Hamilton City Proposed District Plan

Transcription

1 Hamilton City Proposed District Plan Section 42A Hearing Report 19 and 20 November 2013 Report on Submissions and Further Submissions Chapter 19 Historic Heritage Vol 1 and Appendix 8 Volume 2 1

2 Table of Contents Page Number 1. Introduction 3 2. Background 3 3. Submissions 4 4. Analysis 5 5. Conclusion 5 Appendix A Analysis and Recommendations Appendix B List of Submitters and Further Submitters Appendix C Tracked change versions: C1 Chapter 19 Historic Heritage C2 Appendix 8 Heritage C3 Appendix 1 District Plan Administration Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria I Heritage Values C4 Chapter 1: Plan Overview Appendix D Zoning map changes Appendix E Built Heritage Inventory Records H39 H50 H57 H88 Central Post Office Notre Dame des Missions House (126 Forest Lake Road) Municipal Baths H106 David O McKay Building H107 G.R. Biesinger Hall H109 Wendell B Mendenhall Library H113 Former Morris Stores and Motor Services (116 Grey St) H133 First House/George Biesinger House H134 Kai Hall H135 Block Plant Matthews and Matthews Architects Report 2

3 1 Introduction 1.1 My name is Mark Roberts. I hold the qualifications of a Masters of Town and Regional Planning from the University of Natal, South Africa and am an associate member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. I have had 22 years experience in planning roles in Local Government and consultancy both within New Zealand and South Africa which has included regulatory and policy development roles under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). 1.2 At present I hold the position of senior planner for the Hamilton City Council. 1.3 My role in preparing this report is that of a policy planner. Although this is a Council Hearing, I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court's Practice Note dated 1 November I have complied with that Code when preparing my written statement of evidence and I agree to comply with it when I give any oral evidence. 1.4 The scope of my evidence relates to comments on submissions and further submissions received in relation to Chapter 19 Historic Heritage and Appendix 8 Historic Heritage. 1.5 The data, information, facts, and assumptions I have considered in forming my opinions are set out in my evidence. Where I have set out opinions in my evidence, I have given reasons for those opinions. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed. 1.6 In preparing this report I rely on expert advice sought from Matthews and Matthews Architects relating to the assessment of individual Historic Heritage Buildings and Structures. 1.7 Three without-prejudice meetings were held with the following submitters to clarify their submissions: New Zealand Historic Place Trust Nail Baker and Lynette Williams The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board 2 Background 2.1 The purpose Chapter 19 Historic Heritage is to achieve the on-going protection of heritage buildings, structures, archaeological and cultural sites within Hamilton City. Council is required under section 6(e) and (f) of the RMA to protect historic heritage from inappropriate sub division and development as well as provide for Maori culture and traditions. 2.2 Chapter 19 identifies individual buildings, structures places and sites that warrant recognition and protection. The items are divided into two main groups these being built heritage and archaeological and cultural sites. 3

4 2.3 As part of the development of the heritage chapter in the district plan the existing categories were rationalised from five categories which included A+, A, B, C and D to two categories. The two categories, A and B, are consistent with objectives and policies in the Waikato Proposed Regional Policy Statement and best practice guidelines such as those prepared by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. 2.4 With the rationalization of the ranking categories all heritage items within the Operative District Plan were reassessed and allocated the appropriate ranking under the new two tier ranking system. Only two new items were assessed as part of the preparation of Chapter 19 and this was only undertaken following the requested by the owners for these for them to be inclusion in Schedule 8A. 2.5 A number of incentives have also been introduced in Chapter 19 to encourage the retention and enhancement of heritage buildings and structures. These incentives relate to the ability to undertake earthquake strengthening works which does not impact on the heritage values of the building or structure as a permitted activity, and the introduction of a wider range of land uses that can be considered on a site of a heritage item. 2.6 Archaeological and Cultural have been categorised into two groups with highly significant archaeological and cultural sites being identified as Group 1 sites and known sites that have been destroyed or damaged by development and are not easily recognisable but still are important in term of their historic and cultural importance have been identified as Group 2 sites. 3 Submissions 3.1 A total of thirty six submissions with 97 points of submission were received directly on Chapter 19. Fifteen further submissions with 116 further submission points have been received in relation to the principal submissions. 3.2 Lists of the submitters and further submitters referred to in this report are contained in Appendix B. 3.3 Late Submissions The following submissions were received after the close of the submission period: Blogojevic Family Trust (1247) received on 12 April 2013 Tom Roa (1285) received on 12 May 2013 The following Further Submissions were received after the close of the further submission period: Nagapuhi (FS273) received on 10 July 2013 Rakaipaka Puriri (FS275) received on 2 July 2013 The Commissioner has appropriate delegations under the RMA to consider, pursuant to s37 of the RMA, whether to waive the lateness of these submissions and further submissions. 4

5 4 Analysis 4.1 Given the number, nature and extent of the submissions and further submissions received the analysis that follows has grouped submissions into a structure based on sections of the chapter. No submissions substantively oppose the Historic Heritage provisions as a whole. The topic headings are as follows: 19.1 Purpose Historic Heritage 19.2 Objectives and Policies Historic Heritage All Historic Heritage All Built Heritage Buildings and Structures Archaeological and Cultural Sites 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table 19.4 Rules Specific Standards 19.5 Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria 19.6 Notification Rules Appendix 8: 8-1 Assessment of Historic Buildings and Structures Appendix 8 - Schedule8A: Built Heritage (Structures, buildings and associated sites) Appendix 8: Schedule 8B Group 1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites Appendix 8: Schedule 8c Group 2 Archaeological and Cultural Sites 4.2 Each grouping contains the following: An analysis of the matters raised in submissions. Submitter / Further Submitter Name. Submission / Further Submission Point reference numbers. Plan Provision to which the submission relates. Submission type (Support, Oppose, Support in Part). Summary of the submission point (from the summary of submissions). A recommendation to the hearing panel on whether to Accept, Accept in Part, or Reject the submission. The reasons for the recommendation. 5 Conclusion 5.1 On the basis of my analysis, I recommend that the changes within the Track Changes Versions (Appendix C) are accepted. 5.2 The changes will improve the clarity and administration of the Plan, contribute towards achieving the objectives of the Plan in an effective and efficient manner, and give effect to the purpose and principles of the RMA. M Roberts 4 November

6 Appendix A Analysis and recommendations

7 Historic Heritage Submissions and Further Submissions S42a Report Analysis: 19.1 Purpose - Historic Heritage The purpose of Chapter 19 Historic Heritage is to achieve the on-going protection of heritage buildings, structures, archaeological and cultural sites within Hamilton. Hamilton City Council is required to protect historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision and development and provide for Mãori culture and traditions under section 6(e) and (f) of the Resource Management Act Chapter 19 is supported by Robert W. Belbin ( ). Hamilton Youth Council ( ) supports the initiatives to protect and restore important landmarks of the city however they also ask for the introduction of a targeted educational programme to familiarise young people with the history and heritage of the city. It is acknowledged that the education of the general public, land owners and developers on the importance of heritage is a fundamental part of ensuring the ongoing protection of the city s heritage stocks. However, it is not the role of the District Plan to provide this level of education. Council has recognised the importance of heritage education and the provision of incentives to land owners to ensure the continued retention and use of the city s heritage buildings. To enable this to happen, Council intends to finalise the development of a Heritage Policy for the city. Council committed itself to develop a Heritage Policy through CityScope in Staff developed a draft Heritage Policy in 2008, which the Council at the time approved. The intention of this Heritage Policy was to provide a coordinated approach to the management of the city s heritage and to establish council s commitment to the protection of heritage. The draft Heritage Policy identifies six objectives relating to the management of the city s heritage. These objectives revolve around effective management, comprehensive identification and protection, and raising awareness and promotion of heritage resources. However due to financial constraints at the time the policy was never finalised. Council intends to review the draft Heritage Policy and further work on this is expected in The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) (NZHPT) seeks the introduction of more incentives in the plan in relation to heritage items. It is recognised that there are other incentives that could be introduced to assist in ensuring the Plan s objectives of retaining and protecting heritage buildings and structures is achieved. However, the introduction of further incentives needs to be undertaken in a cohesive manner, one that is not constrained by the scope of submissions to ensure Council can fully consider and determine the most appropriate options and techniques available for the Hamilton setting. As a result, it is my opinion that such work is best placed with the development of a Heritage Policy that would identify and establish any incentives to continue to protect the heritage stock within the city. In considering the submissions it is recommended that no changes be made with regards to the introduction of new incentives. Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) request the inclusion of a new Policy in 19.2 requiring the preparation of Conservation Management Plans for Archaeological and Cultural Sites as well as Buildings and Structures, as such plans would allow the Council and building owners to fully understand the necessary requirements for the management of historic heritage sites. Policy d) indentifies the need for any subdivision or development relating to an historic heritage building or structure or site to adhere to the conservation principles of ICOMOS being the New Zealand Charter (2010). The introduction of the requirement to prepare a conservation management plan as a policy is not good plan making practice as policies should not read like rules. The assessment criteria I1) g) in Volume 2 Appendix 1 links activities under Rule 19.3 that are Restricted Discretionary or Discretionary to the conservation principles in the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter (2010). The conservation principles within the charter make reference to conservation work needing to be based on a conservation plan. In considering the above it is my recommendation that there is no need to include a new policy requiring the preparation of Conservation Management Plans as policy d) and assessment criteria I1 g) introduce the ability to require the preparation of a conservation plan. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 1 of 79

8 Lynette Joyce Williams and Niall Baker in their submissions also request that 19.1 f) be amended as follows: 19.1 Purpose, Building and Structures f) : Removing buildings from their original setting can change their context and diminish their historical validity historic significance. The submitters state that the alteration to the fabric or setting of a heritage item undermines the heritage significance of that item. The Proposed District Plan in Appendix Heritage Assessment Criteria refers to historical significance therefore to ensure consistency within the plan. It is recommended that 19.1 f) be amended to reflect heritage significance to reflect the wording found in Appendix They also seek the amendment to j) of 19.1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites by removing the words where practicable. They state that the inclusion of these words sends the wrong message as to Council s statutory responsibilities regarding Maori and Historic Heritage. The further submission by New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) (FS182.03) support the amendment to the wording in 19.1 f) and the deletion of the wording in 19.1 j) requested by Lynette Joyce Williams. The plan recognises that many of these archaeological sites have been destroyed or damaged by urban development and are not easily recognisable even though they have been identified in Schedule 8C and therefore it may not be practical to protect these sites. It is therefore recommended that no amendment be made to 19.1 j) Lynette Joyce Williams and Niall Baker also seek that reference be made in 19.1 h) to the protection of archaeological sites as setout in the Historic Places Act. The further submission by New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) (FS182.03) does not support the requirement for a reference to the Historic Places Act in 19.1 h). Section 19.1 c) already makes reference that an authority must be obtained from New Zealand Historic Places Trust when artifacts or archaeological sites are discovered. Plus, under Section 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table a note is included at the end of the table identifying the need to comply with the Historic Places Act and the need to consult with New Zealand Historic Place Trust if an archaeological site is discovered. Accordingly no additional reference is considered necessary. Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) request that Chapter 19.1 be linked to the City s Heritage Strategy including the framework of financial incentives for property owners. Although it would be good to have Chapter 19 linked to the City s Heritage Strategy, Hamilton City does not have a City Heritage Strategy in place at this stage. As stated previously in my report it is the intention of Council to review the draft Heritage Policy next year. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board ( ) supports Policy 19.1 e), however it proposes that the wording as far as practicable be added to the end of the last sentence. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board state that it is not always possible to undertake alterations in a manner that completely safeguards heritage values and, for the greater good of retaining a building, a degree of compromise may be appropriate. New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) (FS ) opposes the submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board stating that the inclusion of the wording would dilute this section. Temple View Heritage Society (FS284.0) and Jodhi Ponga (FS ) both oppose the inclusion of the wording stating that the current wording provides a clear direction. The NZHPT s further submission also indicated that they feel that if the wording was included it could be applied to almost all provisions within the Proposed District Plan thus rendering these provisions meaningless. In considering the point it is recommended that the wording is not included. The submission by New Zealand Historic Places Trust recognises that alterations and additions are required to ensure the continuity of use or new use to ensure the place retains livability and utility, however they do state that alterations and additions should be carefully designed to retain surviving internal and external heritage fabric as far as possible and disturb, distort or obscure it as little as possible (Sustainable Management of Historic Heritage Guidance, Information Sheet 12, New Zealand Historic Places Trust, August 2007). ICOMOS NEW ZEALAND Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage also identifies that alteration and additions may be acceptable where they are essential to continued Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 2 of 79

9 use, or where they are culturally desirable, or the conservation of the place cannot be achieved. Any changes however should be the minimum necessary and should not detract from the cultural heritage value of the place. Any alterations should be compatible with original fabric but should be sufficiently distinct that they can be read as new work. The matter of whether a proposal would achieve the policy is something that would be considered through the resource consent process. Chapter 19 Historic Heritage section, identifies that unsympathetic alterations or additions can damage the heritage values of a building but that modifications of heritage items are sometimes needed to make built heritage usable; and whilst these changes to a heritage building or structure are allowed they need to be done in a manner that still protects the heritage values of the Heritage Building or structure. As Policy d) identifies the need for any subdivision or development to adhere to COMOS NEW ZEALAND Charter I do not see that the adding of the words as far as practicable at the end of paragraph e) in 19.1 will have any relevance in protecting heritage values or allowing for alterations and additions. Sub. Name FS. Name Sub. Point FS. Point Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning Robert W. Belbin Purpose Support Retain protection of Historic Heritage through Rule Hamilton Youth Council Sink or Swim The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Historic Heritage Historic Heritage FS Support Support in part Oppose That HCC consider targeted educational programmes to familiarise young people with the history and heritage of their city to raise their understanding of the city's rich history and heritage. Support Policies e & g. Support the non-complying activity status for demolition of both 'A' and 'B' ranked items. Support Rule 19.5.ii. Ensure that applications for alterations and additions to 'B' ranked heritage items will be publically notified. Accept in Part Accept in Part Refer The submission supports the objective of Chapter 19 Historic Heritage. The Chapter has been amended in response to other submissions. The other submissions have been accepted for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions The submission supports the objective of Chapter 19 Historic Heritage. The Chapter has been amended in response to other submissions. The other submissions have been accepted for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions. The submissions request for the introduction of a targeted education programme should be rejected based on: Outside of the RMA requirements Better placed with the development of a Historic Heritage Policy This submission and further submission is best address within the following sections of Historic Heritage Chapter , 19.3 and 19.5 Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 3 of 79

10 Trust Board The New Zealand Historic Places Trust Plan Overview Oppose Amend references to 'buildings and structures' throughout the plan to 'structures' Refer The submission points relating to buildings and structures have been dealt with in Chapter 1 Plan Over view Retain Table 15-2b a and b Refer The submission points relating to the retaining of Table 15 2b a) and b) have been dealt with in Chapter25.14 Transportation respectively. Provide further incentives in the plan in relation to heritage items. Reject The submission point seeking the introduction of further incentives for heritage items be rejected base on: It is better dealt with under the development of a Heritage Policy Lynette Joyce Williams Niall Baker Historic Heritage Historic Heritage Support in part Support in part Amend Chapter 19 Historic Heritage to ensure it is linked to the City's Heritage Strategy, including the framework for financial incentives for property owners. Link Chapter 19 Historic Heritage to the City's Heritage Strategy including the framework of financial incentives for property owners. Reject Reject The submissions be rejected on the basis that: Hamilton City Council does not have a Heritage Strategy Reference to a Heritage Policy/Strategy in Chapter 19 would lead to uncertainty in Plan administration. Lynette Joyce Williams Purpose Support in part Add a policy in section 19.2 that promotes the preparation of Conservation Management Plans for Archaeological and Cultural Sites, as well as Buildings and Structures. Reject The submission point seeks the promotion of the preparation of Conservation Management Plans is rejected as it: Is addressed in policy d) Delete historical validity and insert heritage significance. Accept The submission point seeking the deletion of historical validity and insert heritage significance be accepted because it would improve: Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 4 of 79

11 The effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Internal consistency of the Plan Recommended amendments to 19.2 f) of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (Refer to , FS182.03). Add a reference to the statutory protection of archaeological sites as set out in the Historic Places Act. Reject The submission seeking reference to the statutory protection of archaeological sites as set out in the Historic Places Act be rejected as it: Is referred to in other parts of the plan Does not improve plan administration Delete the phrase where practicable from the paragraph. Reject The submission seeking the deletion of the phrase where practicable from19.1 j) be rejected as it: Impractical due to the nature of some archaeological sites. New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) FS Support Accepted in part The submission point which FS supports has been accepted in part. Niall Baker Purpose Support in part Amend Objective & Policies 19.2 to include policy requiring the preparation of Conservation Management Plans for Archaeological and Cultural Sites, as well as Buildings and Structures. Reject The submission point seeks the promotion of the preparation of Conservation Management Plans is rejected as it: Is addressed in policy d) The submission point seeking the deletion of historical validity and insert heritage significance be accepted because it would improves: The effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Internal consistency of the Plan. Recommended amendments to 19.2 f) of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (Refer to ). Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 5 of 79

