1

IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management

Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Trust Board to demolish the Block Plant building

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF CHRISTOPHER JOHN DAWSON ON BEHALF OF THE

CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TRUST BOARD

INTRODUCTION

1. My full name is Christopher John Dawson and I hold the position of Senior Planner

at Bloxam Burnett and Olliver, a firm of consulting engineers, planners and surveyors

based in Hamilton. I have held this position since 2001. Prior to that I worked as a

Senior Planner at Waikato District Council and I have 25 years of experience in this

field.

2. I hold the Qualifications of a Diploma in Parks and Recreation Management with

Distinction from Lincoln University (1988), a Bachelor of Social Science with Honours

majoring in Geography and Resources and Environmental Planning (1996), and a

Post Graduate Diploma in Resources and Environmental Planning, both from

Waikato University (1997).

3. I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute and the Resource

Management Law Association. I am also an accredited decision maker under the

2

Ministry for the Environment’s Making Good Decisions Programme and am an

Honorary Lecturer in the Environmental Planning Programme at the University of

Waikato.

4. I have been asked by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Trust Board

(Trust Board) to prepare this brief statement of evidence to summarise the key

matters of the Application relevant to my expertise.

5. This evidence is intended to supplement the information contained in the Application

and the assessment of environmental effects (AEE).

6. I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the

Environment Court Practice Note and that I agree to comply with it. I confirm that I

have considered all the material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract

from the opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of expertise.

7. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints and currently

serve as a youth leader in the Rotokauri Ward (congregation) within the Rotokauri

Stake. The Rotokauri Stake does not include any part of Temple View. I am not

involved in Church Temporal affairs which are directed from the Church’s Pacific Area

office in Takapuna, Auckland. My engagement on the Block Plant building project,

amongst other work for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Church), is

limited solely to my professional capacity as a qualified and experienced planning

practitioner. On this basis, I consider that there is no conflict of interest between my

personal religious beliefs, my voluntary role as a youth leader in the Rotokauri Ward

and my work as a planning consultant for the Church.

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

8. This evidence will address the following matters:

(a) A summary of my professional opinion on the proposal as expressed in the

AEE lodged with the Application in December 2019.

(b) Comments on submissions;

(c) Response to the Officer's Report;

3

(d) Comments on the draft conditions; and

(e) Conclusion.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9. The investigations into alternative reuse options for the Block Plant building carried

out by the Church and its consultant team have confirmed that both the apartment

and office reuse options are economically unfeasible. The modifications necessary

to the building to enable the reuse options would also result in a structure which would

be highly modified in order to provide sufficient glazing and egress to building code

standards. These modifications would require substantial portions of the external

fabric of the building to be removed sufficient that much of the authenticity and

legibility of the building would be lost.

10. Following the receipt of the s42A report, further investigations were completed into

additional alternative uses for the Block Plant building falling within the Places of

Assembly1 as defined in the Operative District Plan. A detailed investigation into a

gymnasium/mens shed combination concluded that such refurbishment would be

economically unfeasible in addition to having adverse heritage effects arising from

the resultant loss of heritage fabric. Utilising the information gained from the

gym/mens shed investigation and with expert input from the consultant team, a high

level review of four other selected Places of Assembly uses being a theatre/cinema,

display gallery/museum, public hall and education facility was completed. This review

concluded that all of these other uses would also be economically unfeasible and that

these uses are already provided by the Church in Temple View. A mini theatre,2 a

museum3 and a hall4 have already been provided in refurbished heritage ranked

buildings as part of the Temple View project.

1 Places of assembly: Means land or buildings which are used principally for the public or private assembly of persons for cultural, entertainment, recreation, leisure, education or similar purposes. They include conference centres, seminar rooms, gymnasiums, public halls, theatres and cinemas, display galleries and museums. 2 A 70 seat theatre is provided within the Mendenhall building. 3 The Matthew Cowley Pacific Church History Museum is located within the Mendenhall building and is a fully functioning museum with professional level displays, archiving and storage facilities. 4 The Kai Hall is a function hall available for Church members and members of the public for hire.

4

11. The Trust Board’s application to remove the Block Plant building will enable the

development of the area currently occupied by this building for residential housing

consistent with the overall intent of the consented development already approved

under CDP1 and CDP2. This will result in some additional residential houses in

Temple View creating additional economic benefits and vibrancy for the Temple View

community. The Temple View Design Code will ensure that the proposed houses will

maintain the special character of the Temple View community. On that basis, I

consider that the removal of the Block Plant building constitutes appropriate

development in terms of s6(f) of the RMA.

BACKGROUND 12. The Church College of New Zealand operated as a Church-run secondary school

from 1958 until its closure at the end of 2009. Since 2009, the Trust Board have been

carefully planning the future of the former school site. This planning process has

involved consultation with the community and the Hamilton City Council (“HCC”) and

resulted in the development of a Temple View masterplan in addition to engagement

with HCC over the rezoning of the Temple View site to Temple View Zone as part of

the HCC District Plan review process.

13. The intent of the masterplanning process has always been to implement the Trust

Board Envisaging project vision for Temple View. The vision of the Trust Board is to

enhance the surroundings of the Temple whilst retaining the special character of the

Temple View village. This is intended to be achieved in a manner that is economically,

environmentally, socially, and culturally sustainable by:

(a) Preserving and displaying cultural heritage, refurbishing heritage buildings

and creating view shafts to the Temple, GRB Hall, Kai Hall and Stake Centre;

(b) Increasing the residential population of Temple View to stimulate future

economic development;

(c) Shaping a connected, legible, and pedestrian friendly street network;

(d) Creating attractive and inviting open space areas including Legacy Park to

provide additional site amenity; and

(e) Developing built form and infrastructure that is sensitive to the natural

constraints of the land.

5

14. To assist it to achieve its vision and ensure that the site is developed with a

coordinated plan in mind, the Trust Board has developed a masterplan for the Temple

View project. While this has had a number of iterations over the years since 2012,

the latest masterplan is included as Figure 1 and as Attachment 1 to my evidence.

Figure 1: Temple View Masterplan October 2019

THE CONSENT PROCESS TO DATE

15. The Trust Board obtained consent in 2014 to upgrade Tuhikaramea Road including

the addition of two new roundabouts, remove a number of non-heritage ranked school

buildings, build a new chapel and create the Legacy Park, a passive ecological and

6

heritage park at the southern end of the site. Consents were then obtained in 2015

to refurbish the George R Biesinger Hall, the Kai Hall and the Mendenhall Building,

all B-ranked heritage buildings under the Operative District Plan. All of these

consents have now been implemented. The church/community phase of the Temple

View project has been completed and was officially dedicated by the Church in 2017.

16. In January 2016 the Trust Board applied for land use consent for a Comprehensive

Development Plan (CDP) to guide re-development of the mid-section of the former

Church College site, which became known as the CDP2 area. HCC granted consent

for the CDP2 area in September 2016. Integral to the CDP2 consent was a sub-

catchment Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) which authorised the

Trust Board’s proposed approach to stormwater discharges across the entire site.

This ICMP will be updated over the next 12 months as the Church proceeds with the

first stages of the residential development on site.

17. In June 2017 and July 2018 respectively, HCC approved Comprehensive

Development Plans for CDP Areas 1 and 3 respectively. The CDP1 area

encompassed the northern section of the Church College site, including the former

David O McKay building, whereas the CDP3 area encompassed the Temple and the

former Visitors Centre. As at the date of preparing this evidence, all three CDP areas

are in various stages of development.

18. Historically, approximately 14 hectares of the Church College site sat within Waipa

District but became part of Hamilton City in 2014. In February 2019, Hamilton City

Council publicly notified Plan Change 3 (PC3) to the ODP, the primary purpose of

which was to rezone the former Waipa land to ‘Temple View Zone’ in order to align

with the balance of the Church College site. At the same time, PC3 made

amendments to provisions for the Special Character Zone, including the deletion of

the provisions enabling CDPs. Decisions on PC3 were publicly notified on 11

September 2019 and there were no appeals. PC3 became operative on 12

December 2019.

19. As at the date of preparing this evidence, the construction of a showhome has

commenced at the southern end of the site and a subdivision application for Stage

1A (22 lots), located within the central part of the site, has been lodged with Council

for approval.

7

OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICATION

20. The purpose of this application is to seek to demolish the Block Plant building to

integrate the land it sits on within the latest iteration of the Trust Board’s masterplan

for Temple View. The cleared site will be repurposed for additional residential

development and associated infrastructure, including roading. Prior to demolition,

and in order to mitigate any adverse heritage effects, it is proposed to make a detailed

historical record of the Block Plant building as has been done with multiple other

former buildings within the Church College campus that have been demolished as

part of the masterplanning process.

