1

APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE CONSENT

For Dr JACK PHILLIPS

TO DEMOLISH A SCHEDULED HERITAGE STRUCTURE at

128 MAIN ST, GORE, TO ENABLE THE CONSTRUCTION

OF A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING

REPORT COMPILED BY:

WILLIAM J. WATT B.A. Dip T.P.MNZPI FNZIM

2

CONTENTS

1. THE AUTHOR OF THIS REPORT

2. PROPERTY AND APPLICANT DETAILS

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

• Description of the proposal

• Current Activity on the Site

• The Application

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

5. RECOURCE CONSENT REQUIREMENTS

6. CONSULTATION

7. ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

8. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

9. POLICY ANALYSIS

• General approach

• Gore District Plan

• Southland Water and Land Plan

• Southland Regional Policy Statement

• National Policy Statements and Environmental Standards

• RMA – Part 2 matters.

• RMA – Matters from the Fourth Schedule

• The Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act

10. NOTIFICATION CONSIDERATIONS

11. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

12. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY

13. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS

14. APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Certificate of Title.

Appendix 2 – Right of Way Easement

Appendix 3 – GM Designs: 128 Main St Gore – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Appendix 4 – Stevenson Brown Ltd : 128 Main St Gore – Seismic Assessment Report

Appendix 5 - Indicative plans and elevations of the proposed building

Appendix 6 - Building cost analysis (Ballantyne Quantity Surveyors)

3

1. THE AUTHOR OF THIS REPORT

This report has been prepared by William J Watt, planning and resource management consultant. My qualifications are that: • I have appropriate university qualifications at both graduate and post-graduate level

• I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute

• I am a Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Management

• I am a mediator accredited with the Resolution Institute.

• I have had over 40 years’ experience in local government, planning and resource management mainly in New Zealand in planning and senior executive positions.

• I have 7 years’ experience as an independent planning and resource management consultant and mediator.

• I am accredited as Hearings Commissioner under the MfE Making Good Decisions programme.

4

2. PROPERTY and APPLICANT DETAILS

Owner: Jack Dilcock Phillips

Street Address: 128 Main St, Gore

Legal Description: PT SEC 11 BLK VII GORE TOWN

Area: 106 sq.m.

A Certificate of Title is attached as Appendix 1.

The property is located on the north-west corner of Civic Avenue and Main St. (See Fig 1, below)

Figure 1

The site has an area of 106 sq.m. which is almost wholly occupied by the building (105 sq.m. – as

assessed by G M Designs).

Figure 2 (below) shows the context of the site.

5

Figure 2

The context of the site is as follows:

To the north east the subject property shares a boundary with the former Gore Post Office, now

partially tenanted as office space.

Running north/south immediately to the west of the property is a Right of Way Easement (see

Appendix 2). To the west of that is the RSA car park.

This is all shown overlaid on an air photo in Figure 3.

6

Figure 3

7

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Description of the Proposal

In summary

The applicant seeks consent to demolish the building which currently occupies the site and to

construct a new single storey commercial building of approximately 102 sq m in size.

The footprint of this new building will occupy almost all the small site. Car parking will therefore be

provided by arrangement with other landowners within an acceptable walking distance of the site.

Consultation with the RSA has indicated their willingness to consider leasing two car parking spaces.

The Right of Way extending along the western boundary will enable service vehicles to access the

new building from the western side.

Description of the current building

The building is a two-storey commercial building built between 1900 and 1910. It is typical of two

storey commercial buildings constructed in Gore and other southern provincial towns in the early

20th century, reflecting the confidence and relative prosperity of the time.

Figures 4 and 5, taken by the author between 9.00 and 9.45 am on 14 June 2013, show the street

frontages of the building and also (Figure 4) the frontage onto the RSA car park.

Figure 4

8

Figure 5

Figure 6

Features of particular interest are the veranda and associated wrought ironwork (Figure 5). This

ironwork was removed as it was found to be unsound and a hazard. The upper storey fenestration

9

Figure 7

and the ornamental parapet (Figure 6) are also architectural features of interest.

It should be noted that the over its life the building has been modified substantially. This can be

deduced from Figure 8, which is a photo of Main Street understood to date from the early 1900’s

and featuring the subject building on the left-hand side. It is clear from comparing Figures 4,5,6,7

and 8 that

• At some stage the ornamental features along the parapet have been removed

• The veranda is a later addition

• The fenestration on the ground floor has been changed significantly.

It should also be noted that the building was re-roofed within the last 20 years.

10

Figure 8

The ground and first floor plans of the building are shown on GM Designs Drawing No S000-4726 and

are attached to this report as Appendix 2. They are also included in the report from Stevenson and

Brown (Appendix 3).

The ground floor plan reflects the use of the building by the last tenant, a beauty salon. Prior to that

it is understood that the premises were used as a restaurant. Originally, it was an office building,

probably with ‘executive’ offices upstairs. Stairs lead up from the north-east corner to the first floor,

which is subdivided into very small and irregularly-shaped rooms which were also used most

recently for various purposes by the beauty salon, as indicated on the plan. Prior to that the upper

storey appears to have been occupied as two flats.

An early photograph, thought to be of this building, was supplied in 2013 during consultation with

the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT - Moor and Moodie Photography Studio, undated, per

Dr Matthew Schmidt - 3 Sept 2013) and is shown as Figure 9. It shows a substantial two-storey

building on the corner but with the veranda continuing in the same vernacular along the frontage of

the single storey buildings on either side. This bears a superficial resemblance to the subject

building. However, this photo has been identified by Lloyd Anderson (pers comm) as being of an

area north of the subject site and featuring the sites currently occupied by the ANZ Bank and Quinns

11

Pharmacy. it does show the character of buildings and streetscape in Gore at the time. It is

probable that buildings of similar proportions and style were built on the adjoining land to both the

north and the west of the subject site, and have been demolished to make way for the Post Office

building to the north (opened in 1956) and the RSA car park to the west.

Figure 9

The subject building has been unused since September 2012.

A walk through the building indicates that significant effort has been made over the years to

maintain it and to adapt it to a variety of uses. However, evidence of major structural movement

and deterioration is now obvious. For example, movement has occurred across wooden floors

upstairs which have been sanded and clear finished within the last 15 years or so, but which now

would not be sufficiently level to take a sanding machine.

Externally, significant deterioration of the building structure and fabric is obvious (see Figures 10 (a)

and (b) and 11).

12

Figure 10 (a) and (b)

Movement in the exterior brickwork is clearly evident

13

Figure 11

The seismic performance of the building has been assessed by two engineering consultancies:

G M Designs: A n investigation and report on the building were carried out by GM Designs for Dr

Jack Phillips and issued on 31 May 2013. That report is attached as Appendix 3. GM Designs

concluded on page 3 that the building is 20% NBS (new build standard) and that there was no

economically practicable action for its repair.

Stevenson Brown Ltd: An investigation and report were carried out by Peter Stevenson for the Gore

District Council and issued on 17 September 2015. That report is attached as Appendix 4. Stevenson

concluded on page 3 that

“This analysis indicates an overall score of the building of <20%NBS.”

14

There is thus agreement between the two consultancies that the building is no more than 20% and it

may very well be less. As such, it is ‘earthquake prone’ (i.e. <34% NBS as defined by the New

Zealand earthquake prone building legislation.)

The building has been vacant for several years, although it has been advertised as available for rental.

The reasons for this, according to Mr Lloyd Anderson of Harcourts who has been marketing the

property, are that;

• No-one wants to be a tenant a building that is a known earthquake risk

• There is little or no demand for first floor commercial rental space in Gore or first floor

residential space in the commercial area of Gore

• The spaces are well below reasonable modern standards – they are near derelict.

In Dr Phillips’ (the owner’s) view, renovation of the building to an appropriate structural standard (it

would need to be >60% NBS and preferably 80% NBS) and to an appropriate standard of

presentation has no prospects of economic viability. Dr Phillips owns many older buildings in Gore

and Mataura and is well aware of the practicalities of restoration of older buildings. He is also

acutely aware of the need to prioritise – not all old buildings can be saved notwithstanding their

‘heritage’ value.