12 Make amendments to Purpose 19.1(c) by adding a section which promotes Conservation Management Plans for Archaeological and Cultural sites; f) by deleting 'historic validity'; h) by adding reference to statutory protection of archaeological sites as set out in the Historic Places Act; and Reject The submission seeking reference to the statutory protection of archaeological sites as set out in the Historic Places Act be rejected as it: Is referred to in other parts of the plan Does not improve plan administration (j) by deleting the phrase where practicable. Reject The submission point seeking the deletion of the phrase where practicable from 19.1 j) be rejected as it: Impractical due to the nature of some archaeological sites. Tram Lease Limited Purpose Support in part The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board FS FS Support Oppose Purpose Support in part Amend 19.3 Rules - Activity Status Table by making the demolition of heritage buildings ranked B, a Restricted Discretionary activity not a non-complying activity. Amend Purpose 19.1e) to refer to modifications to built heritage to be undertaken in a manner that protects the Refer Refer Refer This submission point and further submission points which relate to activity status are considered under Rules Activity Status Table. Reject The Submission point seeking the amendment to Purpose 19.1 e) to include the wording as far as practicable be rejected as it would: Reduce the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the plan in Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 6 of 79

13 New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) heritage value as far as practicable. terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and the purpose and principles of the RMA (Section 6). FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Jodhi Ponga FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Temple View Heritage Society FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Analysis: 19.2 Objectives and Policies Historic Heritage Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) ( ) seeks that the objectives and policies be rewritten to take into consideration that many of the city s heritage buildings have been confirmed as earthquake prone, citing the need to consider that section 5 of the Resource Management Act, and that regard needs to be had for the risk posed to human health and safety when managing the city s heritage resources. The submitter also seeks that there be consideration: that demolition may be appropriate in some circumstances; the financial implications resulting in requiring protection of heritage features; that incentives be provided for owners of historic heritage buildings, structures and areas. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS ) further submission point supports the view of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton that the objectives and policies be amended to reflect that demolition of heritage items may be appropriate, particularly with earthquake prone buildings and those buildings that pose a safety hazard. New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) (FS ) supports the concerns the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton has regarding safety and propose the inclusion of a policy relating to building safety, however they do not consider that there needs to be changes to the objectives relating to Historic Heritage. They also support the provision of incentives for heritage buildings as this will assist with the financial viability of retaining heritage buildings. While the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (FS ) further submission point opposes the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton request to allow demolition in some instances. The Building Act provides a legal framework to protect building occupants and the public from harm in the event of an earthquake. The Act requires Council to develop policies to address earthquake prone buildings. The Council has prepared the Earthquake Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy which aims to ensure that where earthquake buildings are a risk to public health remedial work will be required. The policy recognises the importance of Hamilton s heritage buildings to the national and local community, and the desire to protect the heritage values of these buildings wherever possible, without compromising public health and safety. The aim of Chapter 19 is to protect the historic heritage within Hamilton City which forms part of a community s social and cultural well-being and therefore needs to be considered against the health and safety of people and community. In addition, the plan is also required to protect historic heritage under section 6 of the RMA. The conflict between these two requirements would be best considered through a resource consent process. The plan does provide a number of incentives relating earthquake strengthening and use of buildings. However further work on incentives is proposed to be undertaken through the development of a Heritage Strategy. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 7 of 79

14 In considering the above it is my recommendation that no changes be made to the objectives and policies. Sub. Name FS. Name Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Sub. Point FS. Point Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning Objectives and Policies Historic Heritage Oppose Amend the Objectives and Policies for Historic Heritage to recognise: - that many of the City s heritage items have been confirmed as earthquake prone buildings, and that regard will be given to the risks posed to human health and safety when managing the City s heritage resources; - that demolition of or effects to historical heritage may be appropriate in some circumstances; - the financial viability of protecting features; - incentives; and - alignment with the RMA. Reject The submission be rejected based on the following: Reduce the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and the purpose and principles Section 6 of the RMA. FS Support Reject The submission point which FS supports has been rejected FS Support Reject The submission point which FS supports has been rejected FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 8 of 79

15 Analysis: All Historic Heritage Waikato Regional Council ( ) and The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) seek the retention of Objective With the Waikato Regional Council stating that it is consistent with Policy 10.3 of the Proposed Regional Policy Statement (PRPS) and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust saying the identification and protection of historic heritage buildings, structures and sites will assist to contribute to their long term retention. Nevertheless both submitters request amendments to policy a). In particular the Waikato Regional Council requests amendments to Policy a) to better reflect the criteria in Method in the PRPS by including the following criteria into the policy. The opportunities available to remedy or mitigate pre-existing or potential adverse effects on heritage qualities; The probability of damage to immediate or adjacent heritage qualities; The degree to which unique or special materials and/or craftsmanship are retained; Whether the relationships between distinct elements of a historic place, site or area will be maintained; Whether the relationships between sites or areas of historic and cultural heritage to other sites or areas of historic and cultural heritage will be maintained; The irreversibility of an effect including the relocation of heritage away from its original site or context; the loss of value or integrity of historic places, sites or areas through lack of appropriate maintenance and management; and a significant reduction in the value of the historical, cultural and spiritual associations with historic and cultural heritage resources which are held by tangata whenua and the wider community; Effects on the surroundings associated with significant heritage places and areas; The requirement to retain the operational function of nationally and regionally significant transport infrastructure. While the New Zealand Historic Places Trust in their submission propose that Policy a) be shortened to read as follows: a) The city s historic heritage shall be protected from the adverse effects of subdivision, use and development and that the associated elements should be incorporated into the assessment criteria section of the proposed plan. In the further submission by New Zealand Historic Places Trust (FS ) to the submission by the Waikato Regional Council they support the submission but suggest that the PRPS methods be better suited as assessment criteria rather than being part of a policy as stated in their submission. Chapter 1 Plan Overview sets out the requirement for the Proposed District Plan to give effect to the Waikato Regional Policy Statement and this has been done through Objective which is supported by both the Waikato Regional Council and New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Policy a) identifies the need to protect historic heritage from the adverse effects that subdivision, use and development may have on the site. The policy identifies a number of issues that a development would need to have regard to when considering if the adverse effects of a development, use or subdivision impacts on the associated historic heritage building, structure or site. These factors have been adapted from the Proposed Regional Policy Statement. Particularly, Method which sets out criteria to be considered when determining whether an activity is inappropriate in terms of protecting historic and cultural heritage. Policy a) does not include all of the criteria set out in Method of the PRPS. The criteria within the PRPS and Policy a) are important in assuring that a proposal, development, use or subdivision recognises and protects the historic and cultural values of a heritage site, however, I would agree with New Zealand Historic Places Trust in that these criteria are better suited as assessment criteria that support Objective and Policy a) rather than being part of the policy itself. It is therefore recommended that Policy a) be amended and that the associated assessment criteria be reviewed to include the methods identified in policy a). Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 9 of 79

16 The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) also request deleting the text of Policy b) ensuring that where features have been destroyed or damaged, they are recognised through on-site marking and replacing it with a new policy the reads Ensuring the on going historical legibility of Hamilton City or words to similar effect. Stating that the current policy is a method rather than a policy and should be included in the assessment criteria for Heritage. They also propose the inclusion of a new method to recognise destroyed or damaged significant cultural sites. I agree with New Zealand Historic Places Trust that the provision of on-site marking is more of a method and is not a policy. Therefore, the policy should be reworded to better reflect the intent of the objective to identify and retain the city s historic heritage. The wording proposed by NZHPT however does not encapsulate the intent of the policy, therefore it is proposed to reword the policy as setout in Appendix A but still retain the intent of the submission by NZHPT. In considering whether the inclusion of additional methods is warranted to recognise destroyed or damaged significant cultural sites I have reviewed the current assessment criteria. There is already identified possible methods that could be used to recognise heritage items that have been destroyed these included planting, fencing and signage that are considered adequate. Sub. Name FS. Name Waikato Regional Council New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Sub. Point FS. Point Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning All Historic Heritage Support in part Retain Objective and amend Policy a) with regards to the considerations for effects subdivision, use and development will have on built heritage. Accept in Part The submission point seeking the amendment to Policy a) be accepted in part as it improves: The effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Internal consistency of the Plan Plan administration and clarity of the Plan for users Recommended amendments to a) and 1.2 Restricted Discretionary Activities of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (refer and FS ) FS Support Accept in part The submission point which FS supports has been accepted (in part) The New Zealand Historic Places Trust All Historic Heritage Support in part Retain Objective All Historic Heritage with amendments to Policy19.2.1a); Accept The submission point seeking the amendment to Policy a) be accepted as it Improves: The effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Internal consistency of the Plan Plan administration and clarity of the Plan for users Recommended amendments to a) 1.2 Restricted Discretionary Activities of the Plan are contained in Appendix A (refer ) Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 10 of 79

17 The deletion of Policy b) and replaced with the following text "Ensuring the on-going historical legibility of Hamilton City". Accept in part The submission point seeking the deletion of Policy b) and the replacement of that policy be accepted in part as it improves: Plan administration and clarity of the Plan for users The effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Insertion of a new method to recognise destroyed or damaged significant cultural sites. Reject Recommended amendments to b) of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (refer ) The submission point seeking the insertion of a new method be rejected as: Methods already existing in the plan The in Volume 2 Appendix Matters of Discretion and assessment Criteria I I1 j) Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc All Historic Heritage Support in part Amend Chapter 19 to increase scheduling of historic sites and places of significance to Waikato-Tainui in particular those of an intangible nature i.e. wahi tapu/wahi taonga. Wiremu Puke (Te Taniko O Kirikiriroa Trust) New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Temple View Heritage Society FS FS Oppose Support Refer This Submission point and further submission points which relates to the scheduling of historic sites is considered under Appendix 8 Historic Heritage. FS Support Analysis: All Built Heritage Waikato Regional Council ( ) and The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) both support Objective while The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board ( ) supports the objective but have requested that Policy b) be amended to include the words as follows Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 11 of 79

18 The loss of Heritage values associated with scheduled items shall be avoided to the fullest extent practicable. The further submissions by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS and FS ) opposes the submissions of both the Waikato Regional Council and The New Zealand Historic Places Trust stating that these submissions are in opposition to their submission requesting change to Policy and argue that where adaption and re-use are neither feasible or practical, then recording and demolition are the last resort options in exceptional circumstances. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust (FS ) in their further submission opposes the submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board arguing that the inclusion of the wording would dilute the intent of Policy While both Jodhi Ponga (FS279.00) and The Temple View Heritage Society (FS ) oppose the submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board stating that the existing Policy provides a clear direction on what is expected for heritage under the Proposed District Plan and that if demolition is considered to be the only option then this should be considered under a resource consent process. Objective identifies heritage as an integral part of Hamilton s character and therefore the destruction or significant alteration to the heritage value of a listed building should only be considered through a resource consent process. The inclusion of the wording proposed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board is contrary to the intent of the Objective. Sub. Name FS. Name Waikato Regional Council The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board The New Zealand Historic Places Trust The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Sub. Point FS. Point Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning Objective and Policies Support Retain Objective All Historic Heritage and retain the associated policies a) to c). Accept This submission supports Objective and associated policies. No amendments or deletions are recommended for this Objective and associated Policies FS Oppose Reject The submission point which FS oppose has been accepted Objective and Policies Support Retain Objective and associated Policies a), b) and c) All Historic Heritage. Accept This submission supports Objective and associated policies. No amendments or deletions are recommended for this Objective and associated Policies FS Oppose Reject The submission point which FS oppose has been accepted Objective and Policies Support in part Amend Policy b so that the loss of heritage values associated with scheduled items shall be avoided to the fullest extent practicable. Reject This submission seeks the amendment to policy b) should be rejected as it : Reduces the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and the purpose and principles of the RMA. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 12 of 79

19 New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS oppose has been rejected Jodhi Ponga FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS oppose has been rejected Temple View Heritage Society FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS oppose has been rejected Analysis: Buildings and Structures McConnell Property Ltd ( ), seek the inclusion of a new policy to allow for a balance between heritage protection and safety, economic use and overall support for CBD Development and the inclusions of a new Heritage Assessment Criteria to Section to assess the "usefulness" of heritage buildings. Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Inc ( ), Shona Betty Shaw (Murray V. Shaw Builders Ltd) ( ), and Waitomo Properties Ltd ( ) all seek the amendment of Policy a to include the management of buildings that have a poor earthquake rating and may pose a safety risk. Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton)(FS16.006) support the submission by Waikato Registered Master Builders arguing that the policy currently fails to provide for economic wellbeing and for health and safety and needs to recognise the requirements under section 5 of the RMA. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS , FS and FS ) supports the submission points of both Waikato Registered Master Builders, Waitomo Properties Ltd, and Shona Betty Shaw stating that the policy needs to reflect that in some cases the works required to address earthquake strengthening may result in the lost of heritage values and safety risks relating to some heritage buildings may require immediate attention. New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager)(FS , FS , FS and FS ) Supports in part the submission by McConnell Property, Waikato Registered Master Builders, Waitomo Properties and Shona Betty Shaw stating that they support the concerns regarding safety however they do not see the need for the inclusion of an additional policy relating to the balancing of protecting historic heritage with safety, economic use and over support of the CBD as this would be matters considered under section 5 of the RMA. With regards to poor earthquake rating NZHPT have submitted to include a new policy relating to earthquake strengthening of heritage buildings. The further submission by Andrew Yeoman (FS2.01) does not relate to the issues raise in the submission by Waikato Registered Master Builders and therefore is to be disregarded. The role of Chapter 19 is to identify and protect the historic heritage within Hamilton City as required by the Act. Therefore this chapter is aimed foremost at protecting historic heritage from unsympathetic alteration and additions and ultimately the demolition and loss of heritage within the City. This means, any works on the removal of a heritage item which is listed in the proposed plan are protected by requiring resource consent be obtained. This would require, as part of the analysis of the proposal full consideration and regard of safety, and economic wellbeing in accordance with section 5 of the RMA. Therefore it is recommended that no change is needed to be made to Policy a). Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 13 of 79

20 Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) both support in part Policies a) and c) and seek that these policies be amended to be able to achieve the outcomes inline with the purpose, objectives and Policies of Chapter 19 Historic Heritage. The two submitters state that this policy is inconsistent with Rule 19.3 which provides for the relocation of an A ranked building as a Discretionary Activity and the relocation of a B ranked buildings as a restricted Discretionary activity. Both the Waikato Regional Council ( ) and The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) support Objective with the Regional Council supporting the associated policy a and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust supporting the associated policies a) to g). Lynette Joyce Williams and Niall Baker do not provide an alternative to the current policies to better align it with Rule It is via Objective that the importance of recognising the setting in which heritage building is set out. Whilst it is the objective that identifes the impact there would be on the heritage values of a heritage bulding if it s immediate surrounds were not protected there is also recognition that in some cases the only way to retain the heritage building or item is to allow for it to be relocated within the original site or onto another site. It is considered that Policy a) is not inconsistent with the Rules in This is confirmed via the explanation which recognises that in some cases the relocation of heritage building is required to ensure their ongoing protection and retention. However through the submission made by New Zealand Historic Places Trust to Rule 19.3 q) and r) greater control over the need to improve the management of the removal of buildings either off site or within a site is recommeded to better align the rules with the objectives when it relates to items with highly significant heritage values. Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker( ) also request the amendment to policy b) stating that it is unclear how the use of the words and/or in the policy would work and proposed to reword the policy as follows: Subdivision and development shall retain, protect and/or enhance the heritage values of any building or structure listed within Schedule 8A The amendment to Policy b) as requested by the submitters would provide better clarity of the intent of the policy. Waylon Bowker (31.001) seeks the removal of Policy h) which relates to the site surrounding the heritage building or structure and the extent to which it contributes to the heritage values. The submitter also seeks that landscaping on the site on which a heritage building is located be allowed with no controls. The controls on land surrounding a heritage building or structure specifically relate to managing the setting that the building or structure is within. The further submission by New Zealand Historic Places Trust (FS ) opposes this submission. While Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) both support policy h) and its retention. They argue that the surroundings are included in the RMA definition of historic heritage and it is important to consider the setting of the heritage building or structure when assessing a resource consents. New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) supports the policies associated with the objective but does seek that policy h) be amended to include the placement of new buildings do not detract from the heritage value of a listed item. Policy h) is recommended to be retained as it achieves the objectives of the plan with regards to protecting historic heritage (Policy h) identifies the surrounds as an important aspect of the historic value of a heritage item). The intent of Policy h) is to protect the surrounds and setting of heritage building from development, particularly inappropriately located accessory buildings and new buildings. Along with limiting the destruction of vegetation identified as contributing to the heritage values of the building. It is also key to note that supporting the policy is the assessment criteria set out in Volume 2 Appendix 1 - I 1d) that relate to the heritage values identifies the need to ensure that the visual link between heritage buildings and the street are maintained. Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) also oppose the explanation for stating that the explanation is inconsistent with the activity status for demolition of A and B ranked items and the associated rules. The explanation outlines the differences between the assessment of A ranking buildings and that for a B ranked building. Although this does not seem to be consistent with the Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 14 of 79