21. The land area released by the Block Plant building will enable the construction of at

least six residential allotments, with a number of available building typologies. Those

typologies will achieve a significantly higher level of streetscape integration than

would have been achievable, if the Block Plant building were to remain in situ within

the current masterplan. As noted by Mr Graham in his evidence: “The retention of

the Block Plant does not enhance the urban amenity of the consented environment

but results in an overall reduction in its quality”5.

22. Development of the CDP2 area, including the Block Plant building site, will stimulate

economic vitality for the local community and for the construction community in

particular, and by providing housing in lieu of the now-redundant Block Plant building,

it will enable the Temple View community to better provide for its social and economic

needs, both for current and future generations.

23. Post-demolition, it is proposed to erect a memorial plinth in the vicinity of the former

Block Plant building, the purpose of which is to memorialise the form and function of

the building. The plinth will also direct people to the nearby Pacific Church History

Museum, where more detailed records of the former Church College will be kept in

storage and / or on display. It is also proposed to include some memorial elements

associated with the Block Plant building as part of a wider Church College memorial

in the rose garden area to be developed immediately north of the restored

Mendenhall Building.

5 Evidence of Michael Graham, para 32.

8

24. The Trust Board requested that the application be publicly notified by HCC, and the

application was publicly notified on Wednesday 17th June 2020. Fourteen

submissions were lodged on the application,6 with the overwhelming majority in

support of the proposal and only one submission in opposition. More detail is

provided in relation to those submissions, and my responses to them, later in my

evidence.

REASONS FOR CONSENT

25. Pursuant to Rule 19.3(i) of the Hamilton City District Plan, demolition of any B-ranked

structure or building is provided for as a Discretionary Activity.

26. As a Discretionary Activity under ss 104 and 104B of the RMA, a full assessment of

all the actual and potential environmental effects of the proposed application is

required; along with an assessment against the relevant provisions of any relevant

planning instruments, as well as any other matters relevant and reasonably

necessary to determine the application under s 104(1)(c).

27. Below, I set out my assessment of those s 104 matters, before considering the

application against Part 2 of the RMA and providing my expert opinion as to the

ultimate conclusion that ought to be reached by the Commission in the exercise of its

discretion under s 104B of the RMA.

ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Heritage Significance 28. The Block Plant Building is a B-ranked heritage building included as item H135 in the

Operative District Plan. The Operative District Plan includes, in its Heritage Inventory

Record, an assessment of the heritage values of the Block Plant Building. The

Archifact Block Plant Heritage Assessment7 provided with this application sets out a

full assessment of the heritage values of the building as found and provides a more

comprehensive and up-to-date review of those values than that found in the

Operative District Plan.

6 Thirteen submissions were received within the statutory timeframe and one submission was late. 7 Appendix D – Assessment of Environmental Effects.

9

29. The Operative District Plan only protects the exterior fabric of heritage buildings as

set out in the Heritage Section Rule 19.3 b8 and the Explanation to the Objectives

and Policies for Buildings and Structures: “In most cases, the exterior of historic

buildings and structures is more sensitive to change through unsympathetic changes

than the interior. Changes to the interior of heritage buildings are not controlled as

change is considered necessary to ensure buildings are usable.”

30. The Archifact report concludes the following in relation to the criteria for significance

found in the Operative District Plan:

a) Historic qualities – Moderate

b) Physical/Aesthetic/Architectural qualities – Low

c) Context or Group Qualities – Moderate

d) Technological Qualities – Low

e) Archaeological/Cultural Qualities – Low

f) Scientific Qualities - Nil

31. The reasons for those conclusions are set out in more detail in the evidence of Mr

Adam Wild of Archifact on behalf of the Trust Board. However, for present purposes,

I note the following taken from Block Plant Heritage Assessment contained in

Appendix D of the AEE:

a) Historic Qualities – (Moderate) The Block Plant is considered integral to the

Church’s construction programme and the building was purpose-built to

manufacture the most commonly used construction material throughout the former

Church College, in the Temple and many chapels throughout New Zealand and

the Pacific.

b) Physical/Aesthetic/Architectural Qualities – (Low) – The Block Plant building

was purpose-built with a utilitarian and functional appearance. Other buildings on

the site are considered to have more architectural value.

c) Context or Group Qualities – (Moderate) – The Block Plant building is located

on the outskirts of the remaining cluster of campus buildings and is orientated

away from the centre of the site towards the east. It is part of a group of former

8 Rule 19.3 (b) Internal alterations of buildings are a Permitted Activity.

10

buildings that were linked by history, age, appearance, style, materiality and

location. However, the heritage values of the Block Plant building are conflated

with the wider group of heritage buildings which contribute more strongly in terms

of history and appearance.

d) Technological Qualities (Low) – The Block Plant building physically and

associatively represents the concrete masonry technique favoured by the Church

at that time. However the building was purpose-built around a block making

machine imported from the USA, the block machine is no longer within the building

and the building is no longer used for block-making.

e) Archaeological/Cultural Qualities (Low) – The Block Plant building is not

registered under the Heritage NZ Pouhere Taonga Act and an archaeological

assessment completed for the broader Temple View development concluded that

the only sites of archaeological significance are located outside the former Church

College campus.

f) Scientific Qualities (Nil) – The Block Plant building is unlikely to contribute any

more scientific knowledge of the events and activities associated with Temple

View and the former Church College than what is already known.

Assessment of Alternative Uses

32. The assessment criteria in Chapter 1.3.3 of Volume 2 to the Operative District Plan

includes general assessment criteria for restricted discretionary, discretionary and

non-complying activities. Criteria E9-E17 are specific to the Temple View Character

Area. Relevant to an application for demolition of a ranked heritage building within

that Character Area, Assessment Criteria E13 requires consideration of “whether has

been clearly demonstrated that demolition of any heritage building in Schedule 8A of

Appendix 8 is necessary, considering alternatives for the refurbishment or re-use of

the building, financial cost and technical feasibility”.

33. As such, the Trust Board undertook an assessment of alternative uses for the Block

Plant building, which was included within the AEE at page 21. In summary, it

concluded that the alternative uses were not appropriate for the following reasons:

a) The building is an Earthquake Risk (40-50%NBS) with substantial costs

associated with undertaking this upgrade work.

11

b) The utilitarian form and construction method of the building make it difficult to

redevelop for a new use.

c) Adaptation for residential use would require significant improvements to both

walls and the roof to meet current building standards.

d) The form and scale of the Block Plant building would be incongruous with the

residential typologies consented for the surrounding area under CDP1 and CDP2.

e) The adaption of the Block Plant building for community use would replicate

community facilities that have already been created elsewhere on the site by the

Church such as the G R Biesinger Hall, the Kai Hall, the Stake Centre and the

Mendenhall Building.

f) The Block Plant building can no longer serve a practical and sustainable function

and is not sustainable for the Church to maintain a redundant building.

g) The location of the Block Plant building makes it difficult to integrate the building

into any group function arising from the other repurposed heritage buildings on

the site.

34. In response to a further information request from HCC dated 11 February 2020, the

Trust Board further developed conceptual architectural designs, structural drawings,

costings, and market valuations for two alternative use options, namely a commercial

office development and a residential apartment development.

35. Retail, community and industrial uses were not considered as retail uses are already

provided for in Temple View through the Temple View masterplan where a retail

precinct was consented through the CDP1 consent process.9 Community uses are

already provided through the refurbishment of a number of other B Ranked heritage

buildings in Temple View. Industrial uses are not considered to be appropriate given

the potential for amenity impacts arising from traffic, noise and other issues

associated with industrial landuse.

36. A further assessment of a gym/mens shed option as an example of a “Place of

Assembly” along with a high level review of several other alternatives was provided,

following comments from HCC’s expert heritage advisor, Ms Wendy Turvey, and the

9 HCC consent 10.2016.00009082.001.

12

report writer’s recommendations in the initial s42A report released by HCC. The

response to those comments (provided to HCC by way of further information dated

October 2020 included a further high level review of four other Places of Assembly

being a theatre/cinema, gallery/museum, public hall and education space.

37. Below, I provide a summary of the three alternative use options that were considered

in detail by the Trust Board as part of this application process, the outcome of those

assessments, and some commentary against Assessment Criteria E13, contained in

Chapter 1.3.3 in Volume 2 of the Operative District Plan.