Demolition

It may be feasible and appropriate to retain a portion of the brick wall along the boundary with the

Right of Way. (This is the portion to the left of the grey lean-to (a former bike shed?) and in front of

the parked utility vehicle, shown in Figure 10). However, this will depend on the stability of the wall

once everything else is demolished, and the practicaliteis of demolishing the building, and the

decision will need to be made on the advice of the contractor during demolition.

Figure 12

The demolition of the building will be carried out by Mr Trevor Penson (Contractor).

15

The process of demolition will take approximately 10 working days, the majority of this time being

needed to remove demolition material and tidy the site post-demolition. During this time the site

will be fenced appropriately, with a traffic management plan in place.

Heritage fittings, fixtures and materials are to be removed prior to demolition where this is

practicable with the intention that they will be recycled. However, on the basis of my inspection of

the building I would be surprised if there is much that is worth saving.

The cleanfill from the demolition material will be either stored for re-use (the main demand is for

hard fill for use at farm gates) or disposed as cleanfill at the contractor’s property at 41 River Road.

Timber that cannot be recycled will also be burned on this site.

The contractor has examined the building thoroughly and having regard to its age and method of

construction, considers it extremely unlikely that there will be issues of hazardous substances or

contamination.

There is the possibility of pre-1900 historic heritage on the site, and an Archaeological Assessment

should be carried out pre-demolition. This would be the appropriate subject of a condition on the

consent if granted.

The Proposed Building

The brief for the proposed building is

• A single storey commercial building which can be readily adapted to a range of commercial

uses

• A building that will provide a reasonable economic rental return.

• A building that will be economical to build yet which will also offer an appropriate civic

presence in the townscape context of the site.

A preliminary design has been prepared accordingly by N J Archictural Servcies Ltd and is included as

Appendix 5.

On Mr Lloyd Anderson’s advice, it would be reasonable to expect a rental in the order of the order of

$25,000 annual rental from such a building

The applicant has commissioned Ballantyne Quantity Surveying Services Ltd to prepare a Preliminary

Order of Cost Estimate for construction of the new building. That Estimate for the new build is

$264,218. (See Appendix 6)

This estimate has been prepared on the basis of an ‘economical’ build but to a standard which would

be appropriate to new, top-of-the-range commercial space in Gore.

16

Depending on the price paid for the land and the cost of demolition, as a project the proposed new

building has reasonable prospects of being commercially viable.

The Owner’s Strategy

At present the site and its building have no value to the owner with no revenue, no capital gains and

ongoing liabilities for rates and sufficient maintenance to secure the building.

The owner is also aware of his responsibility to secure a building that is a known earthquake risk.

The owner therefore plans to gain resource consent for demolition of the building in order to enable

the construction of a commercial building, and then hopefully sell the property with its associated

concept plan, resource consent, and intellectual property.

At present the advice from real estate agents is that ‘no one will touch the building’ because of its

structural status and the resource consenting issues associated with it.

For this reason, the building is currently being marketed as a cleared site ‘subject to Council

approval’.

The outcomes will be

• From the owner’s point of view, he will have addressed a problem building on a problem site.

• From the community’s point of view, there will be a new commercial building on a

prominent main street site. This will augment the economic critical mass of the commercial

area of Gore and contribute to its long-term viability.

• There will be a new quality commercial space on the Main Street at the southern entrance

to the commercial area which will help articulate and consolidate the commercial area.

17

Figure 13

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

The Gore “Central and Commercial Area” is focused on Main Street and extends on the western side

from Civic Avenue north to midblock between Medway St and Irwell St. Retail and commercial uses

extend for varying distances along Civic Ave, Mersey St, Irk St and Medway St (the streets running

west from Main St). On the eastern side, the “Central and Commercial Area” extends north from the

intersection with Mersey St to Medway St, thence east toward the bridge over the Mataura River.

Hence, the subject property is situated at the southern end of the Gore “Central and Commercial

Area”.

“Many of the buildings in Main Street are recognised as being of heritage significance while the

precinct as a whole is of townscape significance…(and).…the Council considers it vitally important to

retain the character of this central area….” (Gore District Council: Our Towns..…Our Streets – A

Streetscape Strategy for the Gore District December 2011 ) page 11.

Figure 10 shows the building in its Main Street urban design context (behind the lighting standard,

centre right). The buildings to the south are large scale and commercial in character, with single

storey facades of varying styles. To the north of the building is the former Gore Post Office, itself of

a very different era, scale and style. None of the buildings nearby have verandas.

Figure 4 (page 7) shows the building where it adjoins the RSA car park, and how it is seen from Civic

Avenue.

18

5. RESOURCE CONSENT REQUIREMENTS - summary

The subject property is shown as being in the “Commercial Zone” on Map 7 of the Gore District Plan

Planning Maps.

This map also identifies the property as “H 13” - Scheduled Heritage Structures - in Table 2.5.1 of the

Gore District Plan. The building is identified as the “Former National Mortgage Building”. The

building is not registered with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.

Under Rule 2.5.9 of the District Plan, demolition of a scheduled heritage structure is a

discretionary activity.

Rule 4.15.1 provides as follows:

(1) Within that part of the commercial zone at Gore shown on the District Plan Maps as

“Central Area”:

(a) Other than to provide recesses associated with the entrance of persons, buildings shall

provide continuous frontage to the street.

(b) Buildings shall provide a veranda to the edge of the footpath, together with under

veranda lighting.

(c) Buildings shall be constructed to the front boundary of the site.

(d) The facade of the building shall have a minimum height of 8 metres along the street

frontage.

(e) Areas utilised for the outdoor storage or placing of goods or waste shall be screened from

public view.

In this case, the proposed building will not comply with (a), (b), (c) and (d) and under Rule 14.5.2

the proposal will be a discretionary activity.

Section 5 of the Gore District Plan addresses transportation issues. The proposed development does

not meet the access or on-site parking requirements. Under Rule 5.9.4 any land use which does not

comply with Rules 5.9.1, 5.9.2 and 5.9.3 is a restricted discretionary activity.

For a full analysis of the proposal with respect to the Gore District Plan, please see Section 9 of this

report.

It is my assessment that overall the proposal is a discretionary activity.

19

CONSULTATION

Demolition of the building at 108 Main St was considered in 2013 and a draft resource consent

application was prepared and circulated for consultation. The application was not proceeded with

because the Gore District Council planning staff advised that the application would have little chance

of success unless it contained a proposal for redevelopment within the consent application. The

applicant had insufficient information to supply this and it is fair to say at that point he lost

confidence in the process.

What has changed since 2013 is that:

• A concept has now been prepared for redevelopment which has reasonable prospects of

commercial viability

• The consent granted for the redevelopment of the former Methodist Church on the corner

of Irk St and Fairfield St gave the applicant some confidence to proceed.

• Government Policy has been released giving territorial authorities timeframes to address

earthquake prone buildings and an imperative to do so.

What has not changed is that the building remains vacant, not generating any revenue, meaning that

there is no commercial reason or income stream for expenditure on maintenance or upgrade.

In 2013, the following consultation was undertaken:

1. Gore District Council

A consultation meeting was held in the offices of the Gore District Council at 10.00 a.m on 14 June

2013. Present were:

His Worship the Mayor Mr Tracey Hicks

Mr Keith Hovell (Planning Consultant, Gore District Council)

Mr Jim Geddes (Eastern Southland – Heritage)

Mr William Watt (Planning Consultant to Dr Phillips)

Mr Michael Sheridan (G.M. Designs – Engineering Consultants to Dr Phillips)

Mr Marcel Flavell (Builder)

There was a phone link with Dr Phillips on speakerphone.

The Gore District Council was given a copy of the Detailed Seismic Assessment.

The condition of the building and the need for demolition were explained. In summary – the

building is an earthquake risk and because of its poor structural and overall condition and awkward

configuration it cannot be rented or sold.