21 rules for demolition of heritage buildings, the plan identifies a level of significance for each heritage item using the heritage assessment criteria (set out in Schedule 8) and ranks items accordingly. Therefore the way in which the two rankings are assessed will differ according to the ranking of significance even if the two rankings have the same activity status. It is therefore recommended that no change be made to the explanation Objective in this regard. The submitters also identify inconsistencies within the explanation regarding the protection of the interior of heritage buildings. The use of the words less control in the explanation implies that there are provisions that control the interior, however there are no rules in 19.3 that protect the interior of heritage buildings. The submitters propose that schedule 8A be reviewed to include interiors that have heritage value and introduce provisions that control alterations and additions to protect these interior heritage values. The wording found in the Draft District Plan (Fast Forward) which was circulated for comment in July 2010 had the words not controlled rather than the wording less control. As internal alterations are a permitted activity in Rule it would seem that the inclusion of the word Less is a error and the explanation should be amended to reflect the works not controlled. The issue regarding the review of Schedule 8A to include interiors will be addressed under Rule 19.3 b). As alterations to interior of heritage buildings are a permitted activity it is recommended that the explanation be amended. They are also seeking clarification of the explanation of Objective with regard to the encouragement of activities that will facilitate the retention and enhancement of historic buildings and structures, and the flexibility in what historic buildings can be used for, stating that this is not catered for with Rule The objective encourages the continued use and adaptive reuse of any heritage building or structure through policy g). Via the accompanying explanation the intent of the policy is explained. The intent being to encourage activities that will facilitate the retention and enhancement of historic buildings and structures by allowing greater flexibility in what the historic building and structures can be used for to ensure the ongoing use of these buildings. Provisions have been included in 19.3 p) which allows for a change of use to activities that are non-complying in the underlying zone on which a historic heritage building or structure is located to be a discretionary activity. Allowing for a wider range of activities (than standard) that could be considered when identifying a possible reuse for a historic heritage building or structure thus supporting the retention of these items. Sink or Swim ( ) supports policies e) and g) which relates to encouraging the continued use or adaptive reuse of heritage buildings or structures while ensuring that heritage building are used in such a way that it does not damage or destroy the heritage qualities. Sub. Name FS. Name Sub. Point FS. Point Waylon Bowker Buildings and Structures Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning Oppose Remove h and allow landscaping on the site on which a heritage building is located to be undertaken without any controls. Rejected This submission seeks the amendment to policy b) should be rejected as it : Reduces the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and the purpose and principles of the RMA. New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) McConnell Property Ltd FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS oppose has been rejected Buildings and Structures Oppose A new policy should be added to allow for a balance between Reject The submission be rejected based on the following: Reduce the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the Plan in Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 15 of 79

22 New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Inc heritage protection and safety, economic use and overall support for CBD Development. A new Heritage Assessment Criteria be added to Volume 2 section to assess the "usefulness" of buildings. terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and the purpose and principles Section 6 of the RMA. FS Support Reject The submission point which FS supports has been rejected Buildings and Structures Oppose Amend Policy a to include specific provisions for the management of buildings that have a poor earthquake rating and may pose a safety risk. Reject The submission be rejected based on the following: Reduce the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and the purpose and principles Section 6 of the RMA. Andrew Yeoman FS2.01 Support - This Further Submission Point does not relate to the topic identified in Submission Roman Catholic FS Support Reject The submission point which FS oppose has been rejected Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) The Church of FS Support Reject The submission point which FS oppose has been rejected Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS oppose has been rejected Waitomo Properties Ltd Buildings and Structures Support in part Amend Policy a to include an exception for demolition of heritage buildings where a building Reject The submission be rejected based on the following: Reduce the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and the purpose and principles Section 6 of the RMA. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 16 of 79

23 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Shona Betty Shaw (Murray V. Shaw Builders Ltd) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Waikato Regional Council Lynette Joyce Williams poses a safety hazard to people or property. FS Support Reject The submission point which FS support has been rejected FS Support Reject The submission point which FS support has been rejected Buildings and Structures Oppose Amend Policy a Buildings and Structures to provide an exception to deal with buildings which have a poor earthquake rating and may pose a safety risk. Reject The submission be rejected based on the following: Reduce the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and the purpose and principles Section 6 of the RMA. FS Support Reject The submission point which FS support has been rejected FS Support Reject The submission point which FS support has been rejected Buildings and Structures Buildings and Structures Support Retain Objective Buildings and Structures and associated policy a. Support in part Amend Heritage Objectives, Policies and Rules in Chapter 19 to ensure consistency and the ability of council to achieve outcomes inline with the Purpose, Objectives and Policies of the chapter. Accept Accept in Part This submission supports Objective and associated policies a) and therefore should be accepted as no amendments or deletions are recommended for this Objective and associated Policy. The submission point seeking the amendment to the Heritage Objectives Policy and rules to better align is accepted in Part as it would: Improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Improve internal consistency of the plan. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 17 of 79

24 Support policy a. Accept The submission point seeking the retention of policy a) be accepted as it: Support objective in achieving it purpose No amendments or deletions are recommended for this Objective and associated Policy. Recommended amendments to b) and the Explanation of Objective of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (refer ) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Limited Niall Baker FS Oppose Accept in part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part FS Oppose Accept in part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part Buildings and Structures Support in part Buildings and Structures Objective and Policies is supports the intent of Policies a and c but seek a review of the Heritage Objectives, Policies and Rules in Chapter 19 to ensure consistency and ensure a rule base to realise these policies; Retain Policy h. Accept in Part The submission point seeking the amendment to the Heritage Objectives Policy and rules to better align is accepted in Part as it would: Improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Improve internal consistency of the plan. Better align the explanation with the Objective and Policies Seek a review of the text in the Explanation for Objective to ensure alignment with the Rules in Chapter 19; and provide clarity as to 'how Accept The submission point seeking the retention of policy a) be accepted as it: support objective in achieving it purpose No amendments or deletions are recommended for this Objective and associated Policy. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 18 of 79

25 the resource consent process will facilitate ongoing and adaptive reuse use of heritage buildings'. Recommended amendments to b) and the Explanation of Objective of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (refer ) Review Schedule 8a to indicate where scheduled heritage items have interior features that should be identified and protected. Refer Submission point regarding the review of Schedule 8A has been dealt with under 19.3 Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Limited The New Zealand Historic Places Trust FS Oppose Reject The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part FS Oppose Accept in Part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part FS Oppose Accept in Part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part Buildings and Structures Support Retain Objective Buildings and Structures and retain associated policies a to g, with amendments to Policy h to ensure that other buildings do not detract from heritage values. Accept in Part The submission point seeking the retention of Objectives and policies a) to g) is accepted (in Part) as other submission have resulted in the amendment to the policy b). The submission point seeking the amendment to policies h) is rejected as the amendment sought would not provide any additional clarity of the intent of the policy or of the objective. Sink or Swim Historic Support Support Policies e & g. Accept in Part The submission relating to supporting Policies e) & g) be Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 19 of 79

26 Heritage in part Support the non-complying activity status for demolition of both 'A' and 'B' ranked items. Support Rule 19.5.ii. Refer accepted in part as these policies support the intent of Objective Matters relating to Activity status are better addressed in 19.3 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Refer Matters relating to Notification are better addressed in 19.6 Ensure that applications for alterations and additions to 'B' ranked heritage items will be publically notified. FS Oppose Accepted in Part The further submission FS will be addressed with the relevant submission points in and 19.6 Analysis: Archaeological and Cultural Sites Wiremu Taylor Puke (Namtok Consultancy Ltd Ngati Wairere) ( ) supports Objective however seeks the amendment to policy a) by including wording to take into account and commemorate appropriately any existing or likely to exist archaeological and historical sites. The submitter has proposed to amend Policy a) as follows: Subdivision, use and development shall be managed to minimize the risk of damage to archaeological and cultural sites where they exist, or are likely to exist to set aside public reserve at the earliest stages of subdivision. The policy recognises that development could have a detrimental affect on archaeological and cultural areas. Therefore it aims to protect the physical integrity and features ot these areas by controlling activities that may occur and by ensuing that development has minimal impacts on the site or avoids disturbance altogether. The policy should not set out means of protection and preservation but rather rely on the subdivision and development process to do this. The setting aside of public reserve is a method to protect and recognise archaeological and cultural sites however it is not the only way to protect these archaeological and cultural sites. The proposal identified by the submitter is better seen as a method of addressing the policy rather that a policy itself. The submitter also seeks the amendment of policy d) by including the wording under the terms of the RMA as per section 6(e) and the Historic Places Trust Act 1991 to the end of the policy. Section 6(e) of the RMA requires persons exercising functions and powers in relation to managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources to recognise and provide for the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga. The District Plan is prepared in response to Hamilton City s obligations under the RMA. The Proposed District Plan refers to the Historic Places Act 1993 under Rule Activity Status Table.It is considered this is the most appropriate location for the referencing of the Act. It is also key to note the current practice of Council to include reference to the requirements of the Historic Places Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 20 of 79

27 Act as part of any consent relating to activities within an identified archeological or cultural site. Waikato Regional Council ( ) proposes an amendment to Objective by replacing the words should be with are. The change in the wording would ensure the same level of protection to archaeological and cultural sites as provided for heritage buildings and structures in Objective and it would make the objective consistent with Policy 10.1 of the Proposed RPS. Policy 10.1 of the Proposed RPS states that there needs to be a collective, consistent and integrated management of Historic and Cultural heritage resources. The words should be protected from imply a level of discretion as to the level of protection provided to an archaeological or cultural site. However the aim of Objective is to recognise and protect the physical integrity and features of significant archaeological and cultural sites. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) ( ) in their submission seeks the amendment to Objective by replacing the word should with shall stating that using shall will make the objective align with the associated policies which use the word shall. It is considered that the use of the word shall would emphasise the importance placed on these sites; it is also used throughout the plan as well as in the associated policies. Waikato Regional Council ( ) also proposed that Policy a) be amended to replace the wording minimize the risk with avoid. Again stating that the current policy only provides for the minimisation of the risk of damage whereas for heritage buildings or structures, subdivision and development has to retain, protect or even enhance heritage values. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) ( ) also seeks that Policy a) be amended to reflect avoidance of damage rather than minimise the risk of damage. The policy does not align with the Objective which aims to protect significant archaeological and cultural sites from damage or destruction. NZHPT in their submission also propose that policy b) be reworded to as follows: The protection and management of sites of archaeological and cultural significance shall reflect their significance and overall heritage values be informed by their significance The changes in the wording would provide clarification and avoid confusion and it is recommended that Policy a).and Policy b) be amended. NZHPT also seek amendments to Policy c) to read as follows: Activities or development shall not adversely affect the physical structure and integrity of scheduled sites. This may includes: i. Inappropriate Pplanting ii. The removal of vegetation where it affects the stability of the site, and iii. Addition, excavation or compaction of any soil, rock or other materials. The change in the wording would indicate that this list is not finite and that there my be other activities that may have adverse affects on archaeological and cultural sites. The inclusion of the word inappropriate into point i) would provide for planting that is complementary to the sites with particular reference to policy e) with regards to recognition of sites. Therefore it is recommended that the proposed changes sought by the submitters to Policy a) and b) be accepted. Waikato Regional Council ( ) supports Policy d) as it gives effect to policy 10.2 of the Proposed RPS, which identifies the relationship of Maori to taonga. The further submission by New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (FS ) supports this submission point on the basis that it will provide greater protection to the Archeological sites within Hamilton. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 21 of 79

28 NZHPT supports Policy d) and seeks that policy e) be deleted and replaced with a new policy while Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) seek that the policy e) be reworded so not to encourage destruction or damage to archaeological and cultural sites. NZHPT proposed that the policy be replaced with the following: Ensuring the on-going historical legibility of Hamilton City The NZHPT argues that the current policy is more of a method, which can be done through conditions of consent and that the new policy provides guidance regarding the recognition of lost archaeological and cultural elements within the city. While Lynette Joyce Williams and Niall Baker do not provide any alternative wording to the policy. NZHPT also proposed the same change to the wording of policy b) therefore to be consistent it is recommended that Policy e) be amended as shown in Appendix C: The NZHPT also seek in their submission ( ) the introduction of a new method to ensure the recognition of significant cultural sites that have been destroyed or damaged. The current assessment criteria (I Heritage Values I1 j)) already identifies possible methods that could be used to recognise heritage items and sites that have been destroyed, these methods included planting, fencing and signage. Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) Niall Baker ( ) supports the explanation provided for Objective however they seek to ensure that the policies and rules give effect to this explanatory note and that the explanatory note be reviewed to ensure that property owners, council and iwi share information. In the development of the District Plan and the identification of archaeological and cultural sites council has worked closely with holders of information, in particular the local iwi, and have identified all the sites that they are comfortable to make known. All information that is available to the Council has been made available to property owners and Council has worked with property owners in the past and will continue to work with property owners in the future to provide them with all information available to Council. The Proposed District Plan can not control what the iwi responsible for archaeological and cultural information is prepared to make available to the land owners and council. Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc ( ) generally supports objective however they request the development of an accidental discovery protocol (ADP) for permitted activities in areas recognised as being of cultural significance. New Zealand Historic Places Trust (FS ) in their further submission supports the inclusion of an accidental discovery protocol in the Proposed District Plan. The inclusion of an accidental discovery protocol in a policy is not appropriate and that this is better dealt with under Rule 19.4 Specific Standards and Appendix 8. The inclusion of specific standards relating to accidental discovery of any archaeological features, artifact or human remains would provide a clear direction in how to deal with any discovery. It is therefore recommended that an ADP process be inserted into Rule 19.4 and Appendix 8. The inclusion of an Accidental Discovery Protocol would support objectives and associated policies that relate to the protection of archaeological sites from damage and destruction. While the further submission by Wiremu Puke (Te Taniko O Kirikiriroa Trust) (FS18.001) opposes the submission by Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc stating that Council should include words that state that any object of archaeological historical and cultural significance found within the city that fall under the provisions of the Protected Objects Act are referred to the Te Taniko O Kirikiriroa Trust as according to his submission they represent the interests of Ngati Wairere. The submitter goes on to say that the Iwi Authority cannot claim ownership over any taonga ahead of any local hapu or whanau but rather they should be supportive of local hapu and whanau in order to retain objects for collective benefit. The further submission is not within scope as he is asking for a relief that is not within the original submission by Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui and therefore should be rejected. Sub. Name FS. Name Wiremu Taylor Puke (Namtok Sub. Point FS. Point Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning Archaeological Support in part Amend Policy a to include a requirement for land Accept in Part The submission point seeking the amendment to Policy a) to require land to be set aside to protect Archaeological and cultural Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 22 of 79

29 Consultancy Ltd Ngati Wairere) and Cultural Sites to be set aside for public reserves at the earliest stages of subdivision; and amend policy d to add a reference to the terms of Section 6 (e) and the Historic Places Trust Act Support e. sites is rejected as it: Is better suited as a method Does not improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. The submission point seeking the amendment to Policy d) to include a reference to Section 6 (e) of the RMA and the Historic Places Act is rejected as it: Does not improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies The District Plan is prepared under the RMA. Reference to the Historic Places Act is already made within Chapter 19. The submission point supporting Objective be accepted in part as other submission point to objective have sought changes to the Objective. Waikato Regional Council Archaeological and Cultural Sites Support in part Amend Objective Archaeological and Cultural Sites to provide a greater level of clarity that such sites 'are' protected from damage and destruction. Amend policy a) to ensure that subdivision, use and development should 'avoid' damage to sites. Retain policy d). Accepted in part The submission point seeking the amendment to Objective by replacing the words should be with are be rejected as changes rejected by other submitters have been accepted that would better support the intent of the Objective. The submission point seeking Policy a) be amended to replace the wording minimize the risk with avoid be accepted as this would Improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Recommended amendments to Policy a) of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (refer ) The submission point seeking the retention of Policy d) be accepted as this policy supports the intent of Objective New Zealand Historic Places FS Support Accepted The submission point which FS supports has been accepted in part. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 23 of 79

30 Trust (General Manager) Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc Archaeological and Cultural Sites Support Amend Objective Archaeological and Cultural Sites to include a generic accidental discovery protocol for permitted activities in areas recognised as being of cultural significance. Accepted The submission point seeking the amendment to Objective by including a generic accidental discovery protocol be accepted as this amendment would: Improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Support the objectives and policies that relate to the protection of archaeological sites from damage and destruction. Recommended amendments to 19.4 and Appendix 8 of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (refer and FS ) Wiremu Puke (Te Taniko O Kirikiriroa Trust) New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Lynette Joyce Williams FS Oppose Reject The further submission is out of scope the submission point FS Support Accepted The submission point which FS supports has been accepted Archaeological and Cultural Sites Niall Baker Archaeological and Cultural Support in part Support in part Amend Policy e to ensure that destruction or damage to Archaeological and Cultural Sites is not being tacitly encouraged. Amend Policies and Rules within Chapter 19 to ensure that explanatory notes are given effect to and ensure that they address the sharing of information and working relationships. Amend Policy e to ensure that the policy is not encouraging destruction or Accept in Part Accept in Part The submission points seeking Policy e) be amended to ensure that destruction or damage to Archaeological and Cultural Sites is not being tacitly encouraged be accepted as this would Improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Recommended amendments to Policy e) of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (refer and ) The submission points seeking amendments to the explanatory to address how information is shared be rejected for the following reasons: Does not improve the administration of the plan. Not a Requirement under the RMA. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 24 of 79