Apartments

38. As part of the initial further information response, Walker Community Architects

prepared a plan set demonstrating how the Block Plant building could be adapted

and refurbished for use as a set of six apartments ranging in size between 91 m2 and

165 m2. Beca Consultants then provided an update of its 2009 seismic assessment

for the Block Plant Building, along with a seismic upgrade review of the apartment

plans to demonstrate the areas where parts of the structure would need to be

removed and/or replaced and strengthened. This is referred to in the evidence of Mr

Beer when he states that commercial drivers and buyer expectation is expected to

dictate that a performance of 100% NBS is achieved.10

39. CJM Consultants undertook a costing exercise on the architectural and seismic

upgrades required for the apartments, demonstrating that the proposed works would

cost $4,592,419 including GST to complete.11 Mr Doug Saunders of Telfer Young,

the Trust Board’s expert valuer, then undertook a market assessment of the proposed

residential reuse of the Block Plant Building, concluding that: “All three models [used

by Mr Saunders to assess market value] show a negative result after allowing for the

costs of development to be deducted from the “As Proposed” value. This clearly

shows that the repurposing of the former Block Plant building for any of the proposed

three options is not economically feasible”.12

10 Evidence of Aaron Beer, paragraph 19. 11 Section 92 Response, Costs Estimate, CJM Consultants. 12 Evidence of Doug Saunders, paragraph 63.

13

40. The reuse assessment for the apartments option also included a Heritage Impact

Assessment by Mr Adam Wild of Archifact, assessing the impact of the necessary

works required to achieve the desired percentage of NBS, as well as to make the

design Building Code-compliant and attractive for potential residential tenants (as

provided by Walkers and Beca), on the external fabric of the Block Plant Building and

its heritage value.

41. In the opinion of Mr Wild: “The extent of invasive strengthening and associated

demolition of existing floor slabs and walls clearly shows that quantitively a significant

percentage of these elements would require demolition where required to meet the

designed adaptation reconstruction. This action would directly affect the authenticity

of the building fabric of the heritage building and correspondingly impact on the

historic heritage values for which the Block Plant was recognised in the ODP. These

modifications introduce a significant level of alteration to the east elevation13 with a

high degree of modification of the original and existing building fabric in order to

provide sufficient glazing to allow natural light into each apartment. This is also

evident to the western and northern elevations, while the southern elevation remains

relatively intact.”14

42. In reliance on the evidence of Mr Gillard-Allen, Mr Beer, Mr Peel, Mr Saunders and

Mr Wild, I consider that the alternative residential reuse option would have a

significant adverse effect on the remaining heritage fabric of the Block Plant Building

given the amount of glazing required to provide sufficient natural light into the interior

and the resultant removal of large portions of the external walls. This option would

also be economically unfeasible.15

Offices

43. In addition, as part of the initial further information response, Walker Architects

prepared a plan set demonstrating how the Block Plant building could be adapted

and refurbished for use as a set of 3 offices between 210 m2 and 382 m2 in size. Mr

Beer then reviewed the Walker plans and prepared a similar structural upgrading

concept (in addition to his earlier seismic upgrade review), in order to comply with a

13 Walker Architects Option 2 – Apartments, Elevations Drawing A06. 14 Evidence of Adam Wild, para 44 & 45. 15 Evidence of Doug Saunders, paragraph 63.

14

lower threshold of 67% NBS that would be required (at the very minimum) by the

market. He notes in his evidence that the office option heavily impacts on the building

fabric due to the extent of exterior walls that need to be removed to form the large

window openings required to provide sufficient natural light16.

44. CJM Consultants then undertook a similar costing exercise, utilising both the Walker

Architects plans and the Beca seismic and structural upgrading concepts, which

totalled $3,779,803 including GST17. As I have noted above in paragraph 39 of my

evidence, Mr Saunders concludes that repurposing of the Block Plant building as

offices is not economically feasible.

45. Mr Wild undertook a similar Heritage Impact Assessment as for the residential option

above, concluding in respect of the commercial office development option that “The

extent of invasive strengthening and associated demolition of existing floor slabs and

walls clearly shows that quantitively a significant proportion of these elements would

require demolition where required to meet the designed adaptation reconstruction.

This action would directly affect the authenticity of the building fabric of the heritage

building and the legibility of its heritage building typology, and correspondingly impact

the historic heritage values for which the Block Plant was recognised in the ODP.”18

46. In my opinion and relying on the evidence of Mr Gillard-Allen, Mr Beer, Mr Peel, Mr

Saunders and Mr Wild, I consider that the option of refurbishing the Block Plant

building into an office complex is economically unfeasible. As such, it is unlikely that

the Block Plant building would ever be repurposed for such an option and would

instead sit unused and unrepaired. The works necessary to make the option

structurally safe and attractive to potential owners / tenants would also adversely

impact the external heritage fabric and therefore the heritage values of the building

to a greater extent than the residential option, given the significant amount of exterior

glazing required to provide sufficient natural light to the interior.

16 Evidence of Aaron Beer, para 21. 17 Report of CJM Consultants, Attachment 4, pg 10, Further information response dated 18 May 2020. 18 Evidence of Adam Wild, para 49.

15

Gymnasium / Mens’ Shed

47. Finally, as indicated above and in response to comments made for the first time by

HCC in the initial s42A report, the Church investigated a combination gymnasium /

mens shed option as an example of a “Place of Assembly” from the Operative District

Plan, to determine whether such a use would be economically and technically

feasible. That option was developed in consultation with officers from HCC, in order

to develop a representative example of a Place of Assembly that might be able to

generate some form of return on investment, towards the highest and best use that

could be achieved under that definition in the Operative District Plan in this location.

The size of the Block Plant building meant that it was too large for either the gym or

the mens’ shed on its own, and therefore a combination was explored utilising the

southern two-thirds of the building for the gym with the northern third adapted for the

mens’ shed.

48. Utilising direct experience from other similar projects and input from other members

of the consultant team, Walkers prepared a set of drawings including two potential

options that depicted the gym / mens shed combination. Option 2 (which was seen

to be the most attractive option to the market) contained a significant amount more

glazing than Option 1, to achieve the sort of ambient environment that would be

expected in a modern gym. As Walkers noted in their design commentary provided

with the further information: “Both options have taken great care to preserve as much

heritage fabric as possible. The only difference between them is the façade

treatment. Option 1 has been designed to an adequate standard to meet code

requirements. For a longer term sustainable tenancy that has a pleasant internal

environment, the modifications in Option 2 with all of the attendant cost and further

impact on the heritage fabric would be required.”19

49. In the interests of minimising cost and adverse effects on the external heritage fabric,

and in order to provide a realistic comparison, Option 1 (with the least amount of

glazing) was selected for further assessment. Mr Beer confirmed that this option

would require upgrading to at least 67% NBS and provided a set of seismic

strengthening and structural upgrade plans. CJM Consultants then provided a

costing for the combination which came to $4,188,888.79 including GST.

19 Block Plant building design commentary, Walker Community Architects, Attachment 1, Letter to Council re Places of Assembly dated 9 October 2020.

16

50. Mr Saunders undertook an economic feasibility analysis of Option 1 and concluded

that the gym/mens shed was also economically unfeasible20. Taking all of this

information into account, Mr Wild reaches a similar conclusion when he states that:

“The inherent qualities of the Block Plant building lend itself to smaller and less flexible

space unless significant intervention is undertaken. Provision of additional windows

results in loss of original fabric on the western elevation, while the amount of glazing to

the proposed ‘men’s shed area seems almost under-developed as work in this area will

necessarily require a high degree of daylighting and task lighting to the point that even

more intervention to the elevations and / or roof might be anticipated”.21

51. In my opinion, neither the apartment, office nor the gymnasium/mens’ shed reuse

options would be economically feasible. All options have been assessed to involve

capital costings that would far outstrip the likely value to be derived from them. In

addition, all three options would also require the removal of heritage fabric and a

subsequent further loss of legibility of the original Block Plant building typology, in

addition to the changes over time to the building fabric (as set out in the initial Block

Plan Heritage Assessment undertaken by Mr Wild) that have already diminished that

legibility.22 Finally, none of the three options would fit with the surrounding residential

environment that has been consented under CDP1 and CDP2 and are in the process

of being implemented, and can therefore be assumed to form part of the existing

environment against which this application must be assessed.

52. The high level review of four other reuse options23 referred to above under the

definition of Places of Assembly in the Operative District Plan concluded that all four

would likely be more economically unfeasible than any of the other options that had

been investigated in detail, in addition to creating adverse effects on the surrounding

residential amenity (especially in relation to the theatre/cinema option, which would

place a night time activity with all its attendant noise and traffic impacts within a

consented residential neighbourhood).

20 Evidence of Doug Saunders, paragraph 63. 21 Evidence of Adam Wild, para 52 & 53. 22 Evidence of Adam Wild, para 49. 23 Namely: theatre/cinema, display gallery/museum, public hall, and education.