Dr Phillips explained that he intends to ‘build a building’ on the site. He sees it as an excellent

location, and he had in mind (at that time) a single storey, wood-framed structure with a high

vaulted ceiling incorporating a hip roof prism. However, the design could not be confirmed until he

had an agreement with a potential client tenant.

20

Mr Geddes expressed concern that the streetscape importance of the site be properly addressed.

He was concerned that there may be a ‘precedent effect’ and wanted to see ‘a heritage building for

the future’ on the site.

Mr Hicks indicated that another option he had considered was to use the site for display of the field

guns currently outside the RSA, with a suitable mural on the south wall of the old Post Office as a

backdrop.

It was agreed that an application for resource consent would be prepared that addressed options for

use of the site following the proposed demolition of the existing building.

A draft of the Assessment of Effects was then prepared for the applicant and sent to the Gore

District Council for comment. The reply, in summary, requested further investigation of heritage

conservation and adaptive re-use options. These options were considered further by GM Designs

and the results of that consideration have been incorporated into this document.

Since then:

1. In early 2016 Dr Jack Phillips and Mr Lloyd Anderson met with His Worship the Mayor Mr

Tracey Hicks, the CEO of the Gore District Council, and Mr Jim Geddes. Dr Phillips

understood from this meeting that the Council ‘did not want to see a vacant site’ and were

keen to see if marketing the property would lead to an outcome.

2. A further meeting was held in February 2017 involving Messrs Phillips, Anderson and Parry.

Dr Phillips understood from that meeting that any application for resource consent to

demolish the building would need to address its replacement with a building.

Since the 2017 meeting Harcourts have been marketing the property. Their experience has been

that there has been no interest, due to the cost factors and uncertainties in doing anything with the

building. Their impression is that any use of the site has been blighted by the District Plan listing of

the building.

2. New Zealand Historic Places Trust.

In 2013 there was telephone consultation with the N Z Historic Places Trust because the building is

not an NZHPT listed building. However, the Trust has been advised of the application to the Gore

District Council to demolish this building and a copy of this document has been forwarded to them.

In a telephone discussion with Mr Matthew Schmidt (27 November 2013) the legal obligation in

relation to pre-1900 historic heritage was discussed, and the desirability of a pre-1900

Archaeological Assessment was agreed.

This is offered as a condition.

21

3. Chorus New Zealand Ltd

There has been no consultation with the owners of the Telecom building, however a letter has been

sent to the address shown on the Council’s rating records advising them of the application and

enclosing a copy of this Assessment of Environmental Effects.

4. Gore RSA

The Gore RSA was consulted concerning the proposed demolition in 2013. The exchange of emails

(below) records the result of that consultation.

“At our committee meeting last night it was agreed that the Gore RSA grants you permission to use

our car park for the demolition of the above building with the following provisions.

Any damage to the car park is repaired back to its condition at the commencement of demolition. Car

parking lines are excluded as we will be repainting these after the building has been demolished.

All barriers and signs are erected/displayed to ensure all precautions are taken in regards to safety.

Also, whenever work has commenced for the day/week, consideration is given to our members re

parking and exiting our property (especially at the weekend).

If you are happy with these conditions then let me know and also provide an estimated start date so I

can inform our members.

Regards

Steven Brinsdon

Secretary/Manager

Gore District Memorial RSA

PO Box 333, Gore

Ph 03 208 6218

Fax 03 208 6220

e-mail: gorersa@xtra.co.nz

From: Southern Estate Properties [mailto:seprop@xtra.co.nz]

Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013 12:47 p.m.

To: gorersa@xtra.co.nz

Subject: 128 Main St

Hi Steve

22

In regards to the removal and demolition of 128 Main Street Gore, we would like to ask for permission

to access the site by means the RSA car park. We would require about 8-10 car parks in total and

use of the exit onto Civic Ave for about 2 weeks maximum. There is an existing wall which is on the

RSA property which we would be willing to remove back to the boundary of the Telecom Building as a

gesture of good will, as per site inspection by yourself and the president of the RSA.

We will also ensure that no damage will be done to the existing asphalt and that all safety precautions

and barriers will be in place.

If you require more information please feel free to call me 021-506-306.

Thank-you for your consideration and co-operation towards this proposal. We look forward to your

reply.

Regards Marcel Flavell

Southern Estate Properties

There has been no consultation with the owner of the Telecom site.

23

ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS - overview

POTENTIAL EFFECT

ASSESSMENT COMMENT

Building Bulk

The bulk and scale of the buildings proposed will not be significantly different from the bulk and scale of buildings already on the subject site and in the immediate area.

Contaminated land

There is no reason to believe that there are contaminated land issues associated with this proposal. There is no visual sign of asbestos in the building. It should be noted that the roof was replaced with corrugated steel within the last 20 years so there is no reason to suspect roofing materials as a source of possible contamination.

Contamination of air

Demolition of the old building may create a temporary and localized dust nuisance which will need to be mitigated as far as practicable by the contractor. Construction and operation of the new building will not raise air contamination issues as the proposed heating system is electrically driven.

Contamination of water

The proposal raises no water contamination issues.

Cultural values The site is not of known significance to Maori.

Economic effects

The proposal will have a positive effect in that it will enable a land use to be re-established on this main street site, adding critical mass to the central business area of Gore.

Energy

The proposal raises no significant energy-related issues. Obviously the new building will need to be heated, however the Building Act requirements ensure a high level of thermal insulation performance which will minimize energy use for heating.

Hazardous Substances and land Contamination

The Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) is a compilation of activities and industries that are considered likely to cause land contamination resulting from hazardous substance use, storage or disposal. The HAIL is intended to identify most situations in New Zealand where hazardous substances could cause, and in many cases have caused, land contamination.

The HAIL groups similar industries together, which typically use or store hazardous substances that could cause contamination if these substances escaped from safe storage, were disposed of on the site, or were lost to the environment through their use.

It is probable that the building was built, and modified, in the pre-asbestos era.

Heritage

The proposal will result in the demolition and removal of a heritage structure listed in the Gore District Plan but not listed with Heritage New Zealand.

Ill-maintained structures

The proposal will have the positive effect of removing a structure which has had minimal maintenance for several years.

Infrastructure

The proposal will make no significant demands on infrastructure

Light spill

The proposal will comply with District Plan light spill requirements

24

Natural features, landscapes, townscapes

The proposal will not affect natural features and landscapes. See comments under ‘Townscape” below.

Natural Hazard

The site is identified in the District Plan as having exposure to hazard from inundation in the event of a stop bank overtopping or failure. This provision applies to most of the central area of Gore, and is a fact of life of doing business in Gore. The Gore District Council has chosen not to incorporate ‘strategic withdrawal’ from this area in its district planning. The effect of inundation can be mitigated to some extent in the fit-out of the new building by routing electrical services above a reasonable flood level.

Noise The proposal and land uses will comply with the noise provisions of the District Plan.

Public open space

The proposal raises no public open space issues.

Reverse sensitivity

The proposal raises no reverse sensitivity issues.

Signage

Signage will be within District Plan limits.

Site coverage

Site coverage of the new building will be virtually 100%. The site is very small, and 100% coverage is the only way to achieve a commercial building of viable size.

Soils, minerals, earthworks

The only earthworks associated with the proposal will be excavating for the foundations of the new building.

Townscape

The proposal will change the townscape of the area. The old building is a relic of a previous townscape which will be lost with the proposed demolition. The new building will be complementary in appearance to the building to the north (the former Post Office) and the buildings fronting onto Main St to the south of Civic Avenue. The building currently on site contributes little to the townscape looking east down Civic Avenue. This aspect will be improved with the new building

Traffic Effects

The traffic effects of the demolition of the old building and the construction of the new one will be localized and temporary and will need to be addressed by an appropriate traffic management plan. It is not possible to accommodate the District Plan requirements for carparking on-site and it is proposed to lease car parks on nearby properties. Neither is it possible to accommodate loading/unloading directly from the street because Main Street is a State Highway and the site is too close to the intersection of Civic Avenue and Main Street. The Right of Way on the western boundary of the building can be used for service vehicles loading and unloading.

Water Quality The proposal raises no water quality issues.