31 Sites damage to Archaeological and Cultural Sites. Review explanatory note to address how property owners, council and iwi will share information and work together for positive heritage outcomes. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust Archaeological and Cultural Sites Support in part Amend Objective Archaeological and Cultural Sites deleting 'should' and replacing with 'shall'; Accept The submission point seeking the amendment to objective and associated policies be accepted as this would: Improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Seeks minor text amendments to Policies a, b, c and d. Retain Policy d; Accept in part The submission point seeking minor changes to the text of Policies a), b), c) and d) be accepted in part as they would Improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Delete text in Policy e. and replace with "Ensuring the on-going historical legibility of Hamilton City"; Accept in part The submission point seeking changes to the text of Policies ae) be accepted in part as they would Improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Insert a new method to ensure the recognition of significant cultural sites that have been destroyed or damaged. Reject The submission point seeking the inclusion of a new method relating to recognition of destroyed or damaged cultural sites be rejected as this: Already existing within assessment criteria of the Proposed District Plan. Recommended amendments to Policy a), b), c) and e) of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (refer ) Analysis: 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table Robert W. Belbin ( ) supports 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table and requests that it be retained. Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) seek the inclusion of subdivision within Rule 19.3 and align the activity status with Rule New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager)(FS ) supports this with regards to the inclusion of subdivision controls in Rule Within Chapter 23 the subdivision of an allotment Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 25 of 79

32 containing a schedule Historic Heritage building, structure or site identified in Schedule 8A, and 8B is a Discretionary Activity. However Chapter 19 does not refer plan users to Chapter 23 when dealing with subdivision. Therefore the inclusion of a reference to Chapter 23 in the Activity Status Table of Chapter 19 would ensure consistency and ease of use for the plan user b) Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) ( ) has indicated in their submission that a review of the importance placed on the internal component of heritage items be undertaken stating that as the present provisions focus on the protection of the external features of a heritage building while not protecting the internal features, whilst internal alterations can significantly reduce historic value through elimination of period features. The further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS ) opposes this submission point relating Rule 19.3 b) stating that the activity status for internal alterations to buildings that have heritage status should be a permitted activity to allow for refurbishment and reuse. They also state that the requirement for the control of internal alterations under the RMA would create unnecessary compliance issues that would discourage building owners from maintaining and reusing buildings. While the further submission of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) (FS ) supports the submission, calling for the control of internal alterations and agrees that the internal alteration to heritage items should be considered through a resource consent process; but also highlights the need to have documentation relating to the important interior features to guide assessment at the time of resource consent. The submission point by Waikato Regional Council ( ) opposes the permitted activity status for internal alterations of heritage listed buildings arguing that permitted activity status is not an appropriate means to achieve the aim of the objectives and policies. They state that the policy direction set in the Proposed District Plan identifies the need to avoid the loss of values and that when buildings are used the heritage values should not be damaged or lost. Waikato Regional Council also request that the activity status be amended to a controlled activity with consequential changes to add matters of control or include a new specific standard under Rule to control the effects of internal alterations of heritage buildings. SKYCITY Hamilton Limited (FS64.006), Graeme Ward (WINTEC)(FS71.01), Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry)(FS FS ) and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS ) all oppose the submission by the Waikato Regional Council. Graeme Ward in his further submission states that it is inappropriate and unreasonable to require control over internal alterations to heritage buildings as many of these building have been significantly altered to accommodate the current uses and to comply with modern day building code. The requirement of a resource consent would create an unreasonable economic burden on building owners. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints argue in their further submission that the introduction of controls over internal alterations would discourage building owners from continuing to utilise and upgrade the building and would also create unnecessary compliance issues. The Further Submission by New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager)(FS ) supports the submission by Waikato Regional Council stating that it is important that internal heritage features be assessed through a resource consent process and that there is documentation relating to the important interior features to guide assessment at the time of resource consent. The NZHPT went further and through their further submission have proposed that alterations to the interior of heritage buildings be a restricted discretionary activity to allow for the documentation of interiors of heritage buildings. This request is outside the scope of the submission by the Waikato Regional Council who have only asked for controlled activity status. Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) both seek the introduction of rules that control the destruction of identified interior heritage features. They both state that significant heritage features located inside built heritage items should be protected and that this protection should be on a specified rather than wholesale basis in order to provide clarity and certainty to property owners. Niall Baker ( ) in his submission point seeks a review of Schedule 8A be undertaken to indicate where scheduled heritage items have interior features that should be identified and protected. The further submission by New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) (FS ) supports the submission points made by Lynette Joyce Williams to 19.3 b) relating to the inclusion of rules to assess internal alterations stating that they support the internal alterations of buildings as a permitted activity where the interior of the building does not have any historic heritage values. However, where there are elements that have historic value the permitted activity status is not appropriate and should be replaced with a restricted discretionary activity status. The NZHPT propose that schedule 8A be reviewed to identify all buildings with interior heritage values worthy of protection. The further Submissions by SKYCITY Hamilton Limited (FS and FS ) and Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry) (FS111.01, FS and FS ), opposes the submissions by both Lynette Joyce Williams and Niall Baker relating to the protection of interior features of heritage buildings. The Church of Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 26 of 79

33 Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS , FS and FS ) oppose the submission points by both Lynette Joyce Williams and Niall Baker relating to the control of alterations to the interior of a heritage item arguing that in some cases the interior of a building has significant spiritual values to the users. Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Limited (FS ) oppose the submission point by Naill Baker regarding the review of schedule 8A to indicate where scheduled heritage items have interior features that should be identified and protected. Graeme Ward (WINTEC)(FS71.012) oppose the submission points relating to internal alterations to heritage buildings and request that the Rule 19.3 b) be retained as notified. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS ) opposes submission point by NZHPT seeking the amendments to Rule 19.3 b) relating to internal alterations. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board argues that having controls over internal alterations would be inappropriate and unnecessary. It is acknowledged that the interior elements of heritage buildings do have the potential to contribute to the overall heritage value and the protection of these elements are important. However, not all internal features are worthy of protecting. The protection of the whole interior of a heritage building would have economic implications for the building owners by having to ensure the protection of the building s internal heritage while also ensuring the building meets the market demands of being equipped with modern day technology to meet modern day society s requirements. A number of the listed heritage buildings are private residencies which have over the years been renovated/modernized; and if this has yet to occur if interiors were to be protected would have implications on the ability for house owners to modernise to ensure these houses are livable and meet building code. Along with this as the majority of heritage dwellings have already been modernised it would be difficult to set the benchmark of what should be protected for instance, if the whole of the interior was protected thus introducing unnecessary controls over features and activities that do not have an association with the heritage value of the building. The introduction of controls over the interior of heritage buildings, particularly if new standards were introduced under Rule would also have implications around how this would be monitored and enforced as many of the heritage buildings are privately owned with no public access. Taking all points of view into consideration it is concluded that it would be too premature to support such an approach nevertheless, it would be beneficial to undertake, as part of a wider heritage Policy project, a comprehensive analysis of the actual and specific interior features of heritage buildings to be protected. This further assessment work would identify internal features within the existing heritage items to determine if there are any that contribute to their overall heritage value and to establish if these internal features have the potential to be protected. None of the submitters seeking the protection of the interiors have provided any information, such as heritage inventory records or assessments of interior features that warrant inclusion in the plan. As a result, the implication of these submissions would be that the internal areas of all heritage items would be protected. A number of the submitters however have requested that a review of the interior features of heritage buildings be undertaken to establish an inventory to determine if they warrant protection. It is therefore recommended that the submission points requesting the protection of the interior of buildings be rejected and that further work be undertaken to review all heritage items to establish potential interior features c) and d) Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) ( ) opposes Rule 19.3 c) which makes the establishment of accessory buildings and new buildings on the same site as A ranked heritage buildings a discretionary activity. They want Council to recognise the cost and commitment that landowners face in restoring or protecting heritage buildings by allowing new buildings as a controlled activity with control reserved over such matters as effect on characteristics for which the building was scheduled. This would allow the continued protection of heritage items but still allow landowners to develop their sites. New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager)(FS ) do not support the proposed controlled activity status for accessory building or new buildings on a site of A ranked Heritage buildings or structure as this would not provide the ability to ensure that new building and accessory building do not detract from a A ranked building. Accordingly, they seek the retention of the discretionary activity status for accessory buildings and new buildings on A ranked heritage building. Blagojevic Family Trust ( ) opposes the Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 27 of 79

34 Discretionary Activity Status for new buildings and accessory buildings on a site of an A ranked item and the Restricted Discretionary Activity Status for new buildings and accessory buildings on a site with a B ranked item. The Blagojevic Family Trust seeks that the activity status should be amended to a controlled activity. They argue that the notified activity status in Rule 19.3 c) and d) will result in additional costs and uncertainty to a developer and that the proposed controlled activity status this would still allow Council to have control over the design of the new building to ensure that it does not impact on the historic buildings. The further submission by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) (FS ) opposes the submission arguing that by reducing the activity status it would not allow sufficient assessment of the impact that a new building or accessory building would have on the heritage item both A and B ranked item. The further submission seeks that the rules 19.3 c) and d) be retained as notified. The objectives and policies for the protection of heritage buildings and structures identify the importance the immediate surroundings of a heritage buildings or structures has in term of contributing to the items heritage value. The setting of heritage buildings and structures can be as important as the buildings themselves and therefore inappropriately located buildings or accessory buildings could have a detrimental impact on an item s heritage value. Accordingly, a discretionary approach is extremely necessary to allow the refusal of a building that negatively impacts on the heritage value of a Schedule 8 building or structure e), m) and o) The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) in their submission seek clarity regarding the permitted activity status for both accessory or new buildings within the Waikato Hospital Campus and Wintec City Campus; as well as the erecting, constructing or extending any structure or fence on the Waikato Hospital campus and Wintec City Campus sites. The B ranked Old Hamilton Technical School Block F heritage building is located on the Wintec City Campus while the B ranked Waikato Hospital Band Rotunda is located on the Waikato Hospital Campus. Both these campuses are large facilities which fall under the Major Facilities Zone and accommodate a number of buildings and facilities. Under this zone all major facilities are required to prepare a Concept Plan outlining the proposed development of the site as a Restricted Discretionary activity. The development of the concept plan provides the opportunity to ensure that where development occurs in close proximity to the identified heritage items it does not impact negatively on the heritage values of these heritage items. The submitter does not seek any amendment and therefore no changes are recommended (h) and (i) The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) in their submission seeks that Rule, 19.3 h), 19.3 i) be retained. McConnell Property Ltd ( ) and Waitomo Properties Ltd ( ) seek that the demolition of heritage buildings should be a discretionary activity where there are safety concerns as well as economic use and overall support of the CBD. McConnell Property Ltd also has concerns over the lack of recognition of the different values of the buildings and the practicability or otherwise of protection and reuse. Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) (FS16.005), Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry)(FS ), and Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Limited(FS ) all support the submission made by McConnell Property Ltd. While the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager)(FS and FS ) supports in part both McConnell Property Ltd and Waitomo Properties Ltd arguing that they support the submitters concerns relating to safety. However, as NZHPT has submitted to have a safety policy included within the Proposed District Plan they do not support the submitters request to have the rules within 19.3 amended to include a specific rule relating to building safety as this matter would be considered under section 5 of the RMA when assessing any resource consent application. Whilst The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS ) supports the intent of the submission made by Waitomo Properties Ltd they only seek a Discretionary activity status for any structure or building ranked B. Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Inc ( ), Isobel Anne Bennett (YWCA (Young Womans' Christian Association) of Hamilton Inc) ( ), and Shona Betty Shaw (Murray V. Shaw Builders Ltd) ( ) all seek a change to the Rule 19.3 relating to the demolition of ranked buildings. The Waikato Registers Master Builders Association and Shona Betty Shaw opposing the non-complying activity status for the demolition of heritage buildings, with concerns over the fact that some heritage buildings have low earthquake rating thus posing a significant risk to the safety of those using these buildings. Stating in their opinion that in some cases the demolition of these buildings may be the only viable Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 28 of 79

35 option due to the low earthquake rating and safety risks as well as economic viability. Isobel Anne Bennett in her submission opposes the demolition of heritage buildings as a noncomplying activity stating that the rule does not distinguish between building rankings as outlined in Section of Appendix 8. Waikato Registered Master Builders and Shona Betty Shaw seek that demolition of heritage buildings and structures ranked both A and B should be a discretionary activity while Isobel Anne Bennett only seeks that the demolition of B ranked heritage building and structures should be a discretionary activity. Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry)(FS and FS ) support both the submissions by Waikato Registered Master Builders Association and Shona Betty Shaw to allow the demolition of heritage buildings and structures ranked both A and B as a discretionary activity. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS , , FS ) in their further submissions to the submission points by the Waikato Registered Builders Association, Isobel Anne Bennett and Shona Betty Shaw supports the amendment to Rule 19.3 i) to make the activity status for the demolition of a B ranked heritage building or structure a Discretionary Activity. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board state that notified provisions make the demolition of both A and B ranked buildings a non-complying activity which does not distinguish between the rankings both in terms of heritage value and significance. The change in the activity status would be the most appropriate way to recognise this difference. The further submission by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton)(FS16.004) supports the submission by Shona Betty Shaw agreeing that heritage policy needs to reflect all parts of Section 5 of the RMA as it currently fails to provide for people s wellbeing, health and safety. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board ( ) also opposes the proposed activity status for the demolition of heritage buildings arguing that the activity table in 19.3 is a one size fits all approach; it does not recognise the significance of the heritage item; that the demolition of heritage items is not a clear cut approach; and that the current provisions do not recognise that in some circumstances, demolition is not only the only solution but the best use of physical land resources. The provisions also do not recognise that, whilst the removal of both A and B ranked heritage buildings are no different, the resultant impact on the heritage and cultural effects can be very different. Therefore the complexity of Hamilton s historic heritage needs to be reflected in the activity classification and for these reasons the Church supports the introduction of the heritage categories contained within the Operative District Plan over the two tier heritage categorisation found in the Proposed District Plan. The Church seeks that the activity status in 19.3 be amended to reflect the broader ranking systems currently found in the Operative District Plan and amend rule 19.3i) so that the demolition of lesser ranked buildings and structures are considered as either a discretionary activity or restricted discretionary activity. In her further submission Jodhi Ponga (FS279.01) opposes the submissions by Waikato Register Master Builders Association and along with the further submission by the Temple View Heritage Society (FS284.02) opposes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board submission point. Their reasonsing for opposing these submission points being that the ranking system within the Proposed District Plan is a concise and discernible system which is less encumbered with different requirements as the previous ranking systems and that the current ranking system should be retained. The Temple View Heritage Society goes further to state that the best use of a physical land resource should not be the sole decision or at the sole discretion of developers and land owners In the case of heritage and special character. Owners of heritage and special character areas should recognise community contributions and interests in these areas. The further submission points by New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager)(FS182.01, FS , FS and FS182.35) oppose the submission points by the Waikato Register Master Builders Association, Isobel Anne Bennett, and Shona Betty Shaw arguing that the non-complying activity status recognises that buildings are scheduled because the community has indicated that they would like these buildings retained, therefore it is appropriate that a more stringent test of a non-complying activity is applied to these buildings. They also oppose the submission point by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board seeking the reintroduction of the ranking system found in the Operative District Plan and the amendment to the activity status for the demolition of lesser ranked buildings or structures. The NZHPT seeks the retention of the non-complying activity status for both A and B ranked heritage buildings and structures. Sink or Swim ( ) supports the non-complying activity status for the demolition of both B and A ranked Historic Heritage Buildings and Structures. The Church of Jesus Christ of Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 29 of 79