17

53. The other options would also risk diluting the clear, simple masterplanned approach

to connect a number of already existing Places of Assembly (eg the Kai Hall, the

Mendenhall building, the Stake Centre and the GRB Hall) which provide similar

services within the Temple View project together through carparking, appropriate

landscaping and clear view shafts south to the Temple.

54. Finally, and as noted by Mr Wild, all of the adaptive reuse options explored above

would require significant intervention and loss of original heritage fabric and therefore

legibility of the original Block Plant building typology24. On that basis, I do not

consider that any of the adaptive reuse options should be preferred over removal of

the building.

STATUTORY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards 55. Two national direction instruments are relevant to the consideration of this application

under s 104(1)(b)(i) and (iii). They are the National Policy Statement on Urban

Development 2020 (NPS-UD) and, to a lesser extent, the National Environmental

Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminates in Soil to Protect Human Health

(NES).

NPS-UD

56. The NPS-UD was released by the Government in July 2020 and came into force on

20 August 2020. The NPS-UD applies to all tier 1, 2 and 3 local authorities. HCC is

a Tier 1 Local Authority. The NPS-UD gives a strong signal of the Government’s

intent with respect to urban environments and requires that Tier 1 local authorities

give effect to the provisions of the NPS-UD as soon as practicable. However, at

present, the Operative District Plan has not been amended to give effect to the NPS-

UD, and as such, reference to the NPS-UD is also necessary under s 104(1)(b).

57. In my opinion, Objective 1 is relevant. It states that “New Zealand has well-

functioning urban environments that enable all people to provide for their social,

24 Evidence of Adam Wild, para 57.

18

economic, and cultural well-being, and for their health and safety, now and into the

future.”

58. The Church has demonstrated that there are no alternative use concepts for the Block

Plant building that are economically feasible or that would enable sufficient external

heritage fabric to remain so that the building typology would be evident to future

generations. As such retaining the Block Plant building on the site without any

proposed use or redevelopment potential would result in a gradual decline in the

buildings condition and appearance and would not enable the future residential

community on the site to fully realise their social and economic wellbeing. In addition,

the derelict building could become a health and safety issue.

59. Policy 125 further elaborates on what a well functioning urban environment comprises.

While none of the matters listed in Policy 1 are specifically relevant to this application,

in my opinion it must include ensuring that the scarce resource of residentially zoned

land is well utilised and not sterilised by a disused and derelict heritage building. In

my view this outcome would not contribute to a well-functioning urban environment

in a manner sought by Objective 1.

60. In my opinion, Objective 4 is also relevant. It states that “New Zealand’s urban

environments, including their amenity values, develop and change over time in

response to the diverse and changing needs of people, communities and future

generations.” The Temple View urban environment has changed significantly since

the closure of Church College in 2009, consistent with the provisions of the Temple

View Character Area and the three Comprehensive Development Plans (CDPs) that

have been obtained and implemented by the Church.

61. As set out above, the removal of the Block Plant building will enable approximately

six additional homes to be developed on the site and will make better use of the

scarce resource of residentially zoned land within HCC boundaries than allowing the

building to sit unused and unrepaired. Consistent with the consented environment

25 Policy 1 – Planning decisions contribute to well-functioning urban environments, which are urban environments that, as a

minimum: (a) have or enable a variety of homes that:

(i) Meet the needs in terms of type, price, and location, of different households; and (ii) Enable Maori to express their cultural traditions and norms;

(b) - (c) - (d) support, and limit as much as possible adverse impacts on, the competitive operation of land and development markets; and

19

under CDP1 and CDP2, residential housing is the most appropriate use for this part

of the Temple View site and reflects the changing needs of the Temple View

community for well-designed residential housing.

62. Removal of the Block Plant building would also recognise that the Temple View urban

environment has changed over time, with the completion of the first phase of the

Temple View Envisaging project in 2017. This first phase has added to the heritage

values of the existing refurbished buildings through the upgrading of the GRB Hall,

the Kai Hall, the First House and the Mendenhall Building. The interconnected

landscaping, viewshafts to the Temple and enhanced amenity provided by Legacy

Park have contributed to an award winning urban environment that, in the opinion of

Mr Wild, provides “substantial positive cumulative effects on heritage values within

the Temple View Project”.26

63. Policy 627 is also relevant, particularly (b) and (c) in that the removal of the Block Plant

building will enable the development of at least six additional residential dwellings on

the site and thereby make more efficient use of the residential land resource.

64. In the same manner, the residential development consented under CDP1 and CDP2

and depicted in the latest masterplan demonstrates the consented and proposed

residential layout across the remainder of the Temple View Project site. The

completion of this residential development over the next five – seven years will fulfil

part of the original Temple View Project vision to “increase the residential population

of Temple View to stimulate future economic development”.28 In my view, this would

be entirely consistent with Objective 1, 4 and 6 and Policies 1 and 6 of the NPS-UD,

and the NPS-UD generally.

26 Evidence of Adam Wild, para 36. 27 NPS-UD Policy 6: “When making planning decisions that affect urban environments, decision makers have particular regard

to the following matters: (b) the planner urban built form in those RMA planning documents may involve significant changes to an area, and those changes:

(i) may detract from amenity values appreciated by some people but improve amenity values appreciated by other people, communities, and future generations, including by providing increased and varied housing densities and types; and

(ii) are not, of themselves, an adverse effect (c) the benefits of urban development that are consistent with well-functioning urban environments (as described in Policy 1)

28 Evidence of Chris Dawson, para 13.

20

National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health

65. The National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in

Soil to Protect Human Health (NES) is also relevant. The NES is activity-based

legislation which applies to certain activities proposed to be undertaken on sites

where potentially ground contaminating activities (HAIL activities)29 have or are

suspected of occurring.

66. The Block Plant building housed a back up generator for the school site (which is still

located in the building). The building was also used for the storage of fuels and

chemicals associated with grounds maintenance activities so it is conservatively

assessed as having been subject to former HAIL activity. On that basis, the Church

is seeking, on a precautionary approach, consent as a Discretionary Activity under

the NES as part of the application. The Trust Board is willing to accept appropriate

conditions to require either a Preliminary or Detailed Site Investigation after the

removal of the Block Plant building at the appropriate time. On that basis, it is my

opinion that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the NES.

Waikato Regional Policy Statement 67. The Waikato Regional Policy Statement (WRPS) was made operative on 28 April

2016 and supersedes the previously operative Regional Policy Statement. As it was

made operative before the Operative District Plan, and similar to the NPS-UD above,

reference to the WRPS is also appropriate under s 104(1)(b). The key issue within

the WRPS relating to this proposal is the management of the form and shape of the

built environment, as follows:

Issue 1.4 Managing the built environment Development of the built environment including infrastructure has the potential to positively or negatively impact on our ability to sustainably manage natural and physical resources and provide for our wellbeing.

68. The WRPS includes objectives and policies relating to historic and cultural heritage

as follows:

Objective 3.18 Sites, structures, landscapes, areas or places of historic and cultural

heritage are protected, maintained or enhanced in order to retain the 29 MfE’s ‘Hazardous Activities and Industries List’.

21

identity and integrity of the Waikato region’s and New Zealand’s history and culture.

Policy 10.1 Managing historic and cultural heritage Provide for the collaborative, consistent and integrated management

of historic and cultural heritage resources. Improve understanding, information sharing and cooperative planning to manage or protect heritage resources across the region.

Policy 10.3 Effects of development on historic and cultural heritage Manage subdivision, use and development to give recognition to

historic and cultural heritage and to integrate it with development where appropriate.

69. The proposal includes the removal of the Block Plant building which is a B-ranked

Heritage building in the Operative District Plan. The building has been investigated

in terms of its current state and the challenges and costs of remediation and reuse,

as set out in paragraphs 32 to 54 above. The studies have concluded that for all of

the options considered, the remediation and reuse of the building would be cost-

prohibitive and the seismic upgrade and reuse works would compromise the

remaining heritage value within the external fabric of the building. In addition, any

reuse of the building is not possible to achieve in a manner that would integrate it into

the surrounding residential development.

70. In my opinion, the proposal will conflict (to a degree) with Objective 3.18 in that the

Block Plant building as a “structure of historic…heritage” will not be maintained.

However, it will align with Policies 10.1 and 10.3 of the WRPS in that the historic

heritage value which attaches to the site, including many aspects of the life and

memories of the Block Plant building, are and will continue to be recognised and

appropriately recorded through the ongoing operation of the Matthew Cowley Pacific

Church History Museum and the Church’s wider commitment to preserving the history

of its endeavours at Temple View and around the world30.

