Regulatory Committee Agenda - Waipa District Council

182
5.6 The majority of the above issues are discussed further in Section 8.1, Environmental
Effects. There are however a number of issues that have been raised in the
submissions that require comment at this point in time as they are either not RMA or
environmental effect considerations. The following provides this commentary.
5.7 One ofthe submitters states that the demolition is for individual gain. Whilst this may
the case this is not a fact that Council can consider when making a decision on this
application. It is the prerogative of the owner of the site to make an application to
Council which he/she deems to be the best outcome for the site and the owner. This
assessment solely looks at the effects and merits of the proposal from an
archaeological and historical perspective.
5.8 Three submitters have also indicated that the building should be relocated and that
Council must insist that it is offered for relocation. It was also suggested that it be
moved to the greenbelt and used as a museum or used as a residence. As the site is
privately owned, Council cannot enforce a decision which is not the subject of the
application. As above, the application is assessed on its merits.
5.9 Two submitters stated that the RSA members voted to sell in 2003 based on the
assurance that the 'historic significance if the building be maintained', and that the
demolition is therefore not in keeping with that. As it is the owner's wish to demolish
the building and as there are no legal instruments registered on the title to ensure
adherence to what have been agreed to, Council can not enforce such an agreement.
5.10 The suggestion of erecting a plague on the site containing the history of the building
and site seems to be a good compromise but is a requirement that would be difficult
to enforce. It will ultimately depend on the good will of the future owners of the site.
6 OFFICER COMMENTS
6.1 Council has engaged the services of Alexy Simmons, Simmons and Associates Ltd to
review the application, submissions received and undertake an assessment of the
building and its background. Her report, which is attached as Appendix 7, forms the
basis of this assessment and the recommendation contained in this report.
6.2 The report provides an overview of the submissions received, history of the building
and site, reasoning behind the building being listed in the Proposed District Plan and
a recommendation. The report includes an extensive assessment of the existing
features and includes floor plans and photographs of the floor and ceiling boards
supporting the conclusion. This reporting is additional to that provided by the
applicant in support of the application by Matthew Campbell and Peter Holmes- CFG
Heritage.
6.3 The report recommended that a recording be done to document the architecture and
photographic evidence of the building and that signage be erected on the site
Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting· (19 November 2012)
To demolish a Heritage Item-Cambridge RSA
PageS
LU/0096/12