36 Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS FS ) opposes this submission stating that the non-complying activity status does not reflect the different nature of a category B building and the reduced significance of the building and they see that a discretionary or restricted discretionary activity is more appropriate for a B ranked building. Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) seek the establishment of a hierarchy of management of A and B ranked buildings. They recommend that a single unitary built heritage schedule be developed with demolition as a non-complying activity. Alternatively review Schedule 8A and make demolition of less significant B ranked items as a discretionary activity. The further submission by New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager)(FS ) supports the submission points made by Lynette Joyce Williams to Rule 19.h) and i) relating to the retention of the non-complying activity status for the demolition of heritage items. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS and FS ) supports the submission point by Lynette Joyce Williams and Niall Baker requesting the need to clearly establish the hierarchy of management for A and B ranked buildings with regards to demolition. The Church argues that different ranked heritage buildings have different levels of significance and this should be reflected in the level of assessment. The Church supports the proposal put forward by the submitters of making the demolition of B ranked heritage items a discretionary activity. Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry)(FS ) oppose the submitters point relating to activity status table and seek that it be amended to account for the demolition of heritage buildings as a discretionary activity where there is a safety concern with heritage buildings. The further submitter also opposed the request to review Schedule 8A to identify and include internal items that have heritage values. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS ) opposes the amendments to Rule 19.3 i) which relates to the activity status of the demolition of B ranked buildings. The LDS Church argues that the notified activity status of non-complying does not recognise the potential difference between the two rankings, both in terms of heritage value and significance the separation in activity status would recognise this difference. Currently the Operative District Plan establishes a 5 tier ranking system for heritage buildings and the relative importance of each heritage item has been assessed and each item has been assigned a ranking from A+ to D. A+: Buildings and Structures of Outstanding Heritage Value A: Buildings and Structures of Highly Significant Heritage Value B: Buildings and Structures of Significant Heritage Value C: Buildings and Structures of Recognised Heritage Value D: Buildings and Structures of Heritage Value (these items are identified on Hamilton City s Heritage List). D ranked items are identified for information only, are not protected by this rule within the Operative District Plan and only been included in the plan with the agreement of the property owner. Under the Proposed District Plan the categories of significance have been reduced to two rankings to better align Hamilton City with best practice as well as the ranking system setout in the Historic Place Act which is used by New Zealand Historic Places Trust. The new ranking system is as follow: A - Historic places of highly significant heritage value include those assessed as being of outstanding or high value in relation to one or more of the criteria and are considered to be of outstanding or high heritage value locally, regionally or nationally. B - Historic places of significant heritage value include those assessed as being of high or moderate value in relation to one or more of the heritage criteria and are considered to be of value locally or regionally. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 30 of 79

37 Through the development of the Proposed District Plan (PDP) work was undertaken to review the appropriateness of the existing ranking system which resulted in the decision to adopt a new two tier rankings system. Using the new ranking system work was undertaken to re-assess all current heritage items as listed in the Operative District Plan (ODP). As part of this assessment only two additional heritage items were introduced into the PDP, these being the Waikato Hospital Band Rotunda (H136) and Bishopscourt and Episcopal Chapel (H137). A decision was taken not to assess any other building or structure for inclusion other than those identified above. With the change in the ranking system a number of D and C ranked buildings, with local or neighborhood heritage significance have now move to being B ranked building. As a result, these buildings under the PDP have, in some circumstances, more protection afforded to them than under the Operative Plan. The same process was undertaken for the buildings with outstanding and highly significant heritage values (A+ and A ranked buildings) resulting in a number of B ranked buildings (ODP) being re-ranked and included in the A ranking under the Proposed District Plan. The reallocation of the heritage buildings within the 2 tier ranking system clearly indicates a distinct difference in the significance of the type of building within each of the two rankings. Whilst Policy a) identifies that the demolition of buildings and structures shall be avoided it is within the explanation of the objective and policies that assists the plan users with how to differentiate between the demolition of highly significant historic buildings and structures, with a ranking of A, and those buildings ranked B. The explanation clearly states that the demolition of A ranked buildings should only occur in exceptional circumstances thus a non-complying activity status for A ranked buildings is appropriate and reflects RMA Section 6. This approach is fully supported. However, when considering the appropriateness of a non-complying activity status for the demolition of B ranked buildings these are more complex due to the types of buildings within this ranking and what this ranking protection affords. Accordingly, consideration has been had as to whether the same level of activity status should be retained for B ranked buildings. As part of this consideration comment was also sought from Matthews and Matthews Architects (See Appendix E) regarding the matter. Matthews and Matthews have taking a theoretical view on protection of heritage buildings rather than an analysis of the nature of building listed within the Proposed District Plan. They, do however, recognise that through the explanation it would suggest that there would be some variation in the activity status of activities related to category A and B places within the City. However it is my opinion that after considering the matters raised by the submitters, the analysis in the s.32 report and weighed up the comments in the experts report, the activity status for the demolition of B ranked buildings should be amended to a Discretionary Activity while the activity status for the demolition of A ranked building should be retained as a Non-Complying Activity, to reflect the highly significant heritage values of A listed items and the nature of protection as set out in the Objectives and Polices for B ranked items. The proposed amendment to the activity status would still meet the requirements under the RMA to protect historic and cultural heritage from inappropriate use, subdivision and development through the ranking of heritage items as either a A or B while still indentifying the difference in the significance between a A ranked items and a B ranked item through the associated provisions (j) and (k) Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) support the intent of the rule to encourage the long term future of heritage buildings. Nevertheless, they seek that the provisions acknowledge and provide for the impact internal strengthening may have on interior heritage features. They seek that the rules be amended to include provisions to manage the potential impact upon identified interior heritage features. As a result of the recommendation to exclude provision to protect the interior of heritage buildings it is recommended that the above submissions points be rejected. Whilst The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) support the earthquake strengthening process as it does not include demolition they are seeking the inclusion of a new policy to address building safety, along with a change to the activity status for B ranked buildings and clarification as to the meaning of invisible works. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust wants it clearly articulated in the plan that the permitted activity status for earthquake strengthening work means any works undertaken would result in no visible change to the external building façade. The submitter also wants clarification on the meaning of invisible works as they are concerned about what impacts this work could actually have on the heritage fabric of a scheduled building or structure. To address their concerns, The New Zealand Historic Places Trust have proposed that the permitted activity status for earthquake strengthening for B ranked buildings should be changed to a controlled activity where the work would result in no visible changes to the exterior of the building. In regard to A ranked buildings the NZHPT supports the restricted discretionary activity status for earthquake strengthening works resulting in visible changes to the external building façade. However, they seek that it be amended to apply to all earthquake strengthening works on a A ranked building regardless of visibility of the works carried out and for works done on Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 31 of 79

38 B ranked building were the work is visible on the exterior façade. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) in seeking that building safety is addressed at a policy level they have requested the introduction of a new policy within supporting the rules relating to earthquake strengthening. Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) ( ) whilst identifying Rule 19.3 k) as a provision that they support they seek that the activity status for earthquake strengthening work on A ranked heritage buildings where works result in visible structural change should change from a restricted discretionary activity to a controlled activity to give assurance to developers and landowners that resource consent will be forthcoming. Control should be reserved over specific matters potentially referring to the criteria and assessment of each item as per the Built Heritage Inventory Record. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager)(FS ) does not support the proposed change to the activity status from a restricted discretionary activity in 19.3 k) to a controlled activity for earthquake strengthening work to the exterior of a heritage building that would result in visible structural changes to the external building façade. They state that this would not provide the ability to ensure that earthquake strengthening work on the exterior of a building does not alter the façade of a heritage build in a way that it destroys the historic heritage features the list has intended to protect. NZHPT seek the retention of the restricted discretionary activity status for earthquake strengthening work on heritage items. Graeme Ward (WINTEC)(FS71.012) opposes the proposed changes to the permitted activity status for earthquake strengthening and supports the retention of Rules 19.3 j) and k) as notified. Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry)(FS ) (FS ) (FS ) opposes the submission point by Lynette Joyce Williams ( ), Niall Baker ( ) and The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) that proposes the change in activity status for Rule 19.3 j) and k) and support instead the permitted activity for 19.3.j) and that Rule 19.3 k) be retained as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. Property Council New Zealand (FS ) and Tram Lease Limited (FS ) oppose the submission by NZHPT regarding the activity status of earthquake strengthening on B ranked items and support the retention of the permitted activity status as notified. In considering the above submission points and further submissions, visible work means works when completed can be seen when viewing the exterior of the building or is visible on the exterior façade of the building. In allowing works that results in no visible structural change to the external building façade as a permitted activity status will encourage building owners to upgrade their buildings while achieving the objectives to retain heritage building and allow for the continued use and adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. The restricted discretionary activity status while less restrictive, the full discretionary ensures Council has the ability to consider a proposal in full to determine if the impacts on the heritage value would be detrimental while also giving flexibility of control over the level of impact this work may have on the building. The current activity status also gives Council the ability to engage with the building owner to ensure that the best possible outcomes are reached with regards to protecting the heritage values of the building while still ensuring the building meets earthquake strengthening requirements. Accordingly, it is recommended that no changes be made to Rules 19.3 j) and k). Notwithstanding this conclusion, the inclusion of a new policy in would further support the intent of the rules to protect heritage buildings from potential earthquake risks while still maintaining their historic heritage values. Therefore, the inclusion of a new policy under is supported. Noting that as a result of inserting the new policy there will need to be consequential changes to the associated explanation in relation to the intent of the new policy (p) Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) support 19.3 p) and propose that it should be retained. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) supports the Discretionary Activity status of the change of use to an activity otherwise listed as a non-complying activity in the underlying zone rules but proposes that a wider range of incentives be provided to result in greater heritage benefits. They highlight that these provisions do not provide incentives to building owners. The further submission by SKYCITY Hamilton Limited (FS64.002) supports the submission by The New Zealand Historic Places Trust requesting that incentive measures for heritage buildings be increased. The plan does provide a number of incentives to building owners through Rule 19.3 p) which introduces the ability for a land owner to broaden the range of activities that may occur on a site of a heritage building when the heritage building or structure is retained; and Rule 19.3 j) which allows the ability to undertake earthquake strengthening as a permitted activity provided no works results in visible alterations /changes to the exterior of the building. Both incentives allows building owners to undertake necessary earthquake strengthening Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 32 of 79

39 works, without the financial burden of a resource consent, and enabling the renewal and reuse of a heritage building while enabling the perceived financial burden of the heritage building to be reduced. It is recognised that there are a number of other incentives that could be introduced that would assist in ensuring the Plan s objectives of retaining and protecting heritage buildings and structures is achieved. However, the introduction of further such incentives needs to be undertaken in a cohesive manner, one that is not constrained by the scope of submissions as this will ensure the ability for Council to fully consider all options and techniques available and most appropriate for the Hamilton setting. As a result, such work is best placed in the development of a Heritage Policy which would identify and establish any incentives that council sees would protect the heritage stock within the city. In considering all submissions and further submissions it is recommended that no changes be made to Rule 19.3 p) and that the development of a heritage policy by the Council is programmed to occur following the completion of this District Plan process and this include the development of incentives q) and 19.3 r) The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) does not support the activity status for the removal off site of any heritage ranked buildings or structures and seek that these activities become non-complying activities. They argue that the provisions should be in line with policy a which seeks to avoid the demolition or relocation of building or structures listed in Schedule 8A. Notwithstanding that, they seek that the relocation of a heritage building or structure on the same site should be a discretionary activity. Policy a identifies that relocation of a building shall be avoided and through the explanation goes further to identify that the loss of highly significant historic heritage ( A Ranked Buildings and Structures) should only occur in exceptional circumstances. It also recognises that the removal of a building or structure from its original setting can affect its heritage values and reduce it s significance. However in some cases relocation of a heritage building may be the only way to retain the item. By making the relocation of a building the same activity status as demolition there is a higher probability that demolition would be the option chosen, rather that relocating the building either on site or to another site. In considering the submission it is recommended that for A ranked building a non-complying activity status should be applied for the removal of a building or structure off the site while a discretionary activity status for relocation on site. The activity status for B Ranked building should remain unchanged n) 19.3 v) The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) supports the Restricted Discretionary Activity Status for signage in relation to heritage buildings and Group 1 Archaeological sites but has concerns regarding the related objectives in Chapter 25. These concerns have been addressed in the Section 42A report for Chapter 25 regarding general signage. Rule 19.3 refers activities relating to signage to Chapter 25 which sets out the controls for signage relating to heritage buildings and related sites. No changes to Rules 19.3 n) and v) are recommended t) and 19.3 u) The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) seeks that the rules be amended to recognise that all earthworks (including less than 40m³) in Group 1 Archaeological sites should be a discretionary activity. Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc ( ) does not support Rule 19.3 t) which allows earthworks involving less than 40m³ of material in a single activity or over a one year period on a Group 1 site as a permitted activity due to the potential for damage to occur on recorded and unrecorded archaeological sites. The submitter proposes that all earthworks on Group 1 archaeological sites should be restricted discretionary activity. New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) (FS ) supports the submission by Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc in part and request that earthworks on a Group 1 site should be a discretionary activity. The Proposed District Plan makes earthworks greater than 40m³ a restricted discretionary activity on a Group 1 archaeological site while under the current Operative District Plan activities that involve any excavation, modification or disturbance of a site which has outstanding archaeological, historic and cultural value is a discretionary activity and on sites that have significant archaeological, historic and cultural value is a controlled activity. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust has the primary responsibility for the regulation of activities relating to archaeological sites under the Historic Places Act Under the Act it is unlawful for any person to destroy damage or modify the whole or part of an archeological site without prior authority of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. The Act requires any person wanting to do any earthworks on an archeological site to obtain consent from New Zealand Historic Places Trust irrespective of the activity status in a district plan. Under Rule 19.3 a reference has been provided to ensure that any activities on any Archaeological site Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 33 of 79

40 would require consent from New Zealand Historic Places Trust. The Proposed District Plan has identified archaeological sites as Group 1 if there is sufficient information available on their value, location and history to enable them to be identified as the most important archaeological sites of significance within the city and afforded the highest level of protection. The ability to undertake 40m³ of earthworks on a Group 1 site as a permitted activity has the potential to destroy identified archaeological sites and does not achieve the intent of Objective to protect significant archaeological sites from damage or destruction. Earthworks in Group 1 therefore should be managed by removing the ability to undertake up to 40m³ of earthworks as a permitted activity. To do this it is proposed that there be no minimum permitted earthworks threshold. Retaining the restricted discretionary activity status for all earthworks on a Group 1 site apart from minor works will ensure significant archaeological sites are protected from inappropriate earthworks (w) Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) seek that 19.3 w) be amended to stipulate whether Group 1 or 2 sites are being regulated and that the activity status should be a controlled activity to ensure that earthworks are undertaken carefully and to promote collation of sound information. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) in their submission seek that Rule 19.3 w) be retained. Rule 19.3 w) clearly relates to Group 2 Archaeological sites. Group 2 sites identify the general area where archaeological sites are known to be located but lack information or have been disturbed or destroyed but still may contain artifacts. The inclusion of Group 2 sites provides plan users with an alert layer to ensure that they are aware of the possible location of archaeological and cultural sites. The inclusion of Group 2 sites does not introduce any additional controls other than alerting the land owner and plan users of the protocol that must be followed under the Historic Places Act. Therefore, it is recommended that there be no changes to Rule 19.3w) Note Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) support the retention of the advisory note relating to the Historic Places Act. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust in their submission also seek that the following provisions be retained, 19.3 a), 19.3 c), 19.3 d), 19.3 f), 19.3 g), 19.3 h), 19.3 i), 19.3 l), and 19.3 s) Sub. Name FS. Name Sub. Point FS. Point Robert W. Belbin Rules Activity Status Table Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning Support Retain 19.3 Rules - Activity Status Table. Accept in Part The submission points seeking the retention of Rule 19.3 has be accepted in Part as other submission points have make amendments to Rule McConnell Property Ltd Rules Activity Status Table Oppose Amend Rule Activity Status Table needs to reflect the balance between protecting important heritage buildings with safety, economic use and overall support for the CBD development and Accept in part The submission point seeking the amendment to Rule 19.3 be accepted as this would: Support the intent of the objectives and policies. Meet the requirements of the RMA Recommended amendments to Rule 19.3 i) of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (refer ) Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 34 of 79

41 Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry) New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Limited Waitomo Properties Ltd revitalisation. FS Support Accept in part The submission point which FS supports has been accepted in part FS Support Accept in part The submission point which FS supports has been accepted in part FS Support Accept in part The submission point which FS supports has been accepted in part FS Support Accept in part The submission point which FS supports has been accepted Rules Activity Status Table Oppose Amend 19.3 h) and i) Rules Activity Status Table to make the demolition of heritage buildings a Discretionary Activity where there are safety concerns. Accept in part The submission point seeking the amendment to Rules 19.3 h) and i) to make the demolition of heritage buildings a Discretionary activity be accepted in part as this would: Support the intent of the objectives and policies Meet the requirements of the RMA Recommended amendments to Rule 19.3 i) of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (refer ) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Inc FS Support Accept in part The submission point which FS supports has been accepted in part FS Support Accept in part The submission point which FS supports has been accepted in part Rules Activity Status Table Oppose Amend Rule 19.3 h) and i) Activity Status Table to make the demolition of heritage structures or buildings ranked Accept in part The submission point seeking the amendment to Rules 19.3 h) and i) to make the demolition of heritage buildings a Discretionary activity be accepted in part as this would: Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 35 of 79

42 A or B a Discretionary Activity. Support the intent of the objectives and policies Meet the requirements of the RMA Recommended amendments to Rule 19.3 i) of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (refer ) Andrew Yeoman FS2.01 Support - This Submission Point does not relate to the topic identified in Submission Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) FS Support Accept in part The submission point which FS supports has been accepted in part FS Support Accept in part The submission point which FS supports has been accepted in part FS Oppose Accept in part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part Jodhi Ponga FS Oppose Accept in part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part Isobel Anne Bennett (YWCA (Young Womans' Christian Association) of Hamilton Inc) Rules Activity Status Table Oppose Amend 19.3 i) of Rules Activity Status Table to make the demolition of a structure or building ranked B a Discretionary Activity. Accept The submission point seeking the amendment to Rules 19.3 h) and i) to make the demolition of heritage buildings ranked B a Discretionary activity be accepted as this would: Support the intent of the objectives and policies Meet the requirements of the RMA Recommended amendments to Rule 19.3 i) of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (refer ) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places FS Support Accept The submission point which FS supports has been accepted FS Oppose Reject The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 36 of 79