71. Further, and as noted in the proposed conditions, the proposed plinth31 will also assist

in recognising the location of the Block Plant building on the site and act as a

reference point for future visitors to Temple View. The development of an information

interpretation sign in the proposed Rose Garden immediately north of the Church

30 Evidence of Barry Garlick, paragraphs 20 to 23. 31 Draft condition 2.

22

History Museum32 will also provide future visitors to Temple View with an overview of

the former Church College site and its built heritage. The preparation of a detailed

photographic record of the interior and exterior of the building33 will provide an

appropriate addition to the existing Walkers Heritage Record prepared at the closing

of the school in November 2009.

72. In many ways, and as identified by Mr Wild, the best recognition of the heritage value

of the Block Plant building are the other buildings themselves that were constructed

using blocks generated from the plant within the building. All of that, along with the

Trust Board’s commitment to telling the story of Temple View (including its role in

blockmaking which influenced development both here and throughout the Pacific)34,

is consistent with the encouragement to “improve understanding and information

sharing” and to give due “recognition to historic…heritage” under Policies 10.1 and

10.3.

73. On that basis I consider that while the proposal may conflict to a degree with Objective

3.18 of the WRPS, on a fair appraisal of the objectives and policies as a whole, the

proposal is consistent with the WRPS.

Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010

74. The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 was

enacted in May 2010 with the purpose of implementing co-management of the

Waikato River. Through this piece of legislation, it is intended to implement the

‘Vision and Strategy’ for the River / Te Ture Whaimana. The vision and strategy forms

part of the ODP and the WRPS and is given effect through the plans administered by

regional and territorial authorities along the River.

75. The proposed removal of the Block Plant building will implement best practice erosion

and sediment control measures to ensure that it does not result in any inappropriate

adverse impacts on the tributary streams of the Waikato River.35 As a result, the

development is not expected to give rise to any significant adverse effects upon the

32 Draft condition 3. 33 Draft condition 5. 34 Evidence of Barry Garlick, para 11. 35 The Temple View catchment drains to the Koromatua Stream and then into the Waipa River which connects to the Waikato

River at Ngaruawahia.

23

health and well-being of the Waikato River. Any long-term effects from stormwater

discharge will be controlled through the objectives and methodology set out in the

sub-catchment ICMP for Temple View, which is not proposed to be amended through

this consent having already been consented during the CDP process. It is my opinion

that the proposal is consistent with the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River / Te

Ture Whaimana.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE ODP 76. The Operative District Plan contains a suite of objectives and policies relevant to the

consideration of the proposed removal of a B-ranked heritage building. These are

contained within Chapter 19 of the ODP. Objective 19.2.1 sets out that “Significant

buildings, structures, sites and items that define the City’s historic heritage are

identified and protected”. Policies 19.2.1a to 19.2.1c then set out how that is to be

achieved.

77. Policy 19.2.1a seeks that “The City’s historic heritage shall be protected from the

adverse effects of subdivision, use and development.” The proposal to remove the

vacant Block Plant will be contrary to this policy in that the building would not be

retained on site, however in my view the proposal would be generally consistent with

Policy 19.2.1b36 and 19.2.2b37.

78. Policy 19.2.1b states: “Ensuring that where features have been destroyed or

damaged, the historical heritage values of these sites are recorded and recognised

to ensure the historical legibility of Hamilton City.” In my opinion, the proposal would

be consistent with this Policy in that the Church has offered up a set of conditions

ensuring that the historical heritage values of the Block Plant building will be

recorded, retained and available for anyone to reference at the nearby Matthew

Cowley Pacific Church History Museum. These conditions include the provision of a

detailed photographic record of the interior and exterior, a commemorative plinth on

the residential street and an information interpretive sign placed in the proposed Rose

Garden area north of the Church History Museum.

.

24

79. Policy 19.2.2b states that: “The loss of heritage values associated with scheduled

items shall be avoided.” While the physical fabric of the Block Plant building would

be removed, the Matthew Cowley Pacific Church History Museum located just 100

metres from the Block Plant building already has an extensive archival quality

heritage museum. As Elder Garlick says in his evidence,38 this museum contains

photos, film clips and books which contain a record of the construction and operation

of the Block Plant building. This means that the available records of the activities and

people associated with those activities that took place in the Block Plant building are

already preserved and available for any member of the public to access, protecting

the heritage value identified by Mr Wild and the associative values between the

blockmaking activity on the site and its influence on the wider development of the

Temple View area (and elsewhere in New Zealand and the Pacific).

80. In my opinion, and in the opinion of Mr Wild, the Trust Board has already acted to

protect those items of historic heritage which are of real significance to (and help to

define) the City. The refurbishment of the other heritage buildings within Temple View

is more of a living testament to the value of the blocks produced in the Block Plant

building than the heritage value of the external fabric of the building itself, which as

noted in the evidence of Mr Wild, has already been substantially altered from its

original form. The Mendenhall Building, the First House, the Kai Hall and the GRB

Hall have all been comprehensively refurbished and are in regular use today. The

majority of these buildings have also received awards at the 2018 Waikato

Architecture Awards, Heritage Section, demonstrating the regard that has been had

for the Trust Board’s efforts to preserve and protect the City’s historic heritage.

81. The refurbished heritage buildings along with the ponds, planting, walkways and

landscaping that surround them, reflect the completion of the first stage of the

Envisaging Project commenced by the Church in 2009 and dedicated for public use

in 2017. As Mr Wild opines, the improved amenity afforded to the retained heritage

buildings provides a “substantial positive cumulative effect on heritage values within

the Temple View precinct”.39 In my opinion, loss of heritage values associated with

the Block Plant building will largely be avoided, even if it is demolished.

38 Evidence of Barry Garlick, para 16 & 17. 39 Evidence of Adam Wild, para 36

25

82. I do not consider that Policy 19.2.1c40 is relevant to the consideration of this

application. The ICOMOS charter does not define demolition as it is not recognised

as a conservation principle.

83. Policy 19.2.3a states that: “Demolition or relocation of buildings and structures ranked

A in Schedule 8A shall be avoided.” While Policy 19.2.3a is clear that the demolition

or relocation of A-ranked buildings or structures is to be avoided, the language of

Policy 19.2.3b is less direct when it states: “Demolition or relocation of buildings and

structures ranked B in Schedule 8A should be discouraged.”

84. In my view this reflects the fact that in some situations, relocation or demolition may

be the only option for a B-ranked heritage building, especially when other reasonably

feasible options have been explored. The Block Plant building is a B-ranked heritage

building and in my view the Trust Board has carefully explored whether there are both

technically and economically feasible options for the building’s reuse, concluding that

there is no such use.

85. Policy 19.2.3c states that: “Subdivision and development shall retain, protect and

enhance the heritage values of any building or structure listed within Schedule 8A”.

The proposal will not align with Policy 19.2.3c in that the building will be removed,

and with it (to some degree) will go the heritage values it holds. However as I have

set out above in my evidence41, the heritage values will be retained to a large degree

in the refurbished buildings preserved elsewhere on the site along with the photos,

film and other historical information stored in the Matthew Cowley Pacific Church

History Museum.

86. Policy 19.2.3d states that: “Subdivision and development shall avoid any cumulative

adverse effects on any building or structure listed in Schedule 8A”. In my view the

proposal will be consistent with Policy 19.2.3d42, as removal of the Block Plant

building will not cause any potential cumulative adverse effects on any other heritage

ranked building on the Temple View site. Mr Wild concludes in his evidence that the

application to remove the Block Plant building will not give rise to cumulative adverse

effects on the wider heritage values associated with Temple View, especially in light

40 Policy 19.2.1 c – Subdivision and development shall adhere to the conservation principles of International Council on

Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) being the New Zealand Charter (2010) for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value where applicable.

41 Paragraphs 78 to 80. 42 Policy 19.2.3d Subdivision and development shall avoid any cumulative adverse effects on any building or structure listed in Schedule 8A.

26

of the positive cumulative effects of the other restoration work that has taken place to

date on the most significant elements of heritage value within the Temple View area43.

87. Policy 19.2.3e,19.2.3f, 19.2.3g, 19.2.3h and 19.2.3i all relate to the use of heritage

buildings for particular activities and ensuring that in doing so the building’s heritage

values are retained. These policies are not relevant to the consideration of this

application as the proposal is to remove the building.

88. The other relevant Objectives and Policies are those for all Residential Zones as set

out in Chapter 4 of the Operative District Plan. The introduction to the Zone statement

provides useful guidance when it states that: “All Residential Zones are intended

primarily for residential purposes and other activities need to maintain residential

character and amenity. In addition to residential activities, some small-scale non-

residential activities, such as home based businesses and home stays, are

appropriate in residential areas. A limited range of non-residential activities that

support communities such as schools and health centres, can potentially establish

within zones. However, this is subject to their compatibility with the existing and

anticipated residential character and amenity”.44

89. Objective 4.2.3 requires that “Residential development produces good on-site

amenity.” In my view, the removal of the Block Plant building will enable better on-

site amenity for the residential development that is enabled by freeing up this area of

the site. As Mr Graham states: “When considered against the factors used to identify

attributes of the urban fabric which help to identify urban amenity values, the retention

of the Block Plant building is found to reduce the overall urban amenity of the site.