Water Quantity The proposal does not raise water quantity issues. There will be no practicable difference in the quantity of storm water discharged from the new building compared with that discharged from the old.

25

ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

The applicant has carefully considered, and rejected, the option of ‘adaptive re-use’ i.e.

strengthening the building and then re-tenanting it.

Put simply, the building is an unsuitable candidate for restoration because of is unreinforced

masonry construction together with its awkward shape, the modifications already carried out to the

ground floor, the arrangement of internal walls, and the difficulties of supporting the façade while

work is carried out.

There is little (if any) demand in Gore for first floor commercial space. The character of the ground

floor space that would be achieved by a renovation would fall well short of the quality of space that

is needed to attract a tenant at a rental that would make a renovation project viable.

To renovate the ground floor and ‘close off’ the first floor, whilst carrying out structural upgrade, is

an option that many Invercargill owners of similar buildings have adopted, but in my view such an

option would be inappropriate because:

• The sealed-off first floor spaces would be visited only infrequently and any problems such as

leaks are not addressed until they manifest themselves downstairs

• The resultant ground floor space would not be of a standard necessary to attract a market

rental which would cover the cost of upgrade to the building

• Such an option would not conserve the interior heritage character of the building.

In my view sealing off the top floor and using the ground floor just postpones the inevitable eventual

demolition of the building. This has been the experience again and again in Invercargill.

The following comments were made in 2013 by Mr Michael Sheridan, Structural Engineer, GM

Designs Ltd in considering possibilities for restoring the building:

“The estimated cost could be in the region of $250,000. This cost is due to the extensive damage to

the current façade and structure throughout.

(Note: This figure was estimated in 2013. Construction costs have increased since then. Applying a

6% compounding rate of inflation – which probably reasonably reflects increases in construction

costs - would increase this to around $315,000 in the first part of 2018). Because of the

uncertainties involved in any restoration, a ‘contingency’ of at least 20% would need to be included

in project budgeting. 20% of $315,000 is $63,000. This means, in rounded figures, a project budget

in the order of $400,000.)

Mr Sheridan continued:

“The ground floor been altered for various tenants over the years without adequate regard to the

lateral stability of the building, ie earthquake design. The external unreinforced masonry (URM)

façade is situated on a series of columns with large openings limiting the lateral support capability.

26

“The first-floor height is approximately 3.2m+ with no specific arrangement of internal walls in which

the façade can be supported economically. It is highly likely that if the façade was supported alone, it

would most certainly be damaged further and could potentially collapse. This would lead to a full

new structure to be constructed. The incurred cost of scaffolding per week to restrain such a façade

(if possible) would be well in the excess of $1000 per week. Working around retaining the façade

could be potentially very dangerous if any further damage was to occur, collapse could be

forthcoming. This approach would be uneconomical in practice as the site floor area is limited and a

new building should be catered for a client that could use the site to its full potential. The prospective

revenue from this site, currently being outside an ever-receding CBD, would not justify the incurred

cost of refurbishment of the façade.

“This situation has happened in the local Gore District before where additional scaffolding etc was

needed to support the façade which had delays and ran up very high costs for the clients

refurbishment idea – Thomas Green Building

“The parapet is a critical structural weakness and is extensively damaged at present. It is constructed

with URM and has no restraints to the main structure. This is an immediate collapse hazard and will

most certainly fail if retention of the façade was to occur during a ‘refurbishment’ solution. Again

(this shows) that the refurbishment solution is not a practical or economically viable solution. (See

Figure 14).

“The decrepit condition of the façade and obtuse orientation of the building will make it near

impossible to tie back to the main structure adequately. URM buildings need a method to transfer

the earthquake load from the out of plane walls to the inplane walls. This is achieved with a regular

floor diaphragm. The current floor does not have a regular layout, thus making a diaphragm difficult

to construct and transfer implied earthquake load. The load from the floor and roof diaphragm will

need to be transferred to lower columns, which are irregular in orientation and have limited capacity.

Therefore retention of the front façade as a refurbishment solution is in an uneconomical solution.

27

Figure 14

“Attached below (Figure 15) is the result of a URM façade collapsing out of plane and crushing the

veranda.”

Figure 15

28

While the inclusion of Figure 15 in this report may seem overly dramatic, on the basis of a walk up

the Main Street of Gore I had to conclude that the effect of a significant earthquake on Gore Main

Street could be similar. This is something the Gore District Council will need to address, in my view,

in the context of the Building (Earthquake Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016.

The Detailed Seismic Assessment carried out by G M Designs Ltd (Appendix 1) concludes on page 11

as follows:

“Investigation work has been completed to present a possible solution to withstand a code

earthquake but it reflects costs of additional capital investment many times more than what can be

recovered from any possible future rentals as the building format stands at present, this is due to the

non-commercial shape and lack of lateral structural mechanisms present in the current building……”

The small and awkward shape of the upstairs rooms and the access to them would make any

desirable future use of the first-floor space problematic.

Peter Stevenson made the following recommendations on page 15 of his report (reproduced in full

as Appendix 3):

This Detailed Seismic assessment for the building at 128 Main Street, Gore, indicates an overall score of <20%NBS, which corresponds to a Grade E building, as defined by the N2SEE building grading scheme. This is means the building is Earthquake Prone (i.e. <34%NBS) as defined by the New Zealand earthquake prone building legislation. The repair of damaged mortar joints is a minimum level on maintenance and improvement required to make this assessment valid. The building is to be improved to a level above 33%NBS to meet the requirements of the earthquake prone building legislation. By carrying out the following work the overall capacity of the building will be increased to 35%NBS (which is above the earthquake-prone threshold): • Tie the URM walls into the floor/roof diaphragms; • Repair the damaged areas of the 1st floor diaphragm. • Stabilise the ornament above the SE corner entrance; • Install a seismic frame to support the Gridline B wall (Figure 4); • Install a 'wind-beam'adjacent the stair, to support the URM wall (on GridlineA) at 1st floor diaphragm level. To get the capacity of the building above 67%NBS as recommended by the NZSEE, the foliowing additional work is required: • Restrain the parapets by bracing them back to the roof structure; • Install a steel seismic frame to improve the gridline C wall (Figure 5); • Install a steel frame to improve the gridline 2 wall (Figure 6); • Buttress (or demolish) the free-standing URM west boundary wall. This assessment has not included a detailed analysis of non-structural items that may be present in the building.

Notably, Mr Stevenson did not recommend further work that would be necessary to increase the

seismic performance of the building to >80% NBS

29

None of this work includes non-structural renovation. In itself this would be a major project in a

building of this nature.

After all this work is finished, the building would still be competing with new-builds with a higher

level of seismic performance. As Mike Kerr, comments:

The advantage of investing in rebuilding to a higher standard than the minimum required is the

increased likelihood of tenanting the building, especially in a competitive market where there will be

many new buildings built to 100% of the NBS or higher. Tenants are likely to be picky about their

premises and enquire as to the NBS levels of a building in the post-quake environment.

Kerr, M.: New Rules for Strengthening of Earthquake Prone Buildings Anderson Lloyd, 12 Feb 2013

(sourced from the internet)

30

POLICY ANALYSIS

General approach

This application is made under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

Section 104 of the RMA sets out the matters to be considered when assessing an application for a resource consent. Section 104(1) of the Resource Management Act, 1991, states: (1) When considering an application for a resource consent and any submission received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to: (a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and (b) any relevant provisions of –

(i) a national environmental standard:

(ii) other regulations:

(iii) a national policy statement:

(v) a regional or proposed regional policy statement:

(vi) a plan or proposed plan; and (c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application. Those matters which relevant for this application are discussed in the following sections.

I have adopted a report format that largely reverses the order in S. 104(1)(b). This arises from case

law concerning the hierarchy of planning documents and how each lower order document gives

effect to the ones above it. My interpretation of the relevant case law is as follows:

The Environment Court in Saddle View Estate Ltd v Dunedin CC [2014] NZEnvC 243, [2015] NZRMA 1 (paragraphs 92-93) inferred, from the approach taken in Environmental Defence Soc Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Co Ltd [2014] NZSC 38, [2014] 1 NZLR 593 that the matters in Part 2 of the RMA and in the higher order statutory instruments must be applied as they are particularized in regional and district plans. Plans are to be applied as containing, in particularized form, all the relevant provisions of Part 2. Any specific objectives or policies in plans must not be ‘subverted’ by reference to Part 2 or other matters.