43 Trust (General Manager) Shona Betty Shaw (Murray V. Shaw Builders Ltd) Rules Activity Status Table Oppose Amend 19.3 h) and i) of Rules Activity Status Table to make the demolition of structures or buildings ranked A or B a Discretionary Activity. Accept in part The submission point seeking the amendment to Rules 19.3 h) and i) to make the demolition of heritage buildings a Discretionary activity be accepted in part as this would: Supports the intent of the objectives and policies Meet the requirements of the RMA Recommended amendments to Rule 19.3 i) of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (refer ) Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board FS Support Accept in part The submission point which FS supports has been accepted in part FS Support Accept in part The submission point which FS supports has been accepted in part FS Support Accept in part The submission point which FS supports has been accepted in part FS Oppose Accept in part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part Rules Activity Status Table Oppose Amend Rule 19.3 to reflect the broader ranking systems as set out in Appendix of the Operative Hamilton City District Plan. Reject The submission point seeking the amendment to Rule 19.3 to reflect the ranking system set out in the Operative District Plan has been rejected as this would not: improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies support best practice Amend Rule 19.3 i) so that demolition of lesser ranked buildings and structures are either a Discretionary Activity Accept The submission point seeking the amendment to Rules 19.3 i) to make the demolition of lesser ranked heritage buildings and structures a Discretionary Activity or Restricted Discretionary Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 37 of 79

44 or Restricted Discretionary Activity. Activity be accepted in part as this would: Supports the intent of the objectives and policie Meet the requirements of the RMA New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Recommended amendments to Rule 19.3 i) of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (refer ) FS Oppose Accept in part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part Jodhi Ponga FS Oppose Accept in part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part Temple View Heritage Society Sink or Swim FS Oppose Accept in part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part Historic Heritage Support in part Support the non-complying activity status for demolition of both 'A' and 'B' ranked items. Accept in part The submission point supporting the non-complying activity status in Rules 19.3 h) and i) been accepted in part as this would not: support the intent of the objectives and policies Meet the requirements of the RMA The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) FS Oppose Accept in part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part Rules Activity Status Table Support in part Amend 19.3 b) to give importance to the internal state of heritage items. Reject The submission point seeking the amendment to Rules 19.3 b) to give importance to the interior of heritage items be rejected as this would: does not support the intent of the objectives and policies Amend 19.3 c) to make accessory buildings or new buildings on the same site as an A ranked item as a Controlled Activity. Reject The submission point seeking the amendment to Rules 19.3 c) to make new buildings and accessory buildings on the same site as a A ranked heritage item a controlled activity be rejected as this would: Reduce the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and the purpose and principles Section 6 of the RMA Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 38 of 79

45 Support in part 19.3 k), but amend the activity status to a controlled activity. Reject The submission point seeking the amendment to Rules 19.3 k) to make Earthquake strengthening works resulting in visible structural change to the external building façade a controlled be rejected as this would: Reduce the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and the purpose and principles Section 6 of the RMA The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Waikato Regional Council SKYCITY Hamilton Limited Graeme Ward (WINTEC) Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected FS Support Reject The submission point which FS supports has been rejected Rules Activity Status Table Oppose Amend Rule 19.3 b) Activity Status Table to make internal alterations of buildings a controlled activity OR introduce a new rule under Rules - Specific Standards for controlling effects of internal alterations of buildings. Reject The submission point seeking the amendment to Rules 19.3 b) to give importance to the interior of heritage items be rejected as this would: Reduce the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and the purpose and principles Section 6 of the RMA FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected. FS71.01 Oppose Accept The submission point which FS71.01 supports has been rejected. FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 39 of 79

46 Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) SKYCITY Hamilton Ltd The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Lynette Joyce Williams FS Support Reject The submission point which FS supports has been rejected Rules Activity Status Table Oppose Amend 19.3 t) Rules Activity Status Table, to make earthworks involving less than 40m3 a Restricted Discretionary Activity for Group 1 archaeological sites. Accept in Part The submission point seeking the amendment to Rules 19.3 t) to make earthworks involving less than 40m³ a restricted Discretionary activity be accepted in Part as this would: Supports the intent of the objectives and policies. Meet the requirements of the RMA Recommended amendments to Rule 19.3 t) of the Plan are contained in Appendix C (refer ) FS Support Accept in part The submission point which FS supports has been accepted in part Rules Activity Status Table FS FS Rules Activity Status Table Oppose Support Oppose Oppose Delete 19.5 a) iii) of Restricted Discretionary Activities - Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria which relates to Internal Alterations of buildings ranked A. Amend 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table by: Refer The submission and further submissions are addressed under Rule 19.5 Restricted Discretionary Activities - Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria a) Including Subdivision. Accepted The submission point seeking the amendment to Rule 19.3 to Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 40 of 79

47 include subdivision be accepted as this would: Improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. b) Adding rules to control alterations and additions to identified interior heritage features. d) Establish a hierarchy of management for A and B buildings. A single, unitary built heritage schedule, in which demolition is noncomplying for all scheduled items, is recommended. Alternatively review Schedule 8A and make demolition of less significant B ranked items a Discretionary activity. e) Maximum thresholds for earthworks specified in (a) should include an advisory note that a lower threshold has been set for Group 1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites. Reject Accept in part Reject The submission point seeking the amendment to Rule 19.3 to include controls over interior heritage features be rejected as this would: Not improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. The submission point seeking the amendment to Rule 19.3h) and i) be accepted in part as this would: Improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. The submission point seeking the inclusion of an advisory note be rejected as this would: Not improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. The submission point relating to a) will be dealt with under Chapter 25 f) 19.3 p) Retain. Accept The submission point seeking the retention of Rule 19.3 p) be rejected as this would: Not improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 41 of 79

48 SKYCITY Hamilton Limited Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Niall Baker g) 19.3 w) is opposed as the rule statement is incomplete. Assuming that it refers to Group 2 Archaeological and Cultural Sites the activity status should be amended here to allow for information about the site to be shared with the owner and impacts upon potential heritage values to be appropriately managed. Reject The submission point seeking the amendment to Rule 19.3 w) be rejected as this would: Not improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Recommended amendments to Rule 19.3 of the Plan to include subdivision are contained in Appendix C (refer ) FS Oppose Accepted in Part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part FS Oppose Accepted in Part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part FS Oppose Accept in Part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part FS Support Accept in Part The submission point which FS supports has been accepted in part Rules Activity Status Table Support in part a) Amend 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table to include Subdivision. Accept The submission point seeking the amendment to Rule 19.3 to include subdivision be accepted as this would: Improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. b) Explanation and 19.3 Add a rule to control alterations and additions to identified interior heritage features. Amend b) 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table Add a rule to control the destruction of Reject The submission point seeking the amendment to Rule 19.3 to include controls over interior heritage features be rejected as this would: Not improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 42 of 79

49 identified interior heritage features. d) Amend h) and i) of 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table in order to clearly establish the hierarchy of management for A and B ranked buildings with regards to demolition. e) Amend j) and k) of 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table to include impacts upon identified interior heritage features. f) Retain p) of 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table. Accept in part Reject Accept The submission point seeking the amendment to Rule 19.3 h) and i) be accepted in part as this would: Improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. The submission point seeking the amendment to Rule 19.3 j) and k) be rejected as this would: Not support the intent of the Objectives and Policies The submission point seeking the retention of Rule 19.3 p) be rejected as this would: Meets the intent of the Objectives and Policies. g) Amend t) and u) of 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table to include maximum thresholds for earthworks specified in (a) should include an advisory note that a lower threshold has been set for Group 1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites. Reject The submission point seeking the amendment to Rule 19.3 t) and u) be rejected as this would: Not improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. h) Amend w) 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table to elevate the Activity Status to Controlled. Retain the Note associated with 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table. Accept in part The submission point seeking the amendment to Rule 19.3 w) be accept in part as this would: Improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 43 of 79

50 Recommended amendments to Rule 19.3 of the Plan to include subdivision are contained in Appendix C (refer ) SKYCITY Hamilton Limited Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Niall Baker Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Limited The New Zealand Historic Places Trust FS Oppose Accepted in Part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part FS Oppose Accepted in Part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part FS Oppose Accepted in Part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part Buildings and Structures Support in part Review Schedule 8a to indicate where scheduled heritage items have interior features that should be identified and protected. Rejected The submission point seeking the review of Schedule 8A to indicate where heritage items have interior features that should be protected be rejected for the following reasons: Does not supports the intent of the objectives and policies Insufficient information is provided FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part Rules Activity Status Table Support in part Seeks the retention of the activities and class in listed in Rule Activity Status Table 19.3a),c),d,g),h),i),l),s),w) Accept in Part The submission point seeking the retention of the activities and class in Rule 19.3 for the following 19.3 a), c), d), g), h), i), l), s) and w) be accepted in part as other submission points have made amendments to these rules. With the exception of the following changes : amending 19.3b), j), k), n), o), Accept in part The submission point seeking the amendment to 19.3 q), r) and t) be accepted as it: Achieves the purpose and principles of the plan. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 44 of 79

51 SKYCITY Hamilton Limited Graeme Ward (WINTEC) Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Property Council New Zealand Tram Lease Limited Blagojevic Family Trust p), q), r), t), and v); delete 19.3u); Clarify the need for 19.3m); provide clarity on the management of the protection of interior heritage; Clarity on the activity status of accessory or new buildings; Insert two new policies relating to earthquake strengthening of heritage listed items; Include new policies and amendments to Rule relating to signage; Amend the definition for 'low intensity sign' by deleting the text "illuminated signage". Accept in part The submission point seeking the inclusion of new policies relating to earthquake strengthening of heritage buildings be accepted as it: Achieves the purpose and principles of the plan. Recommended amendments to Rule 19.3 of the Plan to include a new policy is contained in Appendix C (refer ) FS Oppose Accept in Part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part FS Oppose Accept in Part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part FS Oppose Accept in Part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part FS Oppose Accept in Part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part FS Oppose Accept in Part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part FS Oppose Accept in Part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part Rules Activity Status Oppose Amend 19.3c) and d) of Rules Activity Status Table to a Reject The submission point seeking the amendment to 19.3c) and d) to make new buildings and accessory building on a site of a heritage Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 45 of 79

52 Table Controlled Activity to provide greater certainty. item a Controlled Activity be rejected as this would: Reduces the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and the purpose and principles of the RMA New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Generation Zero Waikato Graeme Ward (WINTEC) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board 490 Grey Ltd as the Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for Living Ltd FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Rules Activity Status Table FS FS FS Support in part Oppose Oppose Oppose 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table-All historic buildings to consider R7, R9 and S1, and A1, J1 and J3 should be had when considering areas relating to historic buildings. Refer The submission and further submissions are addressed under Rule 19.5 Restricted Discretionary Activities - Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria Analysis: 19.4 Rules Specific Standards Waikato Regional Council ( ) request that a new rule be included in 19.4 Rules Specific Standards to control the effects of earthworks of less than 40m³ of material in a single activity or cumulative activities in any one year period on Group 1 archaeological and cultural sites. The proposed provisions make this activity a permitted activity but there are no specific standards to control the effects of this activity. The submitter considers that this level of earthwork could still impact on an archaeological or cultural site, particularly Group 1 sites. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) (FS182.02) further submission point supports the change in the activity status from a permitted activity to discretionary activity. This matter has been addressed under 19.3 t) and u) in which it has been recommended that earthworks within a Group 1 site be a discretionary activity. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 46 of 79

53 Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) request the amendment to to include a reference to the value of Conservation Plans as a guide to undertaking maintenance and repairs. New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) (FS ) supports the concept of using conservation plans to direct repairs and maintenance however they do not support the need for conservation plans to be made mandatory. The development of Conservation Plans, as requested by Lynette Joyce Williams and Niall Baker, is a tool encouraged by New Zealand Historic Places Trust to ensure that any maintenance work done on a heritage building or structure is undertaken in a way that protects the heritage values of the building or structure. The maintenance and repair to a heritage building or structure is a permitted activity under the Proposed District Plan, which means that the requirement for the preparation of a conservation plan would be hard to enforce; it would also require the owner of the heritage item to incur additional cost for relatively small works. As such a proposition imposed onto a permitted activity would also need a degree of scrunity by Council to determine if it achieved the necessary protection mechanism to protect the heritage items, could in fact be ultra vires. Accordingly, it is considered that even though there is merit in the development of conservation plans the development of provisions to assist in the preparation and implication of such plans needs to be undertaken as part of the comprehensive development of the proposed Heritage Policy. Therefore, at this stage it is not considered appropriate to incorporate such a requirement into the Plan. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) seeks the rewording and amendments to 19.4 Rules Specific Standards to ensure consistency within the Plan with particular reference to consistency between rule and the definition for maintenance and repair of buildings and structures (in relation to Chapter 19: Historic Heritage). The submitter proposes the following changes: Rule a) In any repair or maintenance to the exterior of a building or structure, the heritage values for which the Historic Heritage Place was scheduled shall be respected. This will be achieved by: i) Using the same or similar materials ii) Replicating or otherwise mmaintaining consistency with the scale, proportion, finishes and techniques Rule b) Minor Maintenance to a building or structure shall be limited to: i) Works for the purpose of weatherproofing. ii) Plumbing and electrical work Rule c) Minor repairs shall be for the purpose of repair, patching, piecing in, splicing or consolidating and shall use materials that are the same colour, texture and design as the materials being replaced. The repair and maintenance of scheduled buildings are a permitted activity under 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table. The intent of 19.4 is to ensure that any repair or maintenance is carried out in such a way as not to negatively affect the historic value of the building or structure. Maintenance and repair is defined as work for the purpose of restoration and repair of any original structure, including the repair of materials and replacement of minor components where these are beyond repair or are missing. The changes proposed by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust would ensure clarity in the understanding of along with providing clarity and consistency as to the nature and limits of the repair and maintenance of heritage items with the definition in Appendix 1.7 relating to the maintence and repair of buildings and structures (in relation to Chapter 19:Historic Heritage) being amended as set out below: To ensure consistency between the rules and the definition it is proposed that the definition in Apendix 1.7 be amended to read: Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 47 of 79

54 Maintenance and repair of buildings and structures (in relation to Chapter 19: Historic Heritage): Means work for the purpose of weatherproofing, plumbing and electrical work, restoration and for the purpose of repair which includes patching, piecing in, splicing or consolidating of any original structure including the repair of materials and replacement of minor components where these are beyond repair or are missing. The replacement should be of original or similar material, and maintain consistency in colour, texture, form and design as the original it replaces. Sub. Name FS. Name Waikato Regional Council New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Lynette Joyce Williams New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Sub. Point FS. Point Rules Specific Standards Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning Oppose Add a new Rule to control the effects of earthworks on Group 1 archaeological and cultural sites. Rejected While the submitter seeks the inclusions of a new rule in supporting 19.3 t) this provision has been amended in response to other submission points (See Rule 19.3 ( ) in appendix A) FS Support Rejected The submission point which FS support has been rejected Rules Specific Standards Support in part Amend Rule 19.4 Rules Specific Standards to include reference to the value of conservation plans as a guide to undertaking maintenance and repairs. Rejected The submission point seeking the introduction of Conservation Plans to be rejected on the basis that it would: Not achieve the intent of the plan Be ultra vires. FS Support Rejected The submission point which FS support has been rejected Niall Baker Maintenance and Repairs to a Schedule 8A Item The New Zealand Historic Places Trust Maintenance and Repairs to a Support in part Support in part Amend Rule Maintenance and Repairs to a Schedule 8A to include reference to the value of Conservation Plans as a guide to undertaking maintenance and repairs. Seeks the reworking of a), c) and the definition for 'maintenance Rejected The submission point seeking the introduction of Conservation Plans to be rejected on the basis that it would: Not achieve the intent of the plan Be ultra vires. Accepted The submission point seek the amendments to a) b) and c) be accepted as they: The proposed amendments to will better achieve Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 48 of 79

55 Schedule 8A Item and repair of buildings and structures' to provide clarity and consistency as to the nature and limits of the repair and maintenance of heritage items; Amend by deleting the text 'replicating or otherwise'; Amend b) by deleting the word 'minor'; Amend c) by deleting the text ' and shall use materials that are the same colour, texture and design as the materials being replaced' to retain a focus of maintenance and repair. the objectives/policies of the Historic Heritage Zone Recommended amendments to Rule of the Plan is contained in Appendix C (refer ) The submission point asking for the amendment of Appendix 1.7 will be dealt with under the hearing for Appendix Definitions. Analysis: 19.5 Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria SKYCITY Hamilton Ltd ( ) and ( ), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board ( ) and Barry Harris (Hamilton City Council) ( ) all seek to have 19.5 a) iii removed from the plan. SKYCITY and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board question the inclusion of 19.5 a) iii) which sets out the assessment criteria for a restricted discretionary activity while Rule 19.3 b) allows for internal alterations to any heritage building as a permitted activity. SKYCITY argues that it is unreasonable to require resource consent for the alteration of the interior of a heritage building as it is the exterior of heritage buildings that are at risk of losing their heritage values through unsympathetic alterations. For heritage buildings to be usable and economically viable they require frequent interior alterations which if controlled would place further economic burden on building owners. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board considers it is inappropriate to control the interior alteration of heritage buildings particularly the heritage buildings which has significant spiritual significance (i.e. The Hamilton Temple at Temple View). Hamilton City Council seek the removal of 19.5 a) iii indicating that it is not applicable as internal alterations to historic heritage buildings scheduled under 8A are a permitted activity under 19.3 b). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS ) and (FS ) supports the submission by SKYCITY Hamilton and Hamilton City Council stating that Rule 19.5 a) iii is inconsistent with the Permitted Activity status in Rule 19.3 b) and that in some cases due to the interior of buildings having significant spiritual values it is inappropriate to place controls over the interior of these buildings. While the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager)( ) opposes the submissions by SKYCITY Hamilton, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board and Hamilton City Council argue that it is important that the internal heritage values are assessed when doing internal alterations. Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) seek that the alteration to the interior of heritage buildings should be a controlled activity. The Church of Jesus Christ of Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 49 of 79

