Regulatory Committee Agenda - Waipa District Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
detailing the history of the building and containing photographs and plans of the structure. 6.4 The application was also internally circulated to several Council departments and organisations. This was for information purposes only and no formal comments were required to be provided. 6.5 No comments were accordingly received, except from Council's SPnior Building Compliance Officer, Owen Johnston, who confirmed that a building consent is not required for its demolition. 6.6 The application was also forwarded to the Cambridge Hentage Society and Cambridge Community Board for their comments. Various members provided their individual comments of which copies are attached as Appendix 4. In short, Mr John Bishop from the Cambridge Heritage Society supports the application while other members of the Heritage Society had split opinions as follows. • Jennie Gainsford- Cambridge Heritage Society- Oppose • Alan Hall- Cambridge Heritage Society- Support • Robin Astridge- Cambridge Heritage Society- Neutral • John Bishop- Cambridge Community Board- Support 6.7 Copies of the application were available at the Public Counters and Public Library of both the Cambridge and Te Awamutu offices throughout the notification period. 7 DISTRICT PLAN PROVISIONS - CLASSIFICATION OF THE LANDUSE CONSENT 7.1 As already mentioned, the subject site is zoned General in the Operative Waipa District Plan, and Commercial in the Proposed Waipa District Plan. 7.2 Operative Waipa District Plan 7.2.1 The site is listed in Appendix 10 of the Operative District Plan as containing a Heritage Building (RSA Clubrooms) which has an HPT classification of II. 7.2.2 Under Rule 11.2.4(a} of the Operative District Plan, the demolition of a building listed in Appendix 10 is a Discretionary Activity and shall be considered in accordance with Rule 11.2.5, and subject to the following procedure: • The Council may publicly notify the proposal and shall serve notice of the proposal on the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and on such other interested groups or bodies as the Council thinks fit. • Prior to giving any effect to the proposal, such plans, photographs and other information as the Council may require shall be supplied by the owner to enable an adequate record to be made. Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (19 November 2012} To demolish a HeritJge Item- Cambridge RSA Page9 LU/0096/12 183
Page 4:
LIJ Waipa DISTRICT COUNCIL Regulato
Page 7:
LLI Waipa DISTRICT COUNCIL Regulato
Page 10:
LIJ ""aipa DISTRICT COUNCIL Regulat
Page 14 and 15:
14 LIJ Waip a DISTRICT COUNCIL Regu
Page 16 and 17:
16 LLI Waipa DISTRICT COUNCIL Regul
Page 18:
18 Certificate AWAMUTU Renewal 016J
Page 23:
Planning Regulatory Report Landuse
Page 29:
TeAwamutu Decision Waste Storm AppN
Page 33:
TeAwamutu Decision Waste Storm AppN
Page 37:
KEY SLCA Special Landscape Characte
Page 41:
5 REPORT 5.1 Complaints 5.2 The tot
Page 44 and 45:
44 Staff responded to 20 nuisance c
Page 49 and 50:
LLI Waipa To: DISTRICT COUNCIL From
Page 51:
l Figure 3: Proposed District Plan,
Page 60:
60 On the basis that approximately
Page 64 and 65:
64 1.2 The property is adjacent to
Page 67 and 68:
{2) Repealed. (a) the holder of a s
Page 69:
consent authority considers relevan
Page 73 and 74:
7.3.4 Weighting of District Plans T
Page 76:
76 Appendix 1 Site location Map Rep
Page 80:
80 Appendix 3 SP/0106/11 Decision R
Page 83 and 84:
Where telephone cables serving any
Page 85 and 86:
i) All earthworks must be carried o
Page 87:
Appendix 4 Section 127 Application
Page 94:
94 1.2 The topography of the land i
Page 100 and 101:
100 There will be no adverse visual
Page 102 and 103:
102 plans, and future settlement pa
Page 104:
104 and subject to those costs whic
Page 109:
Appendix 2 SP/0113/12 Approved Subd
Page 114:
114 C4 That Lot 3 hereon be transfe
Page 117 and 118:
Schedule 2 Reasons for Decision Res
Page 120:
120 With our proposed new tubdivisi
Page 128:
128 waste water disposal system. Re
Page 132 and 133: 132
Page 134 and 135: 134 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 A previous ap
Page 137 and 138: 7.2 A copy of the application was f
Page 139 and 140: Rural Residential Density and Varie
Page 145 and 146: Objective- Giving effect to the Wai
Page 148 and 149: 148 defines the Waikato River as: "
Page 154 and 155: 154 Such Consent Notice must be eit
Page 156 and 157: 156 b) that all water supply pipeli
Page 159 and 160: Appendix 1 Amended Scheme Plan Repo
Page 162: 162
Page 169 and 170: Appendix 3 Consultation with Submit
Page 171 and 172: Tanya Running From: Sent: To: Phil
Page 173 and 174: condition) along their Northern bou
Page 176 and 177: 176 1 THE SITE 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF T
Page 178 and 179: 178 Figure 3: Zoning and Overlay- P
Page 180 and 181: 180 3 THE PROPOSAL 3.1 The proposal
Page 184 and 185: 184 7.2.3 The application was publi
Page 186: 186 8.1.5 It is acknowledged that t
Page 189 and 190: 8.2.4 Objectives and Polices Assess
Page 191 and 192: 11 RECOMMENDATION That a) The repor
Page 193 and 194: List of Appendices Appendix 1 Site
Page 219: Rgure 9 (top left}. Detail of the g
Page 227 and 228: archaeological sites dwi.ng earthwo
Page 230 and 231: 230 Appendix 4 Comments from Cambri
Page 233 and 234:
From: John Bishop Sent: Wednesday,
Page 235:
-------- AppendixS Assessment of th
Page 238 and 239:
238 reuse or relocated either withi
Page 241 and 242:
and educational value, and its pote
Page 249:
HN1rin1: - ------ - [] I do wish to
Page 264:
264 Appendix 7 Assessment undertake
Page 268 and 269:
268 • The objectives and polices
Page 270:
270 I MrsV 43 Burns Street, Not Ind
Page 274:
274 5.2 Waikato Campaien of the New
Page 277 and 278:
Club-house- "The contractor is gett
Page 279 and 280:
and serviceable. Frequently the fro
Page 282:
282 Figure 8 Floor boards 5 3/81nch
Page 285 and 286:
5.4.2.4 Ceiling Investigations Nort
Page 287:
5.4.3 Summary Cambridge Farmers Clu
Page 292 and 293:
292 Historical: "The extent to whic
Page 297:
12. Rarity: "The frequency with whi
show all

Regulatory Committee Agenda - Waipa District Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?