R J Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District Council [2017] NZHC 52, paragraphs 68-77, adopted a similar view. In Aro Valley Community Council Inc v Wellington CC [2015] NZHC 532 (paragraph 24) the High Court said that the Act envisages the formulation and promulgation of a cascade of planning documents, each intended to ultimately give effect to part 2, including s 6. A decision under the relevant plan provisions is at the bottom of that cascade. In other words, after consideration of effects, the interpretation of the proposal is first against the relevant plan and then against the higher order documents as required. It follows that if an activity complies with the ‘permitted activity’ criteria of a plan, no further policy analysis is required. In turn, if an aspect of an application triggers the need for a resource consent,

31

then the primary analysis is in relation to the relevant objectives and policies of that plan. Reference to documents further up the ‘cascade’ is needed to comply with the provisions of Section 104 but can be in more succinct and summarized form.

Gore District Plan

In the following discussion (TABLE 1) I assess this proposal against the rules of the Gore District Plan

as it appears on the Gore District Council website in December 2017. Where the proposal complies

with the Rule, no further assessment is necessary. Where it does not comply with a Rule, then it

must be assessed against the relevant policies and objectives. This assessment is set out following

Table 1.

TABLE 1

PLAN PROVISION ASSESSMENT COMMENT

Rule 2.2.9 Outstanding natural features and landscapes

Not relevant

Rule 2.3.9 Significant indigenous biodiversity Not relevant

Rule 2.4.9 Margins of streams and rivers Not relevant

Table 2.5.1 Scheduled Heritage Structures: H13 Former National 128 Main Street Pt Sec 11 Blk VII Gore GOR 07A Mortgage Building Town of Gore.

The existing building is a Scheduled Heritage Structure. Note: The building is not registered with Heritage NZ.

2.5.9 Rule: (2) Except as provided for in (1) above, any demolition, or any excavation beneath, or alteration that changes the external appearance, of any scheduled heritage structure is a discretionary activity

Does not comply as a Permitted Activity. District Plan provides at Section 2.5.9 (2) as follows:

(1) Except as provided for in (1) , any demolition, or any excavation beneath, or alteration that changes the external appearance, of any scheduled heritage structure is a discretionary activity.

(See Note 1 below for my analysis under Section 2.5.10)

Rule 2.6.9 Mana whenua Not relevant

Section 3 – land use activities - framework Not relevant

4.2.1 General rule: The following land use activities are a permitted activity: (4) Commercial zone (a) Car parking; (b) Commercial Activity; (c) Commercial Recreation Activity; (d) Communal Activity; (e) Day Care Activity; (f) Education Activity; (g) Essential Services; (h) Health Care Activity; (i) Home Occupation; (j) Home Stay; (k) Hospital Activity; (l) Land Development; (m) Marae Activity; (n) Residential Activity; (o) Residential Care Activity; (p) Service Station; (q) Visitor Accommodation.

Will comply. The proposed building is intended for any of the following activities:

• Commercial activity

• Commercial recreation activity

• Communal activity These are permitted activities. The proposed building is not intended for any other activity.

32

Rule 4.3 Temporary activities - demolition Will comply. Demolition completed within 90 days is a ‘temporary activity’ and is a permitted activity.

Rule 4.4 Waste water treatment facility buffer areas

Does not apply

4.5 Noise: (3) Noise limits in commercial, industrial and mixed use zones: Noise generated from Commercial, Industrial and Mixed Use sites shall comply with the following standards: (a) On any day: At any time 55 dBA Leq 10.00 p.m. - 7.00 a.m. 85dBA Lmax Measured: Commercial zones at any point in any other site.

Will comply. The intended uses for the proposed building will need to comply with these noise limits. Demolition will be carried out between the hours of 7.00 a.m. - 10.00 p.m. and will not exceed 55 dBA Leq

4.6 Lightspill: (1) All activities shall comply with the following standards: (b) Commercial, Industrial and Mixed Use zones The emission of lightspill and/or glare measured at the boundary of the site of the emission does not exceed: 7.00p.m. to 7.00a.m. 15 Lux

Will comply. The intended uses for the proposed building will need to comply with these lightspill provisions.

4.7 Daylight admission Does not apply. The subject site is no-where near the boundary of any Residential or Rural Zone.

4.8 Height: 4.8.1 Rule (General) (1) No structure shall exceed the following heights: (b) In Rural and Commercial Zones 12 metres

The proposed building is 4.38 m in height to the top of the parapet and therefore complies with this Rule.

4.9 Site coverage Does not apply. There is no site coverage requirement in the Commercial Zone

4.10 Signs: (d) In Commercial, Industrial and Mixed Use zones (i) No sign shall project further than 1.5 metres over the road reserve, or to within 500 mm of the kerb line. (ii) Any sign overhanging the footpath shall be no less than 2.6 metres above the footpath directly beneath any part of the sign.

Any signage on the new building will comply with these requirements.

4.11 Natural hazards Does not apply in that the subject site is not within a floodway. It is noted that the site is protected from flooding by stop banks.

4.112 Trees Does not apply. There are no ‘significant trees’ on site and listed in the District Plan

4.13 Earthworks. Rule does not apply to building construction activities.

4.14 Transportation Routes 4.15.1 Rule (1) Within that part of the commercial zone at Gore shown on the District Plan Maps as

In this instance (a) The design of the new building provides

almost continuous frontage to main Street but a small space between the

33

“Central Area”: a) Other than to provide recesses associated with the entrance of persons, buildings shall provide continuous frontage to the street. (b) Buildings shall provide a veranda to the edge of the footpath, together with under veranda lighting. (c) Buildings shall be constructed to the front boundary of the site. (d) The facade of the building shall have a minimum height of 8 metres along the street frontage. (e) Areas utilised for the outdoor storage or placing of goods or waste shall be screened from public view. (2) A development that does not comply with (1) above is a restricted discretionary activity.

former Post Office and the new building is necessary because of the configuration of the former.

(b) It is not proposed to provide a veranda for the entire length of the new building. This would be out of place because none of the nearby buildings have a veranda. A canopy is provided over the entrance

(c) The new building will be constructed to the front boundary of the site apart from the entrance foyer

(d) The façade of the new building is approx. 4.38m in height. It is becoming increasingly apparent that any the economic case for any commercial development anywhere in Gore is unlikely to support buildings of more than one storey. This provision of the District Plan is stifling necessary redevelopment in Gore.

(e) There are no areas planned for outdoor storage.

Under Rule 4.15.1 the new building is a restricted discretionary activity.

(2) A development that does not comply with (1) above is a restricted discretionary activity. The matters over which Council shall exercise its discretion are the adverse environmental effects of the matters with which there is non-compliance.

(a) The adverse effect of the small break in budding frontage between the proposed building and its neighbour immediately to the north is minimal because the frontage will ‘read’ as almost continuous. (b) The adverse effects of not providing a full veranda are minimal because other buildings in the immediate area do not have verandas. The existing veranda is not a heritage feature because it was not a feature of the building when originally built. (c) It is hard to see how there could be any adverse effect from the small recess in the frontage at the entrance foyer. (d) Any adverse effect from the frontage being single storey only is mitigated by the generous stud height in the proposed building and by the building design which features a parapet to the street frontage.

4A Natural hazards (4) Within areas shown as “Subject to Actual or Potential Inundation” on the District Plan Maps the Gore District Council will: (b) in respect of any development in the urban

Please see Note 2 below.

34

area of Gore shown as lime green on the District Plan maps, encourage: P.4A-1 Gore District Plan 4A. Natural Hazards (i) the adoption of flood proofing techniques or other measures to avoid the adverse effects of flooding on the activity, (ii) measures to avoid the adverse effects of the activity on other property during a flood.