56 Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS ) and (FS ) oppose the submission by both Lynette Joyce Williams and Niall Baker arguing that the inclusion of controls over alterations to the interior of heritage building could discourage building owners from undertaking interior improvements. Under Rule 19.3 b) the internal alteration to heritage buildings is a permitted activity and therefore there is no need to include matters of discretion and assessment criteria for internal alterations of heritage buildings in Rule 19.5 a). In considering the above submission points and the matters relating to the protection of internals already discussed in section 19.3of this report, the removal of 19.5 a)iii is the most appropriate action to take, it will also remove an inconsistency that presently exists and improve the clarity for plan users. It is therefore recommended that Rule 19.5 a)iii be deleted. Generation Zero Waikato ( ) and ( ) seeks that when considering works on Historic Heritage buildings the following assessment criteria, R7, R9, and S1 should be applied where possible and J1 and J3 should be considered whenever the areas are being developed. Assessment Criteria R7 to R9 relates to developments incorporating water sensitive techniques, stormwater retention and on site stormwater conservation measures; S1 relates to sustainable use of resources such as durable, low maintenance materials, materials from renewable resources; and J1 and J3 relates to natural character and open space. Graeme Ward (WINTEC)(FS71.016) opposes Generation Zero Waikato s submission point The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS ) and 490 Grey Ltd as the Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for Living Ltd (FS ) oppose both submissions points by Generation Zero. All these further submitters argue that the current provisions provide a balance and reasonable approach to protecting the city s heritage buildings and the introduction of these new assessment criteria would cause unnecessary duplication. While Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry) (FS ) supports Generation Zero Waikato submission point in part, agreeing that there is a need to protect historic areas and that they do not create adverse effects on their environment. As a result, Waitomo Properties Limited support the need for there to be a balance of historic heritage with other interests. The purpose of Chapter 19 is to identify and protect building and structures to avoid the loss of heritage values of the City. None of the assessment criteria in Volume 2, Appendix 1 as identified by Generation Zero being R) Three Waters, S) sustainable Use of Resources, orj) Natural Character and Open Space relate to the protection of identified Historic Heritage. Therefore it is not appropriate to include these within the Chapter 19. Sub. Name FS. Name Sub. Point FS. Point Waylon Bowker Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) FS Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning Oppose Oppose Remove 126 Forest Lake Road from Schedule 8A: Built Heritage Refer This submission is not relevant to Rule 19.5 and is addressed as part of Appendix 8 Historic Heritage. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 50 of 79

57 SKYCITY Hamilton Ltd Rules Activity Status Table Oppose Delete 19.5 a) iii) of Restricted Discretionary Activities - Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria which relates to Internal Alterations of buildings ranked A. Accept The submission point seeking the deletion of 19.5.a) iii be accepted for the following reasons: Improve the administration of the plan Avoid confusion for the plan user Recommended amendments to Rule 19.5 a) of the Plan is contained in Appendix C (refer ) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) SKYCITY Hamilton Ltd New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Barry Harris (Hamilton City Council) Graeme Ward (WINTEC) FS Support Accept The submission point which FS supports has been accepted FS Oppose Reject The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria Oppose Delete 19.5 a) iii) of Restricted Discretionary Activities, Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria in its entirety. Accept The submission point seeking the deletion of 19.5.a) iii be accepted for the following reasons: Improve the administration of the plan Avoid confusion for the plan user Recommended amendments to Rule 19.5 a) of the Plan is contained in Appendix C (refer ) FS Oppose Reject The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria Support in part Delete 19.5a) iii) of Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria. Accept The submission point seeking the deletion of 19.5.a) iii be accepted for the following reasons: Improve the administration of the plan Avoid confusion for the plan user Recommended amendments to Rule 19.5 a) of the Plan is contained in Appendix C (refer ) FS Support Accept The submission point which FS supports has been accepted. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 51 of 79

58 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) FS Support Accept The submission point which FS supports has been accepted. FS Oppose Reject The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted. Jodhi Ponga FS Oppose Reject The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria Oppose Delete Rule 19.5 a) iii relating to Internal Alterations of buildings ranked A. Accept The submission point seeking the deletion of 19.5.a) iii be accepted for the following reasons: Improve the administration of the plan Avoid confusion for the plan user Recommended amendments to Rule 19.5 a) of the Plan is contained in Appendix C (refer ) FS Oppose Reject The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted Jodhi Ponga FS Oppose Reject The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted. Temple View Heritage Society Lynette Joyce Williams FS Oppose Reject The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria Oppose Clarify and amend 19.5 a) iii) of Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria by aligning it with new rules for a Controlled Activity status for the protection of interior heritage features. Reject The submission point seeking clarification and amendment to19.5.a) iii be rejected for the following reasons: Does not achieve the purpose of the objectives and policies. The Church of FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 52 of 79

59 Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Niall Baker The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Generation Zero Waikato Graeme Ward (WINTEC) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board 490 Grey Ltd as the Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for Living Lt d Generation Zero Waikato Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria Oppose Clarify and Amend a) iii) of 19.5 Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria to align it with a new rule for the Controlled Activity status for the protection of interior heritage features. Reject The submission point seeking clarification and amendment to19.5.a) iii be rejected for the following reasons: Does not achieve the purpose of the objectives and policies. FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Rules Activity Status Table Support in part 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table-All historic buildings to consider R7, R9 and S1, and A1, J1 and J3 should be had when considering areas relating to historic buildings. Reject The submission seeking amendments to 19.3 be rejected based on the following: Does not support the objectives and policies in Chapter 19 Does not support section 6 of the RMA FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Support in part 19.5 Restricted Discretionary Activities - All historic buildings to consider R7, R9 and S1, and Reject The submission seeking amendments to 19.3 be rejected based on the following: Does not support the objectives and policies in Chapter 19 Does not support section 6 of the RMA Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 53 of 79

60 Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board 490 Grey Ltd as the Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for Living Ltd Sink or Swim The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Discretion and Assessment Criteria A1, J1 and J3 should be had when considering areas relating to historic buildings. FS Support Reject The submission point which FS supports has been rejected FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Historic Heritage FS Support in part Oppose Support Rule 19.5.ii. Ensure that applications for alterations and additions to 'B' ranked heritage items will be publically notified. Defer This submission and further submission are best dealt with under Rule 19.6 Notification Rule Analysis: 19.6 Notification Rule The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) oppose Rule 19.6 and request that the rule be amended to identify New Zealand Historic Places Trust as an affected party for any activity that is restricted discretionary. SKYCITY Hamilton Limited (FS64.005), Graeme Ward (WINTEC) (FS71.015) and Tram Lease Limited (FS ) all oppose the submission by The New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Chapter 1 Rule sets out that unless otherwise stated in the District Plan the notification provisions of the RMA apply. Rule 19.6 in Chapter 19 identifies a number of Restricted Discretionary activities that will be considered without notification or the need to obtain approval from affected persons. New Zealand Transport Agency has submitted against Chapter 1 with regards to the notification rules. The Section 42A report for Chapter 1: Plan Over view has recommended that be amended to allow the consideration of identified parties as potential affected parties regardless if the provisions state that no notification or neigbours consent is required. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 54 of 79

61 New Zealand Historic Places Trust plays an important role in the protection of historic heritage and have been mandated under the Historic Place Act to do this. To enable New Zealand Historic Places Trust to undertake their mandate it would be appropriate for them to be considered as an affected party with regards to Heritage Items. The section 95 of the RMA provides the ability to determine affected parties but does not automatically give a person an affected party status therefore the plan should only provided the ability to consider The New Zealand Historic Places Trust as an affected party not be given the automatic right. In considering the above submission it is recommended that amendments be made to the recommended changes to Chapter 1 Rule to included New Zealand Historic Places Trust as an affected person that may be considered when assessing works on heritage items identified in Schedule 8A and 8B. Sink or Swim ( ) supports Rule 19.5 a)iii in so far as it relates to Rule 19.6 Notification Rules. Sink or Swim seeks to ensure that any alteration or additions to a B ranked heritage items should be notified. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board ( ) oppose the submission stating that it is more appropriate that the requirement of the RMA are applied in respect to notification. Sink or Swim have indentified 19.5 a)iii in their submission which relates to internal alteration and additions however, in considering their submission in full and the relief sought, I presume that they actually intended to identify 19.5 a)ii which relates to alteration and additions to B ranked buildings. The plan does not identify Rule 19.5 a)ii as an activity that will not require notification under Rule 19.6 a). However, although notification maybe required it is not automatic, notification in accordance with the Act applies, requiring a notification assessment be done under Section 95 of the RMA to determine if notification is needed or not (Rule of the PDP). Therefore no changes is required to 19.5 a)ii. Sub. Name FS. Name The New Zealand Historic Places Trust Sub. Point FS. Point Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning Notification Rule Oppose Amend 19.6 Notification Rule to identify NZHPT as an affected party for restricted discretionary activities. Accept in part The submission point seeking notification as an affected party be Accepted in part based on the following: Supports the Objectives and Policies of The Plan. Supports the intent of the Historic Places Act. Recommended amendments to of the Plan is contained in Appendix C (refer ) SKYCITY Hamilton Limited Graeme Ward (WINTEC) Tram Lease Limited Sink or Swim FS Oppose Accept in part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part. FS Oppose Accept in part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part. FS Oppose Accept in part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part Historic Heritage Support in part Support Rule 19.5.ii. Ensure that applications for alterations and additions to 'B' ranked heritage items will be Rejects The submission seeking that alterations and additions to B ranked buildings be publically notified be rejected for the following reasons: Does not support the intent of the proposed District Plan Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 55 of 79

62 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board publically notified. FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part Analysis: Appendix 8: 8-1 Assessment of Historic Buildings and Structures Both Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) seek the retention of 8-1 Assessment of Historic Buildings and Structures. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) ( ) seek that 8-1 within Appendix 8 be amended to include state of repair and earthquake risk as factors that are considered when assessing the importance of a heritage item. The Property Council New Zealand (FS249.02) supports the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton submission while New Zealand Historic Places Trust (FS ) opposes the request to amend 8-1 Assessment of Historic Buildings and Structures. Whilst The New Zealand Historic Places Trust acknowledges the concerns about safety and the challenges of earthquake strengthening. They have proposed the inclusion of a new policy relating to strengthening works on heritage buildings. They feel that this should not be a factor in the classification of a heritage building. The development of the assessment criteria for ranking heritage buildings and structures has been based on the definition of historic heritage under the RMA as well as criteria established by NZHPT. The state of repair and earthquake risk factors are not identified as key assessment criteria of assessing potential heritage items. By including these factors into the assessment criteria building owners may allow buildings to become rundown and thus would not achieve the intent of the plan to protect and retain heritage buildings and structures. The earthquake risk factor is dealt with under the Building Act which protects building occupants and the public from harm in the event of an earthquake and therefore does not need to be considered. Taking the following factors into account it is my recommendation that no changes be made to Appendix 8-1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board ( ) oppose the ranking found in 8-1 and request the amendment of Appendix 8-1 to allow for a broader ranking system which better reflects the breath, diversity and significance of heritage buildings and structures and rank the heritage buildings located in Temple View accordingly. New Zealand Historic Places Trust (FS ) oppose the submission stating that the revised ranking system is more inline with other council ranking systems. Both Jodhi Ponga (FS ) and Temple View Heritage Society (FS ) oppose this submission by the church stating that the amendment sought does not recognise the significant heritage values of the Church site and its buildings. These further submitters support the notified ranking system approach as it is simple, clear, consistent and definitive. As set out in Section 19.3 of this report, the ranking of heritage items has already been discussed. Accordingly, and following consideration of the matters raised in the submissions and further submissions it is recommended that no changes be made to Appendix 8: 8-1 Assessment of Historic Buildings and Structures. Sub. Name FS. Name Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) Sub. Point FS. Point Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning Assessment of Historic Buildings and Structures Support in part Amend 8-1 Assessment of Historic Buildings and Structures to include state of repair and earthquake risk as Reject The submission seeking the amendment to 8-1 be rejected based on the following: Contrary to the intent of the Proposed District Plan Current assessment criteria aligned with best practice and Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 56 of 79

63 New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Property Council New Zealand Lynette Joyce Williams Niall Baker The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board factors that are considered when assessing the importance of a heritage item. the Historic Places Act. FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected FS Support Reject The submission point which FS supports has been rejected Assessment of Historic Buildings and Structures Assessment of Historic Buildings and Structures Assessment of Historic Buildings and Structures Support Support Oppose Retain 8-1 Assessment of Historic Buildings and Structures Retain 8-1 Assessment Criteria Historic Buildings and Structures Amend Appendix and Appendix to enable a broader ranking system which more accurately reflects the breadth, diversity and significance of heritage buildings and structures. Amend the ranking of the heritage buildings at Temple View according to the ranking system as amended by this submission. Accept Accept Reject The submission point supporting the retention of Appendix 8-1 be accepted: Achieves the intent of the RMA Supports the purpose of Chapter 19. The submission point supporting the retention of Appendix 8-1 be accepted Achieves the intent of the RMA Supports the purpose of Chapter 19. The submission point seeking the introduction of a broader ranking system be rejected based on: Current Best Practice Better aligned with Historic Places Act Provides a clearer and concise system that better achieves the intent of the objective and policies and Section 6 of the RMA. The submission point requesting an amendment to the ranking of buildings in Temple View be rejected as: This would not be consistent with adopted ranking system. New Zealand FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Jodhi Ponga FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 57 of 79

64 Temple View Heritage Society FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Analysis: Appendix 8A Built Heritage (Structures, buildings and associated sites) Robert W. Belbin ( ), Jodi N. Belbin ( ) and Grace McCarthy ( ) all support Ranking of Significance, however, they request that the heritage buildings located within the Church College Character Area be given the high heritage ranking as set out in Ranking of Significance. Jodi N. Belbin goes further to identify that the Matthew Cowley Administration Buildings be included as a heritage building under Pita Witehira ( ) in his submission seeks that the buildings in the former Church College New Zealand Campus are ranked with the highest possible heritage ranking. Elizabeth Patricia Witehira ( ) and Pita Witehira ( ) both seek the increase in the heritage ranking of the heritage buildings located in Temple View from Ranking B to Ranking A in Schedule 8A and the list of the Matthew Cowley Building and the feature wall in Schedule 8A. The further submissions by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS , FS , FS , FS FS and FS ) oppose these submissions points and support the retention of the notified rankings of those specific buildings at the former Church College site. With regards to the inclusion of the Matthew Cowley Administration Buildings in Schedule 8A The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board opposes such an inclusion, highlighting that the submitter has not provided any heritage assessment that would provide justification for the inclusion of this building in Schedule 8A. Tom Roa ( ) seeks through his submission that a number of buildings or structures of significance to Maori be added to Schedule 8A. His submission identifies that following buildings to be included in the schedule: 1. Hui Te Rangiora Marae Building at 89 Clarence Street 2. Kirikiriroa Marae at 180 Dey Street 3. Te Puea Room and Wharekai at 50 Columbo Street 4. Tainui Group Holdings House at 4 Bryce Street 5. Hamilton Girls High School Wharenui/Marae at Ward Street 6. Hamilton School of Education Marae Hillcrest Road The submitter also requests the inclusion of all original buildings including boys and girls dormitories, classrooms, Matthew Cowley Administration Building and all Teacher Housing built before 1958 within Schedule 8A as A ranked buildings; and the ranking of the David O McKay Building be upgraded to a A ranked heritage item. In his submission he states that there has been no consultation with Iwi/Maori in respect of either the formulation or application of the ranking system. The submitter does not provide any supporting documentation or assessment of these building regarding their suitability for inclusion in Schedule 8A. New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) (FS182.04) supports the submission point by Tom Roa and propose that the buildings identified be researched and assessed for significance for possible inclusion in Schedule 8A. Ngapuhi (FS ) also supports the submission by Tom Roa. However the submission indicates that it is in support of the submission by Tom Roa, Chairperson of Te Arataura o Tainui and regularly referred to Tainui as the submitter. As the further submission specifically identified the submission by Tom Roa, and that submission was made by him personally and does not state an affiliation to any group, it must be assumed that the further submission by Ngapuhi relates to the Submission by Tom Roa and not the submission by Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS ) oppose the submission point by Tom Roa and seeks the retention of the current rankings as notified of significance for those buildings located within the Church College campus. Jodhi Ponga (FS ) supports the inclusion of buildings and structures of significance to Maori in Schedule 8A. As part of Variation 7, to the now Operative District Plan, prepared in 2009 that incorporated the Temple View Area into Hamilton City an extensive assessment was undertaken to identify the buildings to be incorporated into the Historic Heritage Items Schedule of the District Plan. At notification of the Variation, a total of 4 buildings were listed, through the Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 58 of 79

