionary activity consent for additions and alterations to Category B buildings. 1 In this regard, the matters for assessment have broadened from the Operative Plan and it is my opinion that this additional scope for assessment, by way of at least a discretionary activity status, provides an elevated level of protection such that listing the building as a Category A is not warranted Based on the previous listing as a Category B building under the Operative Plan, some modifications have been able to take place commensurate with the listing. As a result, the heritage values have been reduced. This is expanded upon in the evidence of Mr Pearson. 1 I am aware that these statuses were subject to challenge through the Topic 031 hearings, particularly the non-complying status reduced to discretionary for total demolition. Should a discretionary activity status apply to total demolition of a Category B place, it is my opinion this still affords an appropriate assessment of effects in substantive decision making and certainly greater scope to consider effects than the Operative Central Area Plan.

6 5 4. HISTORIC HERITAGE IN AUCKLAND Regional Policy Statement 4.1 The Resource Management Act 1991 ("Act or RMA") identifies the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development as one of the suite of matters of national importance at section 6 in achieving the overall sustainable management purpose of the Act at Part As a document prepared under the RMA, the PAUP seeks to give effect to Part 2 through providing for the development and growth pressures of Auckland whilst recognising and protecting the matters identified in sections 6 to 8. Evaluation criteria of the RPS 4.3 As notified, Clause B.4.1 of the PAUP Regional Policy Statement states the importance of historic heritage in the Auckland region and sets the framework for identification, protection, use, and management. The cascading policies set out the evaluation criteria for determining whether or not a place has significant historic heritage such that it be scheduled, and the ensuing thresholds for Category A and B places, as well as historic heritage areas. 2 RPS Policy relating to adverse effects 4.4 As notified, the RPS policies go on to seek total avoidance of adverse effects to significant historic heritage places. It is my understanding that through the Topic 010 mediation and hearings, the Council has sought amendments to B.4.1 to split the policy relating to absolute avoidance of adverse effects in order to recognise the threshold difference between the primary features of Category A places and the balance of historic heritage places The primary features of a Category A place have a much lower tolerance to adverse effects, in terms of loss of historic heritage value, and consequently permitting such effects would be contrary to the 2 3 In particular, Policies 2, 3, 5 of B.4.1 (numbering as notified) take this role. Attachment C to the Primary Evidence of Deborah Rowe for Auckland Council Topic 010.

7 6 objectives of the RPS with regard to historic heritage. In some cases, Category B places can receive significant adverse effects in terms of historic heritage value without undermining the overall objectives of the PAUP and RMA with regard to protection of historic heritage. The policy amendment suggested in Ms Rowe s primary evidence for Topic 010 recognises the different levels of tolerance. 4.6 It my opinion, when reading policies B.4.1.2, B.4.1.3, and B together, where a historic heritage place can tolerate a significant level of adverse effects (in terms of loss of historic heritage value without being contrary to the RPS objectives and policies relating to historic heritage) the place should not be considered as being of exceptional overall significance to the Auckland Region or greater geographic area" 5 such that it warrants listing as Category A. District-level planning provisions relating to Historic Heritage 4.7 The evaluation criteria for historic heritage places have been elevated from the operative district and regional plans, to the regional policy statement level. 4.8 As I understand them, the district-level plan provisions in Chapters E2 and J2, coupled with the associated schedule at Appendix 9, seek to establish a framework to manage the ongoing protection of identified places having significant historic heritage value as Auckland develops and intensifies. 4.9 In particular, the PAUP promotes intensification throughout existing urban areas by providing higher intensity land use zones and utilises directive land use planning for activities within those zones. The PAUP also seeks to protect the historic heritage of Auckland by identifying and categorising those items, and applying rules to manage the development and use of those items These two outcomes are often competing and in order to achieve the sustainable management purpose of the Act, the PAUP provisions 4 5 Both in the notified version and the amended version in Attachment C to Ms Rowe s Primary Evidence for Topic 010. Policy B of the PAUP as notified. This is modified is Ms Rowe s evidence to read: places that are of outstanding significance well beyond their immediate environs.

8 7 and methods need to be effective in achieving the outcomes sought by the higher-order policy framework As notified, the district-level PAUP provisions are more restrictive than those of the Operative Plan with regard to Category B places. In particular, non-complying activity consent for full demolition and discretionary activity consent for partial demolition of a Category B place is required. The Operative Plan requires a restricted discretionary activity consent for these activities It my opinion, the PAUP method of utilising the non-complying and discretionary activity statuses 6 for works to Category B places affords Council the necessary breadth of scope to assess the adverse effects of works to Category B places The scheduling of the McDonald's building as a Category B place, coupled with the PAUP rules relating to Category B places, in my opinion, strikes an appropriate balance of development and use, with protection of historic heritage. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 The notified categorisation of the McDonald's building strikes an appropriate balance between protection of the historic heritage values of the building whilst enabling the ongoing use of this building into the future. The building is listed as a Category B building under the Operative Plan and has consequently been subject to a level of alteration over time, commensurate with those provisions. It would therefore be inappropriate to elevate the category of the building as the historic heritage values are not consistent with those that can be expected by a Category A building. 5.2 In my opinion, it is appropriate that the McDonald's building retains a Category B status. Matthew Norwell 28 August Or discretionary status for both total and substantial demolition, as mentioned earlier.