Transportation: 5.9.1 Access 4) Within that part of the Commercial Zone located in the Gore township: (a) identified as “Pedestrian Frontage” no vehicle access shall be provided from Main Street (State Highway 1) or Hokonui Drive (State Highway 94) (b) other than referred to in (a) above, vehicles shall enter and leave the site in a forward direction. 5.9.2 Off street car parking requirements (1)All land use activities specified in the table below shall provide the following minimum off-street car parking:

(Please see Note 3 below).

No vehicle access is planned from Main Street. There is no provision in the current building for on-site car parking or loading. Because the building has been vacant for many years, any ‘existing use rights’ have evaporated. Therefore any use of the current building or a replacement that cannot provide the requisite on-site car parking and/or loading will not comply with Rule 5.9.2.

Hazardous substances 6.9.1 It is a permitted activity to store or use hazardous substances provided that the quantities in storage or use do not exceed the amounts specified in Table 6.2.

Any hazardous substance stored or used within the new building will comply with the District Plan requirement. For example, Rule 6.9 (1) states it is a permitted activity to store hazardous substances in quantities less than those specified in Table 6.2 of the District Plan. The only hazardous substance likely to be on site is LPG associated with cooking facilities for a café. It is most likely that standard 45 kg gas bottles would be used. The District Plan at Table 6.2 would allow for up to 6 such bottles to be stored and used on site. This is more than sufficient to cater for the cooking needs of any café.

Section 7 - Utilities Does not apply.

Section 8 – Subdivision of Land Does not apply.

9.Financial contributions: 9.9.1 Parking within the Gore Commercial and

Mixed Use Area The following provisions apply to activities on land zoned Commercial and Mixed Use within the Gore township. (a) Circumstances when financial

contributions may be taken The Council may require, or an applicant may propose, that some or all of the on-site parking spaces, required to be

A financial contribution could be applicable for this proposal where it is not possible to provide off-street car parking. 9.9.1(c) provides that: A financial contribution under this section shall be calculated in the case of an activity requiring resource consent, at the time of granting consent and it shall be identified as a condition of that consent.

35

provided under Rule 5.9.2(1) in connection with a proposed activity or development, are to be ‘provided’ by way of a financial contribution in lieu thereof. Contributions shall be determined, paid and used in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(b) Determination of the maximum amount of financial contribution The maximum amount of financial contribution in lieu of parking that may be taken shall be determined on the basis of the following: Within the Commercial Area $(a) x [25(b) + (c)] + GST where: (a) = the number of parking spaces required under Rule 5.9.2(1). (b) = the average estimated market land value of 1m2 of land suitable for car parking purposes and 25 is the area in square metres required for each parking space including the required manoeuvring area. (c) = the cost of constructing and marking each parking space

Other forms of financial contribution…..

This could be an appropriate way to address the inability to accommodate car parking on-site. This proposal does not activate the District Plan triggers for other forms of financial contribution.

Note 1:

2.5.10 Information to accompany resource consent applications: In addition to all matters referred

to in Section 1.3 in this District Plan, an application for a resource consent under this section shall

contain:

(1) Details of the scheduled heritage structure and the reason for it being scheduled.

(2) A description of the activities that it is proposed to undertake and the reasons why these must be

undertaken.

(3) A description of other options that may be available and the reasons why these are not being

adopted.

(4) An assessment of environmental effects of the proposed activity on the heritage structure.

(5) A record of the consultation undertaken with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.

(6) A description of the measures proposed to be taken to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse

effects.

My responses to these requirements are as follows:

36

1. Details of the current building at 128 Main St Gore are attached in Appendices 3 and 4, being

the seismic assessments carried out by GM Designs and also by Stevenson Brown Ltd.

2. The ‘proposed activities’ are the demolition of the building and its replacement by a modern,

single storey commercial building. This is necessary in order to attract a commercial tenant

to this site and in order to address the problem of a substandard earthquake-prone building

which has been vacant for several years.

3. The owner has considered strengthening and renovating the building, however the costs of

so doing are likely to exceed, by a considerable margin, the costs of demolition and

replacement with a new building and result in an inferior renting proposition.

4. The environmental effects of the proposal on the heritage structure will be that the

structure will be demolished. The environmental effects associated with this, and with the

proposal to replace it with a modern commercial building, are addressed throughout this

Assessment of Environmental Effects

5. Consultation undertaken is discussed in Section 6.

6. Such heritage features as can be saved during the demolition of the building will be salvaged

and offered for sale. Other effects such as the creation of noise and dust and possible

disruption to traffic during demolition and construction will be short-lived, temporary, and

can be mitigated by appropriate construction site management procedures.

Note 2

On Map GOR 07 the subject site is shown as prone to flooding subsequent to a stopbank breach or

stopbank overtopping.

The design of the new building will incorporate features designed to mitigate the effect of

inundation. Internal wiring will be routed high to avoid its getting wet in any reasonably credible

inundation event.

The District Plan gives no indication that the Council wishes to promote any kind of ‘strategic

withdrawal’ from the Main Street area, indicating that the natural hazard risks are known to and

generally accepted by the Council.

Note 3

The District Plan requires the provision of off-street parking. Under Rule 5.9.2 of the Gore District

Plan the following are the requirements for the kinds of land uses anticipated for the new building:

USE OF BUILDING (Commercial activity)

DISTRICT PLAN REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF PARKS NEEDED

Other Retail & Hire Premises

One car park per 50 square metres retail floor space or part thereof plus one staff car park per 100 square metres retail floor space or part thereof, plus one loading bay per 1,500

3+ 1 = 4 car parks One loading bay

37

square metres of retail floor space.

Offices: One car park per 50 square metres gross floor space or part thereof

3 car parks

Restaurants: One staff car park per 2 staff or part thereof on the site at any one time, plus one car park per 4 persons to be accommodated in the restaurant.

Assume 2 staff, 40 guests = 12 car parks

Other commercial activity

One staff car park per 2 staff or part thereof on the site at any one time, plus one car park per 50 square metres or part thereof of gross floor area of commercial activity

Assume 2 staff. 1 + 3 = 4

Fast food outlet One car park per 10 square metres of retail floor area Assume 70 sq m retail floor area = 7 car parks

Commercial recreation activity

Indoor: One staff car park per 2 staff or part Recreation thereof on the site at any one time, plus one Activity car park per 10 persons (including spectators) or part thereof provided for on the site

Assume 2 staff, 40 activity people = 12 car parks

Communal activity

One staff car park per 2 staff or part thereof Activity on the site at any one time, plus one car park per 10 persons or part thereof provided for on the site

Assume 2 staff, 40 activity people = 12 car parks

Where an activity is a Discretionary Activity, it must be assessed against the relevant objectives and

policies of the Plan. It follows from the case law cited above that this analysis should be in relation

to the general objectives and policies, and also the particular objectives and policies which pertain to

the rules with which there is non-compliance. There is no need to analyse the development against

the objectives and policies which relate to the Rules with which there is compliance.

DISTRICT PLAN OBJECTIVE/POLICY ASSESSMENT COMMENT

Objective 2.5.3.1 Recognise and protect the heritage values of buildings, sites, structures and archaeological sites.

The heritage value of the building is recognised, however, its demolition is necessary in order to enable a productive land use. The applicant acknowledges the obligations of the owner under the Historic Places Act 1993 in terms of the need for an Archaeological Assessment to be carried out and (if needed) Archaeological Authority to be granted prior to earthworks commencing on site.

Policy 2.5.4.6. In considering any application seeking changes to, or demolition of, any registered heritage structure listed in Table 5.1 have regard to:

(i) the structural integrity of the building, as assessed by a suitably qualified and experienced professional engineer;

(ii) any risk that is posed to other

(i) The building has been assessed by two suitably qualified engineering consultancies as 20% or <20% NBS.

(ii) In terms of the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act, because of its proximity to State Highway 1 and position within the Gore Central Commercial area, the building should be regarded as a ‘priority’ building.

(iii) The option of strengthening and renovating the building is a project. The best information

38

property and the safety of people within or near to the structure; and (iii) where demolition is sought, the financial implications of other options.

available suggests that the cost of this would exceed the ability of the renovated space to yield a commercial return.