While the Block Plant building provided some contribution to urban amenity through

greater spatial variety, the lack of a functional role and site accessibility minimises

this potential in the future. In respect to other urban design attributes the retention of

the Block Plant building only serves to reduce the urban quality of the receiving

environment and is likely to result in proximity based degradation of the amenity for

the surrounding residential development due its lack of integration and the alterations

of lots and road network required to accommodate it.”45

43 Evidence of Adam Wild, para 36. 44 ODP, Explanation for All Residential Zones, 4.1.5 c) and d). 45 Evidence of Michael Graham, para 30.

27

90. Objective 4.2.2 goes on to require the “Efficient use of land and infrastructure” with

further elaboration under Policy 4.2.2a that: “Residential development shall use land

and infrastructure efficiently by; (i) delivering target yields from housing development

in both greenfield growth areas and intensification areas…”.` The retention of the

Block Plant building in its current state would effectively sterilise a portion of the

Temple View Zone and render the resultant development less efficient and effective

in delivering residential housing at a reasonable density and with a high standard of

urban design. The evidence of Mr Graham confirms that at least six residential lots

would not be realised should the Block Plant building remain.46 In my opinion, the

removal of the Block Plant building will align with this Objective and Policy.

91. I otherwise concur with the section 42A report writer’s conclusions in respect of the

objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan, including those relating to

Special Character Zones and the Temple View Zone in particular.

Objectives and Policies conclusion

92. In my view, and while the proposal to remove the Block Plant Building is not

consistent with all of the relevant objectives and policies in the Operative District Plan,

it is consistent on a fair appraisal of the objectives and policies of the Operative

District Plan as a whole. This conclusion is reinforced by the mitigation of any

adverse heritage effects that will be achieved through the existing and proposed

commemorative activities, as set out in the draft s42A conditions and expanded

further below in my evidence, so as to ensure the values associated with the Block

Plant building are recorded, recognised and not lost as part of the historic legibility of

Hamilton City.

PART 2 Introduction 93. I understand that, following recent case law, Part 2 remains an important part of the

decision-making matrix for determining resource consent applications, due to the

requirement that consideration of the factors in s 104(1) are “subject to Part 2”.

However, the guidance from the case law is that in circumstances where planning

instruments (in this case, the Operative District Plan) have been competently

46 Graphic Appendix of Michael Graham, p 1 – Zone of Disturbance from Block Plant.

28

prepared in accordance with the statutory directions for plan-making, including the

requirements to give effect to various national and regional planning instruments, and

to prepare plans in accordance with Part 2, separate reference to Part 2 as part of

the decision-making process may not add much to the evaluative exercise. This is

particularly so where a district plan sets out a coherent set of policies intended to

achieve clear environmental outcomes.

94. In my opinion, reference to Part 2 in this case is appropriate. I say so for a number

of reasons. First, the Operative District Plan has not been amended so as to give

effect to the NPS-UD (or, arguably, the WRPS). In those circumstances, the

Operative District Plan cannot be taken to be a complete statement on the purpose

and principles of the Act (as developed through the national direction in the NPS-UD,

and through regional direction in the WRPS). Secondly, this is not a case where

there is, in my opinion, a coherent set of policies intended to achieve a clear

environmental outcome. The objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan I

have referred to above leave room for debate, especially in respect of the removal of

a B-ranked heritage building. They do not point clearly in one direction or the other.

The case would be different if, for example the Block Plant building was an A-ranked

building, in which case the directive “avoid” policies in the Operative District Plan

would arguably result in the inevitable refusal of an application. But, absent such an

assurance as in this case or when in doubt, the case law has determined that

reference to Part 2 will continue to be both appropriate and necessary.

Section 5

95. Having regard to the definition of “sustainable management’ in s5(2), the approval of

the Block Plant removal application will provide for more effective development of the

residential area of Temple View by enabling the construction of six additional houses

and will consequently better provide for the social, economic and cultural well-being

of the Temple View community, whilst ensuring at the same time that none of the

environmental bottom lines in s 5(2)(a),(b), and (c) are breached.

96. The works required to refurbish the Block Plant building for any of the investigated

options would further impact on the external building fabric and would also be

economically unfeasible. On that basis, the removal of the Block Plant Building will

be an appropriate use to facilitate the most efficient development of the residential

area. Therefore, approval of the Application is consistent with the sustainable

29

management aims of the RMA in that it will better utilise an area of land that is well

suited for residential use in a carefully planned and designed manner consistent with

the surrounding development already approved under CDP1 and CDP2.

Section 6

97. The definition of sustainable management, and the environmental bottom lines it

incorporates, are further developed through ss 6 to 8 of Part 2. Section 6 of the RMA

contains ‘matters of national importance’ that must be recognised and provided for.

The s.6 matters that are relevant to this Application are: (f) the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.”

98. The key aspect of s6 (f) is the word “appropriate”. Case law has determined that the

appropriateness of subdivision, use and development must be assessed against that

which is sought to be protected. Mr Wild has concluded that the heritage value

inherent within the external fabric of the Block Plant building is moderate in nature

and has already been substantially altered from its original state. As such, what is

sought to be protected is not significant historic heritage, and therefore there is more

scope to consider whether or not removal might be appropriate. Mr Wild’s view is

that removal, in this case, is appropriate47, especially having regard to the existing

and proposed mitigation of adverse historic heritage effects through the proposed

memorials and the detailed record to be taken and held in the Church Museum.

99. In addition, appropriateness must be assessed in the context of what the alternative

would be. This includes the potential for alternative reuse of the Block Plant building,

and if those alternatives are not feasible, the potential that it might remain unused

and unrepaired on the site within the context of a modern residential development.

As described above, the Church has provided technical evidence from a number of

subject experts to confirm that any upgrade or reuse options for the Block Plant

building would impact on the external heritage fabric of the building in a significant

way. In addition, any such works would be prohibitively expensive to undertake and

therefore economically unfeasible.

47 Evidence of Adam Wild, paragraph 58.

30

100. Therefore, notwithstanding the decision to remove the Block Plant building itself, the

Trust Board is committed to protecting, recognising and recording the heritage value

it contained in different ways. Viewed in that context, and in light of the relative

heritage value of the Block Plant building, its removal and the development of that

part of the site for residential housing is an appropriate use of the physical site

resource.

Section 7

101. Section 7 of the RMA lists the matters that a consent authority is required to have

particular regard to in achieving sustainable management. The s7 matters that are

relevant to this Application are:

(b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources: (c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values: (f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment: (g) any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources:

102. The Block Plant building is vacant and obsolete and in its present form, and if it were

required to remain (without an alternative reuse option), that would not be i an efficient

use of the building (or the land it sits on) as a natural and/or physical resource.

Redevelopment of the site for residential houses is considered to represent a more

efficient use of the land resource than simply allowing the land to sit fallow. It will also

give effect to a Church vision to meet localised community needs for more housing.48

Particular regard has therefore been had to s 7(b) in preparing this application, and

ought to be had when considering whether or not to grant it.

103. In relation to ss 7(c) and (f), CDP1 and CDP2 have been designed to ensure

compatibility with the surrounding environment, both in terms of complementary land

use activity and development scale. These areas of residential development have

been comprehensive designed, via an urban design-led approach, and therefore

build upon the levels of amenity expected and promoted through the ODP. Providing

that development progresses in accordance with the principles and overall approach

set out in these consent decisions, amenity values within the Temple View area will

be maintained and/or enhanced, and the quality of the environment (which must

include the built environment) will also be maintained and/or enhanced.

48 Refer to paragraph 13 of my evidence.

31

Section 8

104. Section 8 of the RMA requires a consent authority to take into account the principles

of the Treaty of Waitangi. There are no known records of sites of cultural significance

or archaeological sites on the Temple View site and effects will be controlled in a

manner that ensures consistency with the Vision and Strategy for Waikato River / Te

Ture Whaimana.

105. In addition, consultation with iwi has been consistent and genuine and has followed

the appropriate process and the channels set up by HCC. A strong relationship has

developed between the Temple View project team and the members of Ngaa Uri o

Maahanga. A submission in support was also received from Te Haa o Te Whenua o

Kirikiriroa and that support was based on the existing and ongoing relationship with

Ngaa Uri o Maahanga as mana whenua. As such, HCC can be confident that in

granting consent to the removal of the Block Plant building, it is taking into account

the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi pursuant to s 8 of the RMA.

