Regulatory Committee Agenda - Waipa District Council

186
8.1.5 It is acknowledged that the building has historic significance as well as sentimental
value to the community but due to the alterations undertaken over the years and the
current "neglectedH state of the building, any effort to restore the building to its
original form could prove to be a significant financial challenge. The owner has also
indicated that he does not wish to maintain the building.
8.1.6 It is agreed that heritage buildings should be conserved in order to maintain
Cambridge's history and architectural design, as stated by some submitters.
However, as there is no Council funding assistance in place the onus is on the owner
of the heritage item to fund any such maintenance/upgrading. As a result, Council is
therefore not in the position to enforce this upgrading. For this reason the District
Plan has to provide for the option of demolition of heritage items, even if it goes
against Waipa District Council's heritage protection policy.
8.1.7 I concur with the building having a prominent street frontage and being a Cambridge
landmark and that it would be a 'sad day to see it being demolished', but the reality is
that investigations undertaken concluded that very little of the original features
remain. Restoration of the building, in part or full, is not something that Council can
enforce. If the retainment and upgrading of the building is what the Cambridge public
would require, then Council would need to purchase and upgrade the building at the
ratepayers cost.
8.1.8 One submitter mentioned that it is not up to NZHPT to determine whether heritage
buildings in Waipa can be demolished. NZHPT acknowledges the fact that the building
has undergone significant alteration and modification over the years and has
therefore granted authorisation to demolish it. This provides some direction to
Council, but any decision is primarily dependent on the condition of the building and
approval or decline is ultimately the decision of Council's Regulatory Committee.
8.1.9 I therefore concur with the recommendation of the report prepared by Ms Simmons
which advises that architectural and photographic recording of the building and site
be undertaken in order to mitigate potential effects relating to the
demolition/removal.
8.1.10 Based on the above, I consider the removal of the building from the site appropriate
given that appropriate mitigation measures be undertaken, i.e. recording of
architectural features and photographic evidence.
Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting- (19 November 2012)
To demolish a Heritage Item- cambridge RSA
Pase 12
LU/0096/12