Objective 3.3.9 Maintain and enhance the built character and other characteristics of the Gore commercial area.

The proposed development is an attractive building and is of a form and scale appropriate to the character of the Gore commercial area. As a new development, it will bring activity and economic critical mass to this part of the commercial area. While this may well have consequences elsewhere, it will help lift the Gore commercial area out of the its current state of near-stagnation. (There is a notable absence of recent commercial development).

Policy 3.4.13 Within the Gore commercial area protect: (a) the character of the existing buildings in the Central Commercial Area (b) the streetscape of the Central Commercial Area (c) the form and function of the locality (d) the safety and amenity of pedestrians. (e) the character and streetscape of the Secondary Commercial Area.

(a) The new building will complement the existing buildings in the immediate neighbourhood which are of a more modern build and character than the subject building (b) The new building will provide a frontage to Main Street with enough visual character to be reasonable pedestrian-friendly. (c) The new building will attract a commercial use into the area augmenting its economic critical mass. The current, vacant building detracts from the attractiveness of the area as on in which to do business (d) and (e) The proposed building does not encroach on the adjacent footpath space. It will provide a focal point for the amenity seating and paving in the footpath space (which currently looks into a vacant and derelict building)

Policy 5.4.1 Control the adverse effects of land use activities on transportation networks.

There will be no adverse effect on the State Highway because there is no planned egress onto the state highway.

Policy 9.4.2 A financial contribution may be required to offset the adverse effects of large scale commercial or industrial development.

To the extent that the requirement for off-street car parking can be met by negotiation for space with owners of nearby properties, there is no need or justification for a financial contribution.

Gore Streetscape Strategy

A Streetscape Strategy for the Gore District was adopted by the Gore District Council in December

2011. One of the purposes of this non-statutory document was to inform the District Plan and

decisions on resource consents made under the District Plan (page 3). As such, any provisions in the

strategy which are relevant to the proposal should be noted here.

STREETSCAPE STRATEGY PROVISION ASSESSMENT COMMENT

3.2.1 Many of the buildings in Main Street are recognised as being of heritage significance while the precinct as a whole is of townscape

The existing building is of heritage significance. However, redevelopment to the north (the construction of the former Gore Post Office) and to the west (clearance to form the RSA car park)

39

importance. While not wishing to curtail changes within the area, the Council considers that it is vitally important to retain the character of this central area, both for the residents of the District and for the tourists that travel here.

have removed its context. The character of the surrounding area has already changed. The new building, although of necessity economical in construction, has been designed to contribute in a positive way to the streetscape. People are an essential element in any viable streetscape. A tenanted building will help add economic critical mass - and therefore people – to the area.

Policy 4 Within the central commercial area of Gore, the Council will: (a) Enable, subject to appropriate controls: (i) Installation of street furniture by commercial operators, such as tables and chairs. (ii) Busking and other street forms of entertainment. (iii) Erection of signage boards. (iv) Use of mobility scooters. (b) Require: (i) Buildings to provide continuous frontage to the street, with blank walls avoided where practical. (ii) Provision of verandas along the entire street frontage with appropriate under‐veranda lighting provided and maintained by the adjoining land owner. (iii) Building heights of two storeys to retain a consistent building height, openness and sunlight. (iv) Screening of outdoor goods and waste storage areas. (v) Deliveries of goods to and from stores between 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. the following day where access is required direct from Main Street by vehicles that are too large to use parking spaces provided. (vi) Creation and use of shared service lanes to provide access to the rear of buildings. (vii) Undergrounding of infrastructural services, including power and communications. (c) Prohibit (i) Vehicle crossings direct from Main Street to adjoining properties. (ii) Skateboards, rollerblades, scooters or similar forms of recreational mobility.

• Street furniture could be located appropriately in the street space in front of the proposed building.

• The proposed building presents a frontage of reasonable visual interest at the pedestrian scale

• The current building is the only building for some distance to have a veranda. The former Post Office does not have a veranda.

• Economics dictate that the proposed building will be single storey. Nevertheless, the frontage of the proposed building has been designed to complement its neighbours and context.

Figure (16) below shows the current building and its immediate neighbour, the former Post Office. It shows:

• The absence of a veranda along the frontage of the former Post Office or anywhere else in the immediate vicinity

• The rather bizarre contrast between the styles of the two buildings. Both buildings have architectural merit but visually they are strange neighbours.

• The abrupt end to the frontage of the building on 128 Main St onto Civic Avenue

• The impracticality of ensuring a continuous frontage between any new building and the former Post Office (which has a second storey window facing south)

• The existing street furniture outside the subject building, which can remain and which will complement the new building.

40

Figure 16

(d) Provide and facilitate: (i) An environment of high amenity value for shoppers, including full berm width footpaths, street furniture associated beautification works (including planting, trees and hanging baskets) (ii) Provision for the needs of cyclists, including cycle stands as demand dictates. (iii) Provision for the safe crossing of roads by pedestrians and the mobility impaired in locations convenient for them. (iv) Effective lighting during hours of darkness. (v) Rubbish bins for use by shoppers, but not commercial businesses. (vi) Toilets for use by shoppers and visitors.

41

Southland Water and Land Plan

The Southland Water and Land Plan must be considered in any application to Environment

Southland for resource consent. In this instance, land use consent only is required, and the

application is therefore only to the Gore District Council.

Southland Regional Policy Statement

The relevant document is the Southland Regional Policy Statement 2017.

It should be noted that compliance with the objectives and policies of the Gore District Plan can also

be taken to indicate compliance with the Southland Regional Policy Statement, because the former

is required by law to give effect to the latter. In my analysis (above) I have demonstrated compliance

with the District Plan.

Chapter 14 – Historic Heritage – has relevance, in particular:

Policy HH.6 – Adaptive reuse Encourage the adaptive reuse and maintenance of built historic

heritage.

Explanation/Principal Reasons Adaptive reuse involves modifying historic heritage buildings or

structures that may require new architectural interior/exterior features to allow for a compatible

new use with the least possible loss of historic heritage. Alongside ongoing maintenance, it is an

effective way to prevent historic heritage buildings and structures from becoming degraded and

unsafe due to neglect and to retain the usefulness of the building or structure to conserve historic

heritage for future generations. The ICOMOS New Zealand Charter38 provides support for managers

of historic heritage by setting out principles to guide the conservation of places of cultural heritage

value in New Zealand.

In this instance ‘adaptive re-use’ has been a feature of the use of the building in the past – it has

been an office, a restaurant, and a hairdressing/beauty salon – but, put simply, it has reached the

stage where no further adaptive re-use is economically possible or practical.

The other relevant chapter is Chapter 17 – Urban

The introduction to Chapter 17 notes:

There is a need to create and maintain sustainable urban environments that function well, provide a

safe, healthy and stimulating environment, housing choice, transport options and accessible services

and transport. However, development can result in a range of negative effects, including a loss of

local identity, social problems or health issues.

42

This is really all about the creation and sustaining of activity in urban environments. The demolition

of a vacant, untenanted and untenantable building in order to build quality tenantable commercial

space is consistent with this comment. It is also consistent with the sole Objective in this section:

My assessment against the relevant objectives and policies in Chapter 17 is therefore brief and is as

follows:

PLAN PROVISION ASSESSMENT COMMENT

Objective URB.1 – Urban development Urban (including industrial) development occurs in an integrated, sustainable and well-planned manner which provides for positive environmental, social, economic and cultural outcomes.

The application is consistent with this objective. The proposal by replacing a vacant building with high quality commercial space will add to the critical mass of the Gore Central Area.

Policy URB.1 – Adverse environmental effects -The adverse effects of urban development on the environment should be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

The adverse effect of development will be loss of a heritage building that is an earthquake hazard. There is little in the building that can reasonably be expected to survive the demolition process, however anything that can be salvaged will be/

Policy URB.2 – Urban development- Manage urban growth and development in ways that: (a) support existing urban areas; (b) promote development and/or redevelopment of existing urban areas ahead of greenfield development; (c) promote urban growth and development within areas that have existing infrastructure capacity; (d) promote the progressive upgrading of infrastructure and improvement of the quality of sewage and stormwater discharges; (e) provide potable water supply; (f) plan ahead for the expansion of urban areas; (g) promote compact urban form; and (h) promote appropriate site and building orientation that supports the principles of optimum energy efficiency and solar energy gain.