Conclusion on Part 2

106. Based on the above assessment, it is my opinion that approval of the Application

would be consistent with the purpose of sustainable management in Part 2 of the

RMA.

COMMENTS ON SUBMISSIONS 107. A total of 13 submissions49 were received within the statutory submission period of

which 12 submissions were in support and which expressed a variety of views on the

reasons for that support. Amongst the views expressed were that the building had

little remaining purpose and would be difficult to repurpose given the materials and

the age of the building.

108. The submission from the NZ Labour Missionary Charitable Trust is significant in that

it was the Labour Missionaries who built and operated the Block Plant for the 15 years

it was in operation. It was then utilised as an accessory building for Church College

for more than 50 years until the close of the school in 2009. The Labour Missionaries

49 Submission 14 – Kershaw Trust Ltd was received after submissions closed.

32

would prefer to see more houses built for future generations than keeping a building

that had no purpose. Te Haa o Te Whenua o Kirikiriroa (THoWK) also provided a

submission in support provided ongoing engagement with the Church over the wider

project.

109. One submission in opposition was received from Meshwayla Macdonald, stating that

the removal of the Block Plant building would cause increased cumulative effects on

the already decimated Temple View environment and further dissolving the special

character of the Temple View community. I disagree and rely on the evidence of Mr

Wild50 for my opinion. All development carried out to date on the Temple View Project

has been done utilising a suite of carefully considered resource consents with

associated conditions. The project has been carefully designed to reflect and retain

the unique Temple View character through the upgrade of Tuhikaramea Road and its

associated streetscape and the careful refurbishment of the heritage buildings along

with attention to the design of the spaces in between.51

110. In my opinion, the development of the Temple View Project to date and as proposed

will both retain and enhance the special Temple View character as expressed in the

Operative District Plan Objectives and Policies. The relevant objectives and policies

anticipate new development and provide high level direction on what that

development may look like. However, it does not require the site to look the same as

it did when it was operating as a school. In my opinion, the development of the

Temple View project to date and as will be enabled through this application and the

removal of the Block Plant building is fully consistent with the relevant objectives and

policies of the Operative Hamilton City District Plan.

RESPONSE TO OFFICER'S REPORT 111. I have reviewed the s42A report dated 2nd September (first s42A) and the

supplementary s42A report (second s42A) received on 2nd November 2020. I

generally concur with the conclusions reached by the reporting planner in the second

s42A report. However, I provide comment on a few matters raised in the second

s42A report below.

50 Evidence of Adam Wild, para 36. 51 The Temple View Project received a Best Practice Award for Integrated Planning and Investigations from the New Zealand Planning Institute 2020.

33

112. At paragraph 42 of the second s42A, the reporting planner notes that the applicant has

canvassed a broad range of potential alternative uses for the building but not an

exhaustive list. I agree and consider that the applicant has investigated a sufficiently broad range of non-fanciful uses that could potentially be applied to the building, being offices, apartments and a gym/mens shed combination. The learnings from those

investigations were then applied to discuss and dismiss a theatre/cinema, display gallery/museum, public hall and education facility. In each case, the proposed use was

found to be economically unfeasible and to have a level of visual impact on the external fabric of the building that was considered significant by Mr Adam Wild.

113. I note a small error at paragraph 55 of the second s42A report where the reporting

planner references Policy 5.2.7a of the ODP. This should refer to Policy 5.2.7i: “The

heritage buildings in Volume 2, Appendix B, Schedule 8A: Built Heritage are used

and developed in a manner that maintains their distinctive heritage values.” I rely on

the evidence of Mr Wild for my opinion that none of the alternative uses explored by

the applicant would enable the Block Plant building to maintain its heritage values.

However, I concur with the reporting planner where she concludes at paragraph 58

that the proposal in its current form is not contrary to the Objectives and Policies of

the Special Character Zone.

114. I concur with the reporting planner when she concludes at paragraph 63 of the second

that the Heritage provisions of the Operative District Plan anticipate that some form

of Heritage loss is appropriate in exceptional circumstances. In my view, the

applicant has demonstrated that those exceptional circumstances apply in the case

of the Block Plant building removal.

115. At paragraph 78, the reporting planner notes that Council commissioned a peer

review of the Quantity Surveyor Costings prepared by CJM Consultants for the

applicant. A minor question was raised in this peer review over some of the costings

for the gym/mens shed option however the conclusion of the peer review stated that:

“We find the estimate to be $101,663 over estimated and would consider this to be

of minor significance in relation to the overall budget estimate.52” .

116. Mr Peel from CJM Consultants has responded to the comments by the peer reviewer

as follows: “CJM Consultants have extensive knowledge of the Temple View site, the

52 Rider Levett Bucknall peer review, Attachment B, supplementary s42A report dated 2 November 2020.

34

Clients buildings on this site and the challenges that the Client and his teams have had

to overcome in redeveloping and repurposing several of the existing buildings on this site.

At an Initial budget estimate stage with such limited design information, exploration of the

existing building itself and our intimate knowledge of the overall site and previous projects

we believe that our estimate is within + or – 10 % of the likely projected costs.

117. A possible over estimation of 2.79% as suggested by Rider Levett Bucknell is well

within the realms of estimating accuracy at this stage of any project. We would

concede that our extensive knowledge of the Clients site and the similarly constructed

buildings that have already been repurposed or demolished may have influenced our

cost estimating to be a little more cautious compared to an estimate from a third party

who does not have this prior knowledge. At this stage of the design and costing

process a 2.79% reduction in overall costs equates to a cost per m2 difference of

approx. $130 /m2 reducing the cost per M2 to $ 4,551.89 and a total of $102k in

overall value which makes very little difference to the viability of this project.”53

118. The reporting planner notes that the applicant did not explore all non-profit uses for

the building such as storage.54 Using the building as storage would constitute an

industrial activity55 and this use was discounted in the further information response

provided to the Council on 18 May 2020. Mr Saunders also notes that using the

building as storage would reduce the value of the asset and the feasibility of the

project.56 In the first S42A, the reporting planner agreed that “an industrial use in this

location is likely to be inappropriate and would potentially give rise to a number of

nuisance effects on the surrounding area”.57

COMMENTS ON DRAFT CONDITIONS 119. I have reviewed the draft conditions included as Attachment 1 to the supplementary

s42A report and provide comments below. I have also provided a strikethrough

version of the draft conditions for the hearing as Attachment 2 to my evidence.

53 Email from Chris Peel to Chris Dawson, 5 November 2020. 54 Second s42A, paragraph 79. 55 Industrial Activity: includes a) all types of processing, manufacturing, service and repair activities, b) laboratories and research facilities c) transport depots – section 1.1.2 Definitions used in the District Plan. 56 Evidence of Doug Saunders, paragraph 67 to 71. 57 First S42A report dated 2 September 2020, paragraph 61.

35

120. Condition 1 should be amended to reference the correct date of the second bundle

of further information which was submitted to Council on 18 May 2020.

121. Condition 2 is acceptable to the applicant and the removal of former condition 3 is

also acceptable. However new proposed condition 3 is not acceptable in its current

form. The proposed condition would require a commemorative display in the Rose

Garden that was specifically focussed on the Block Plant. In my view it is more

appropriate to require a site interpretation sign that includes information about the

Block Plant building in addition to other aspects of the former Church College

campus. This reflects the fact that the character and heritage of the former Church

College was significantly more than just the Block Plant and this should be reflected

in the development of the site interpretation sign. A site wide approach to the brief

for the site interpretation sign is more appropriate and is reflected in the amended

condition 3.

122. The amended condition 4 is acceptable and the building record will be filed in the

Museum Archive. I have amended the condition to refer to the correct name of the

Museum.

123. The intent of condition 5 is accepted however some amended wording is

recommended. As Mr Wild notes in his evidence58 the most appropriate wording for

a building record condition is taken from the Heritage New Zealand Guideline No. 1 for

a building or structure of medium significance. This wording reflects the guidance put out by Heritage NZ and is seen as best practice.

124. The wording of amended condition 6 is accepted although as noted in paragraph 29 of

my evidence, it is only the exterior of heritage buildings that are protected under the

Operative District Plan. I would question the value of retaining and archiving the Bench Press and Back Workout posters from the upper room of the Block Plant building,

however the condition is accepted.

125. The remaining conditions 7 to 10 are accepted and appropriate. The draft conditions do

not reference the Discretionary application for consent applied for under the NES Soil59.

However, I have had some communication with the reporting planner and consider that

58 Evidence of Adam Wild, para 71. 59 Evidence of Chris Dawson, para 65.

36

this aspect of the application is more appropriate to address as part of the CDP variation that will follow the completion of this consent.