The proposal will (a) Support and add critical mass to the

Gore Central Area (b) Achieve redevelopment of an existing

urban site (c) Utilise existing infrastructure (d) Help keep the Gore Central Area

reasonably compact in form

Policy URB.3 – Urban intensification Encourage opportunities for urban intensification and redevelopment within Southland’s existing urban areas.

As for Policy URB.2

Policy URB.4 – High quality urban design Encourage high quality urban design.

The proposal is consistent with good urban design practice. The frontage is pedestrian-friendly. The form of the building is not inconsistent with its neighbours.

Policy URB.5 – Land use activities Make provision for a range of land use activities within urban areas.

The proposed building can be adapted for a range of commercial enterprises.

43

National Policy Statements and Environmental Standards

In the course of my policy analysis above I have shown that the proposal is consistent with the

district plan and applicable regional plans and policy statements. This has included direct reference

to national environmental standards where appropriate (e.g. the National Environmental Standard

for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health 2011). As noted in the

introduction to my policy analysis, compliance with lower order documents, which are required to

give effect to high order documents, can be taken to imply compliance with higher order documents.

RMA Part 2 Matters My assessment follows on page 44.

44

RMA PROVISION ASSESSMENT COMMENT

3 Purpose

(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the

sustainable management of natural and

physical resources.

The proposal promotes the sustainable use of land within the Gore town centre.

6. Matters of national importance

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons

exercising functions and powers under it, in

relation to managing the use, development, and

protection of natural and physical resources,

shall recognise and provide for the following

matters of national importance:

……….

(f) the protection of historic heritage from

inappropriate subdivision, use, and development: ………

(h) the management of significant risks from

natural hazards.

The definition of ‘inappropriate’ in the Oxford English Dictionary is: Not suitable or proper in the circumstances. Demolition of a building which has been vacant for many years, which is an earthquake risk and which it is not economic to repair is not ‘inappropriate’.

7. Other matters

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons

exercising functions and powers under it, in

relation to managing the use, development, and

protection of natural and physical resources,

shall have particular regard to—

……..

(c) the maintenance and enhancement of

amenity values:

…….

(f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality

of the environment:

The new building will be visually and functionally appropriate within its context. By helping to sustain economic critical mass in the Gore town centre it will indirectly help to maintain and enhance amenity values. (The amenity values of a town centre are directly related to the presence of people and economic and social activity.)

8. Treaty of Waitangi

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons

exercising functions and powers under it, in

relation to managing the use, development, and

protection of natural and physical resources,

shall take into account the principles of

the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

The site is not of known heritage or other value to Maori and it is not considered that the proposal raises issues under the Treaty of Waitangi.

45

Matters from the Fourth Schedule to the RMA

The Fourth Schedule to the Resource Management Act sets out the matters that must be addressed

in any Assessment of Effects. A summary of the matters from the Fourth Schedule is as follows:

1. A description of the proposal

2. (Where relevant) a description of alternate locations or methods

3. (Repealed)

4. An assessment of the actual or potential effect on the environment of the proposed activity

5. An assessment of the risks to the environment involving the use of any hazardous

substances

6. A description of the discharge of any contaminants, and alternatives

7. A description of the mitigation measures to be undertaken to address any actual or potential

effect

8. Identification of persons affected and the result of any consultation

9. Proposals for monitoring.

I believe I have covered these matters in this Assessment of Effects, with the exception of (9). This

should be a straightforward consent. No use can be made of the site until the current building is

demolished.

The worst ‘effect’ that could arise would arise from the scenario that the application for consent is

refused, the building remains vacant, it is not maintained, and eventually either because of an

earthquake or of its own accord, the building (or parts of it) fall into the street causing at best

inconvenience and at worst injury or death.

This effect can be mitigated by granting consent to demolish the building within a reasonably short

time frame. Two years is suggested.

A further three years to give effect to the consent to build the new building would be reasonable.

Construction of the new building can only be undertaken when there is a reasonable prospect of a

new tenant. Realistically, this is unlikely to happen until the ‘development blight’ on the site –

caused by the resource consenting issues associated with the existing building – have been

addressed.

The Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act

Although not within the bailiwick of the RMA, I have included comment here because the Building

(Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act fulfils a similar function to an NPS or NES in imposing

a certain standard and course of action on a uniform basis throughout New Zealand.

This Act came into force on 1 July 2017 and has implications for the existing building.

46

The assessed NBS of the existing building at approx. 20 % (by two independent engineering

consultancies) means the building must be regarded as ‘earthquake prone’.

Its location within the Gore Central Area, and on State Highway 1 (Main St) means that it poses a

high risk to life safety and, arguably, and would impede a transport route of strategic importance if

the building collapsed in an earthquake. This makes it a ‘priority building’ in terms of the legislation.

In such circumstances, the Gore District Council must identify potentially earthquake prone buildings

within 5 years and owners must strengthen or demolish them within 12.5 years.

In this instance, the owner is seeing resource consent to carry out exactly the action likely to be

required of him by the Gore District Council under the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings)

Amendment Act.

47

CONCLUSION and SUMMARY

Policy considerations

The identification and listing of buildings of heritage value is identified in the District Plan as a matter

of national importance. Although the subject building is not listed by the NZ Historic Places Trust,

the District Plan lists it as a scheduled heritage structure, and demolition is a discretionary activity.

The tenor of the Plan provisions is not that all heritage buildings must be reserved at all costs. Had

this been so, demolition of a scheduled heritage structure would have been a non-complying, or

even a prohibited, activity. As it stands, demolition of a scheduled heritage structure is a

discretionary activity. The thrust of the Plan is, therefore, that all options should be considered

prior to demolition of heritage buildings, and that the effects of demolition be properly addressed.

In this instance, options to retain the building have been carefully considered by the applicant. It is

the combination of the very poor structural condition of the building and its awkward shape and

arrangement, together with previous modifications that have affected the structural integrity of the

ground floor, that mean that the building cannot be tenanted in its current form. As noted on page

25, the capital investment required to carry out a structural upgrade is substantially more than could

be recovered from future rentals.

Information requirements

The information required under Rule 2.5.10, and where it can be found in this Assessment of Effects,

are as follows:

1. Details of the structure and the reason for it being scheduled: Pages 6-13 and Appendix 1

2. Description of the activities proposed: Pages 15 - 16

3. Description of options: Pages 25 et seq.

4. Assessment of environmental effects Pages 23 - 24

5. Record of consultation with NZ Historic Places Trust (and others) . Pages 19-22

6. Description of measures proposed to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects.

Addressed throughout this report.

Overall conclusion

The building has reached the end of its life. The heritage values of the building have been

compromised by previous modifications to the structure and façade of the ground floor. Structural

upgrade to meet even a reasonable percentage of new build standards is not practical or economic

and the building form is obsolete for today’s needs.

The demolition should proceed as soon as practicable in order to

(a) Remove a building now known to be earthquake-prone and dangerous

48

(b) Enable the applicant to canvas re-build options with potential clients with some certainty as

to timeframes

(c) Enable meaningful discussions and consultation on other options for the site

(d) Enable an alternative use to be made of this site that will contribute to the vibrancy and

attractive appearance of the Gore Town Centre.

49

SUGGESTED CONDITIONS

1. The new building is to be used as as a retail premise, office, or ‘other comemcial activity’ as

defined in the Gore district Plan

2. An Archaeological investigation is to be undertaken prior to redevelopment of the site

3. Time frame of 2 years to give effect to the decision to allow demolition

4. Physical construction of new building on site to commence within three years of completion

of demolition.

5. At any time the new building is occupied the consent holder is to arrange the lease of four

car parks within a 500m radius of the site.

6. Any service access is to be off the Right of Way on the western boundary of the building.