CONCLUSION

126. In my opinion the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the RMA in relation to

sustainable management. The Church has developed the Temple View project with a considerable investment of time, resources and care since 2009. The completed first

phase of the project has seen a considerable lift in the heritage and amenity values of the area. The Church’s significant commitment to the heritage of the site and the community

is evident in the operational Pacific Church History Museum, the GRB Hall, the Kai Hall, Legacy Park and the ongoing work on the Temple.

127. It is my opinion that the proposal to demolish the Block Plant is appropriate in relation to

section 6 (f) of the RMA. The removal of the Block Plant will assist in freeing up land to

develop at least six additional homes and ensure a high quality residential amenity for both the Temple View residents and the wider community. This will enable the residential

development to progress in a manner consistent with the objectives and policies of the Temple View Zone.

Christopher John Dawson 9 November 2020

37

Attachment 1 Temple View Masterplan

© C

OPY

RIG

HT

RES

ERV

ED B

Y C

ON

STRU

KT

ASS

OC

IAT

ES L

TD

, File

Pat

h: /V

olum

es/C

ON

STRU

KT

/ P

R O

J E

C T

S/T

EMP/

2.C

ON

CEP

T M

AST

ERPL

AN

/Arc

hiC

AD

/CLA

SSIC

DEV

ELO

PMEN

TS

PHA

SE/T

EMP

Cla

ssic

MA

STER

FILE

.pln

SK.1.131/10/2019 rev:

REVISED SITE MASTERPLANTempleview Masterplan Classic DevelopmentsProject: Templeview Masterplan, File Path: /Volumes/CONSTRUKT/ P R O J E C T S/TEMP/2.CONCEPT MASTERPLAN/ArchiCAD/CLASSIC DEVELOPMENTS PHASE/TEMP Classic MASTERFILE.pln

TUHIK

AR

AM

EA RO

AD

COWLEY DRIVE

FOSTER ROAD

BOYA

CK D

RIVE

600 m2

4,509

m2

YIELD 289 Lots

Public green open space

Private green open space

Footpath

Driveway

Lane

Carpark

Pond

Stream

ROADING

LANDSCAPING

LEGENDBUILDINGS

REVISIONS

31/10/19 Western housing area extended to site north.Stage 1 divided to Stage 1A and Stage 1B.3 houses adjacent to western boundary Stage 1 removed.

L

27/09/19 (as per Chris Dawnson's email dated 25 09 2019)Change 1 - Extended Lot 2 bondary up the road.Change 2 - Removed part of Lot 1 on southern side.Change 3 - Removed the ""axe handle".

K

0 25 5025 1:2500 @ A3

L

38

Attachment 2 Condition Strikethrough

Draft Block Plant heritage conditions

Applicant hearing version

9 November 2020

Applicants recommendations:

Strikethrough

Additional text

General

1. That the development be in general accordance with the information submitted with the application on 12 December 2019 and the further information submitted on 4 March 2020, 24 March 2020, 18 May and 9 October 2020.

Heritage

2. A commemorative plinth shall be established in the vicinity of the location of the Block Plant at a location that is accessible by members of the public. A plan illustrating the location, design/contents and maintenance schedule shall be submitted to the Planning Guidance Manager, Hamilton City Council (or nominee) for certification prior to establishment of the plinth.

3. An information interpretation sign shall be provided along a location on Tuhikaramea Road that is accessible by members of the public. A plan illustrating the location, sign design/contents and maintenance schedule shall be provided to the Planning Guidance Manager, Hamilton City Council (or nominee) for certification prior to installation.

3. A plan of the Block Plant commemorative display An information interpretation sign in the proposed Rose Garden as shown on the submitted location plan that is accessible by members of the public. shall be provided to the Planning Guidance Manager (or nominee) for approval prior to installation. The information interpretation sign shall include information on the Block Plant and may include information on other aspects of the former Church College campus. As a minimum, the information interpretation sign plan shall include the following information; timing of installation, location, design/contents and maintenance schedule.

4. The Block Plant history showcase shall be included as a permanent feature in the Pacific Church History Museum The detailed building record as required by condition 5 below shall be permanently filed in the Mendenhall Matthew Cowley Pacific Church History Museum archive.

5. A detailed record of the Block Plant building shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Guidance Manager, Hamilton City Council (or nominee), prior to demolition of the Block Plant. As a minimum, the record shall include those matters referenced under section 5.3 in the Heritage New Zealand Guideline No. 1 Investigation and recording of buildings and standing structures (Nov 2018) for a Level II building as set out below:

i. Measured Drawings of all principal interior and exterior elevations.

ii. Recording of the principal parts of the internal timber frame of the building or

structure (as necessary).

iii. Measured drawings of overall building/structure, including where relevant, all

floor plans, ceiling plans and roof plans

iv. Subfloor plans, including floor joists, bearers, wall footings or piles.

v. Plans and sections (as necessary) to record ceiling joists and roof structures.

vi. Cross sections to show interaction of building elements and spaces (as

necessary).

vii. Detailed written description of the structural elements.

viii. Detailed written description of the exterior.

ix. Detailed written description of each room.

x. Detailed written description of the building’s/structure’s development over time

(potentially including a stratigraphic matrix or matrices).

xi. Extensive photography.

xii. Selective sampling of historic fabric.

(i) A description of the exterior (materials, methods of construction, dimensions, overall shape and form);

(ii) Relationship between the building and its past and present setting (may need to be done with the use of aerial photographs considering the extent of earthworks undertaken around the site);

(iii) Description of each interior space; (iv) Description of fittings, fixtures and machinery (generator). This

information should include the description of materials, construction methods, visual appearance and dimensions, as appropriate;

(v) Interior and exterior photographs to archival standards, using a 35 mm camera lens, as a minimum: a. Exterior photographs should include:

i. Principal elevation (frontage) ii. Other elevations iii. Typical details (doors, windows)

b. Interior photographs should include:

i. Wide view of rooms ii. Internal elevation iii. Typical details (ceilings, doors, windows) iv. Recording of generator details.

6. The two posters in the upper room of the Block Plant titled “The Bench Press” and

“Back Workout” as shown in Appendix BE of the Assessment of Environmental Effects shall be removed intact and retained. These posters shall be placed in the museum archive.

Accidental Discovery Protocol

7. During earthworks on the site, in the event of any archaeological feature, artefact or

human remains being discovered or suspected to have been discovered, the following protocol shall be followed:

a. All work on the site will cease immediately. The contractor/works supervisor will shut down all equipment and activity.

b. The area shall be secured and the consent holder or proponent and Council must be advised of the discovery.

c. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga must be notified by the consent holder or proponent so that the appropriate consent can be initiated.

d. The consent holder or proponent must consult with a representative of the appropriate iwi to determine what further actions are appropriate to safeguard the site of its contents.

In the case where human remains have accidentally been discovered or are suspected to have been discovered the following will also be required:

e. The area must immediately be secured by the contractor in a way which ensures human remains are not further disturbed. The consent holder or proponent must be advised of the steps taken.

f. The Police shall be notified of the suspected human remains as soon as practically possible after the remains have been disturbed. The consent holder or proponent shall notify the appropriate iwi, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga within 12 hours of the suspected human remains being disturbed, or otherwise as soon as practically possible.

g. Excavation of the site shall not resume until the Policye, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and the relevant iwi have each given the necessary approvals for excavation to proceed.

Demolition/Earthworks 8. The consent holder shall ensure that all appropriate erosion and sediment control

measures are adopted to minimise any sediment leaving the site and entering any waterway. The measures shall include; the erection of silt fences, stabilised entranceways, cut off drains and the connection of downpipes to the stormwater system as necessary. These sediment control measures should be erected and maintained on site for the duration of the works. Note: Refer to Waikato Regional Council’s “Erosion and Sediment Control, Guidelines for Soil Disturbing Activities” which can be found at http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz

9. That the activity is conducted in such a manner so as to not create a dust nuisance. A dust nuisance will occur if:

a. There is visible evidence of suspended solids in the air beyond the site boundary; and/or

b. There is visible evidence of suspended solids traceable from a dust source settling on the ground, building or structure on a neighbouring site or water.

Engineering

10. Any pipes and connections not required as a result of the removal of the Block Plant building shall be appropriately disconnected to the satisfaction of the General Manager, City Infrastructure (or nominee). Removal of the existing connections shall be done by the Council at the consent holder’s expense.

K:\140450 Temple View Developments\64 Block Plant Demolition\Hearing\Church evidence\Dawson\Attachment 2 - draft conditions\Draft Block Plant conditions (Applicant 6 November version).docx