65 submission and appeal processes the total number of protected buildings and structures increased to seven. As part of the review of all listed heritage buildings within the City the assessment of the heritage buildings In Temple View area concluded that the ranking of these buildings, except for the Temple to be a B heritage ranking. Accordingly, without such information to guide Council staff as to the rationale for such a request there is nothing for staff to consider other than how the buildings were assessed to determine their existing ranking along with the information set out in the s32 report. Accordingly, no changes to the rankings can be considered without clear and robustly justified reasoning being provided by the submitters. Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc ( ) seeks the amendment to Chapter 19 to increase scheduling of historic sites and places of significance to Waikato-Tainui particularly those of an intangible nature i.e. Wahi tapu/whai taonga. Reference is made to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Register of Historic Places/Areas, Wahi Tapu/Areas. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust (FS ) supports this submission through their further submission relating to the assessment and research of items for possible inclusion in the Schedule 8A. While Wiremu Puke (Te Taniko O Kirikirroa Trust) (FS18.001) opposes this submission and questions the fact that the submission does not identify which buildings are historically significant to local hapu. As correctly identified by Wiremu Puke (Te Taniko O Kirikirroa Trust) the submitter has not identified either the specific buildings or places they wish to be included in Chapter 19; or provided any built heritage assessments of those buildings. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to consider the inclusion, at this stage, of any historic sites and places of significance to Waikato-Tainui for inclusion until such time as the necessary work has been done. Peter Dornauf ( ) supports in part Schedule 8A however does feel that not all significant heritage resources within the City are included. Via his submission he has endorsed a list of additional heritage items, which he states has been prepared by Dr Ann McEwan. Peter Dornauf also states that the list should be actioned because it has been prepared by an expert in the field who should have beeen consulted with regards to heritage matters. Upon reviewing the submissions I could not locate any submissions by Dr Ann McEwan to which the submitter refers and no list of additional heritage properties was provided with the submission. Therefore, as stated above, without robust justification as to why such a list of buildings should included in Schedule 8A it is difficult to support such an inclusion at this point in time. Andrew Bydder ( ), The Hamilton East Community Trust (47.002), Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ), all seek the inclusion of the following buildings and structures into Schedule 8A following the appropriate level of professional assessment and advise the inclusion of the following additional buildings, structures and areas into Schedule 8A should be done: 1. Miropiko Kindergarten 309 River Road 2. Innes Factory (Meteor Theatre) 1 Victoria Street 3. Jack House 24 Anglesea Street 4. MacDairmid House 150 Te Rapa Road Hamilton Court House (Half) 136 Pembroke Road 6. Kent House 371 Grey Street 7. Villa 23 Ruakiwi Road 8. Ruakura Homestead Ruakura 9. Rukuhia Soil Research Station Building Ohaupo Road 10. A Block and Registry Building University of Waikato 11. Harris House 58A Lake Cresecent Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 59 of 79

66 12. Caro Street Telephone Exchange Caro Street 13. Former Parr House/Caretaker s Residence Parana Park 14. Reid/Farmers Building 62 Alexandra Street 15. Gillman Sayer Office Vialou Street 16. Additional Laurenson Settlement House 106 Forest Lake Road 17. Moderne House 1335 Victoria Street 18. Fairfield Primary School Clarkin Street 19. Melville Primary School Hamilton West School (Original School Building) 21. Egans Chamber Grey Street 22. St John s Methodist Church 250 Grey Street 23. Catholic Presbytery 490 Grey Street 24. Rodger Walker townhouses 120 Sandwich Road 25. Commercial Premises 21 Rostrevor Street 26. Te Awa Flats 12 Little London Lane 27. Former Black Residence 7 Queen s Ave 28. Hayes House 33 Naylor Street Along with the above buildings a number of structures have also been identified for inclusion in schedule 8A: 1. Swarbrick Memorial Arch 68 Pembroke Street (Lake Domain) 2. Innes Memorial Arch Cr Victoria and Bridge Street 3. Girl Guide Camp Fire Parana Park 4. Annie McPherson Memorial Bridge Parana Park 5. Wooden piles associated with the 1864 jetty built by the Waikato Militia vicinity of Ferrybank 6. Piles of the Union Bridge (1879) 7. Remains of the Roose Shipping Co. s wharf Hillsborough Terrace In addition to the above the submitters have also identified two areas of potential heritage value for possible inclusion in Schedule 8A these being: 1. The Richmond Estate Heritage Area which includes the following streets, Park Terrace, Valley Terrace, Tidd Street, Horne Street and part of Pembroke and Selwyn Street, and 2. Church College Campus Heritage Area which would include the Temple Heritage Precinct and the Church College Character Area which would recognise the highly significant heritage values of the area and allow for the simplification of the management of the area. Whilst Lynette Joyce Williams and Niall Baker support the schedule of built heritage items as it relates to the inclusion of the identified heritage items above they raise concerns with the roll-over approach taken by Council and that this approach creates a high level of risk to unidentified heritage resources. They seek that a systematic survey of the City be done to identify additional heritage structures, buildings and areas as well as cultural and archaeological sites. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board(FS ) oppose the request by Andrew Bydder to introduce a heritage precinct over the Church College Campus located at Temple View and seek to retain the ranking of heritage significance in Schedule 8A as notified. New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager)(FS ) supports the Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 60 of 79

67 submission in part insofar as identifying additional heritage items for inclusion in the plan but does seek that these items are researched and assessed for significance before inclusion in the Proposed District Plan. New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) ( ) whilst supporting Schedule 8A they request that the schedule be amended to ensure that information in the Schedule is aligned with information reflected in the NZHPT register regarding NZHPT registered items. They also support the current heritage structures, buildings and areas listed in Schedule 8A which includes all but two NZHPT registered items, and they seek that these two items be included in the schedule to afford them the greatest level of protection. The two category 2 items are the modified Victorian cottage at 32 Albert Street, Hamilton East, built in approximately 1900 and the workers dwelling that is part of the Laurenson Settlement located at 84 Forest Lake Road. Following the undertaking of a preliminary investigation (by Council s expert Mathews & Mathews) it was determined that the dwelling at 32 Albert Street does not have sufficient information at this stage to undertake a comprehensive assessment to establish if the dwelling warrants inclusion in Schedule 8A. As to the houses at 102 Forest Lake Road and 126 Forest Lake, until the NZHPT have completed the review of their heritage register it is unclear as to whether the houses at 102 Forest Lake Road and 126 Forest Lake will remain as registered items. So until that has been determined by NZHPT s review and they can provide the relevant information to Council to consider and determine whether or not they warrant inclusion via a 1 st schedule process these buildings should not be included into Schedule 8A. New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) ( ) along with Frances Dene Letford ( ) who oppose Schedule 8A, seeks the inclusion of the Rukuhia Soil Research Station in Schedule 8A. Frances Dene Letford also seeks that the land no longer be sub dividable. Council undertook a comprehensive desk top assessment of the buildings and site as part of the preparation of the Proposed District Plan. However as access to the site and buildings has not been given by the owners Coucnil s heritage experts have not been able to inspect the buildings, which has meant they have not been able to compete their anaylsis to support either inclusion or not. Therefore, without that site analysis, the inclusion within the Proposed District Plan s Schedule 8A at this stage cannot be justified. The issue of controlling land development is not a heritage matter and is managed through the Structure Plan for the area. The site identified by Frances Dene Letford is approximately 23ha in size and placing restriction on the ability for subdivision cannot be supported as this is not a sustainable use of resources under the RMA due to it size and location within a residential development area. None of the submitters have provided any information to support their requests for either the change of ranking or the inclusion of additional buildings onto the Schedule 8A. As a result, Council staff held a meeting with a number of the submitters to ascertain whether they had any further information they could provide that would support their submission. The submitters could not provide material justification but were willing to work with Council s heritage expert to establish the availability of further information. The intention was for this information to be used by Council s heritage expert to undertaken a preliminary desk top assessment to establish the ability to include any of the identified building, structure and areas into schedule 8A. However following the desk top assessment of this information it was established that this information was insufficient to justify the inclusion of any items within Schedule 8A. The outcome of this work, was that a substantial amount of work will be required to establish the appropriateness of these items for inclusion in Schedule 8A. Therefore, it is recommended that a comprehensive assessment be undertaken not only of these identified buildings, structures and areas but of the whole city to ensure that all places of heritages value within in the city are assessed and where appropriate included in schedule 8A. This work, as yet unplanned or set out in Coucnil s Long Term Plan/Annual Planning programme could be part of the formulation of the Heritage Policy, with a future 1 st schedule RMA process to follow. Walyon Bowker (31.002) opposes the inclusion of 126 Forest Lake in Schedule 8A and seeks that it be removed from the schedule. The submitter argues that the additional controls placed on his property relating to alterations and additions, fencing all create unnecessary costs and resource consent requirements. These controls will ultimately have an impact on the ability to sell the property and the value of the property. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust (FS ) in their further submission opposes the request by the submitter and seeks that the heritage building be retained in Schedule 8A. 126 Forest Lake Road is registered as a B ranked heritage building in the Proposed District Plan. The building is considered to be of significant heritage value locally and regionally. The house is a significant example of the type of workers houses developed by the government, under the Workers Housing Act The house, together with housing settlements in Frankton and Hayes Paddock, demonstrate the different approaches to the provision of worker housing at different Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 61 of 79

68 periods. The building retains significant historic features from the time of its construction and its setting is consistent with the original architectural drawings. Under the Operative District Plan the house at 126 Forest Lake Road was scheduled as a B ranked building with regional significance. Walyon Bowker has not provided any supporting information to justify that the historic heritage of the house is no longer worth while protecting. Accordingly, there is no support to remove the building from Schedule 8A. The submissions by The Hamilton East Community Trust (47.002) and ( ) support the A ranking of the Notre Dame des Missions. They state in their submission that this heritage building is not only important to Hamilton City but also New Zealand. The building is also an integral part of the history of Hamilton East and the Sisters of the Mission who established a Catholic Centre in Hamilton East in the 1870 s. The submission by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) ( ) and their Further Submission (FS16.001) to the Hamilton East Community Trust oppose the ranking of the Notre Dame des Missions stating that it is the site and surrounds that have heritage significance and that the Notre Dame des Mission Building as the newest building with high architectural qualities within the complex only provides a visual reminder of the history of the site itself. The Catholic Church argues that the building is earthquake prone and that less emphasis should be placed on the Notre Dame des Mission building itself and more on the history of the site. Under the Operative District Plan the Notre Dames des Missions building was listed as a B ranked heritage item. However the Built Heritage Inventory Record Form prepared for the building as part of the Proposed District Plan identifies the building as one of the buildings that form part of a significant precinct of Catholic educational and religious functions and therefore it has been listed as an A ranked heritage item. The Roman Catholic Church has not provided any additional information to change the significance of this building and therefore its ranking is recommended to remain as an A ranked building. The Hamilton East Community Trust in their submissions (47.003) and ( ) also seeks the inclusion of the Hamilton Municipal Baths (H88 ) in Schedule 8A as a heritage building and structure with a A ranking. While Sink or Swim in their submissions ( ) and ( ) support the B ranking for the Municipal Baths as reflected in the Schedule 8A and on the Features Map No 45B. The Hamilton East Community Trust has indicated in their submission that the Hamilton Municipal Baths (Pools) are not listed in Schedule 8A. This is not the case, as the site is listed as a B ranked item in the schedule however the site is not registered in the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Heritage Register. The assessment of the Municipal Baths done by Councils Heritage Experts Matthews and Matthews Architects bases it heritage values on the fact that the pools are considered to be of significant heritage value locally and is significant as evidence of the provision of recreational facilities for Hamilton by the Borough Council in the early twentieth century. However, the complex has undergone a number of modifications over time which has impacted on the heritage significance of the complex. The Hamilton East Community Trust has not provided any justification or evidence that would change Council s current position that was established through the extensive assessment of the building done as part of the development of the Proposed District Plan. Based on this it is my recommendation that no changes be made to the ranking of the building. The Hamilton East Community Trust in their submissions (47.002) and ( ) also seeks the inclusion of Steele Park as an A ranked site stating that although the trees around Steele Park are protected the site itself needs to be protected. This being due to the fact that the site has a long history dating back to pre European times and was a camp site for the militia during the Land Wars before being included as a village green in the 1864 plans drawn up by William Graham. As the Hamilton East Community Trust has not provided an assessment or supporting documentation it is recommended that before a consideration is given to the merits or not of listing Steele Park, further work be undertaken to assess the significance of the area and whether it should be included within Schedule 8A. The Hamilton East Community Trust ( ) seeks that the underlying zonings of the sites on which heritage items are located, as well as those sites adjoining within the Residential Intensification Zone be amended to protect the heritage items from inappropriate development. They are concerned that high density development located around heritage items may have an impact on the heritage value of these items. In particular, with regards to height and bulk of these adjoining developments overpowering the historic significance of the sites. Under the Proposed District Plan there are a total of 6 heritage items located within the Residential Intensification Zones throughout the city; of these two are A ranked buildings within the Hamilton East area (Beale Cottage and Greenslade House). The remaining four items are B ranked buildings, three of which are houses and the remaining one is the St James Church and Hall located in Dinsdale. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 62 of 79

69 It is agreed that the placement of new buildings on a site on which a heritage item is located can have a detrimental effect on the heritage value of the item and for this reason the plan has established number of policies that protect the heritage values of a listed item. These also recognise the importance that the surrounds of a heritage item makes to the significance of the item and accordingly the development of new buildings or accessory building on a site with a A ranked heritage item located on it is a Discretionary Activity and a Restricted Discretionary activity for a site with a B ranked building. However Rule 19.3 p) makes activities that are non-complying in the underlying zoning a discretionary activity on a site with a heritage item and therefore if the zoning changes it would not guarantee that other activities would not occur on the site, including high density residential development. With regards to the request by the submitter to rezone the sites that surround a heritage item within the high density zone this would in my opinion not have a significant impact in reducing the affect on heritage items, however by rezoning the sites on which the heritage items are located this would require any development in the Residential Intensification Zone to implement Rule Height in Relation to Boundary. The requirement to do this would further reduce the impact adjoining developments would have on any heritage item. However in considering the submission an amendment to the underlying zoning particularly for the buildings with outstanding and highly significant heritage values, which both A ranked buildings have, would provide the further level of protection against the potential that development particularly high density residential development may have on the heritage values of the two items. The change in the zoning would further support the policies that recognise the importance of the surrounds of a heritage building or structure. A Community Facilities zone for the site surrounding St James Church and Hall would better complement the current use of the site and again support the intent of the objectives and policies relating to heritage items. The current zoning of high density places high pressure on the site for redevelopment for high density residential use, rezoning it places stronger controls over how the land can be used for purposes other than community facilities. In changing of the zoning associated with Greenslade House it was established that a portion of the property (Sec 3 SO 60256) was zoned Natural Open Space. To retain this zone would create uncertainty with regards to the management and administration of this area. It is therefore recommended that this lot be rezoned to reflect a Special Residential Character Zone that would better fit with the use of the land. Hill Laboratories Limited ( ) have requested that the heritage item H100 be correctly located on the Features Map 45B stating that the Schedule 8A correctly identifies the building on Lot 2 DPS while the Features Map 54 B shows the building on Lot 1 DPS Currently the Built Heritage records shows the heritage building formerly known as the Waikato County Council Offices on Lots 1 and 2 DPS However I can confirm that the heritage building in question is located on Lot 2 DPS as reflected in Schedule 8A. It is recommended that Planning Map 45B be amended. SKYCITY Hamilton Ltd ( ) and ( ) have in their submission points requested that the A ranking given to the Hamilton Central Post Office building be changed to a B ranking while the Central Post Office Lenscrete Dome be included as a A ranked structure. The submitter recognises the heritage values of the Lenscrete Dome and it s deserved A ranking but argues the A ranking given to the Hamilton Central Post Office building is not appropriate due to the building currently forming part of the SKYCITY Hamilton Casino complex and has undergone extensive modifications which includes the Victoria Street façade. The changes that have occurred to the exterior of the former Post Office particularly to the ground level of the Victoria Street façade retains its architectural character and does still retain original detail at ground level including the original granite detail around the main entrance. Elements such as canopies over the ground level and balconies added at first floor level are potentially reversible. The submitter has also not provided any justification or evidence that would change Council s current position that was established through the extensive assessment of the building done by Matthews and Matthews Architects as part of the development of the Proposed District Plan. Based on this it is my recommendation that no changes be made to the ranking of the building. The University of Waikato ( ) ( ) supports the protection provided to the heritage items located on the University Campus. The plan provides protection to the Former Hamilton Railway Station as a A Ranked building in Schedule 8A. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 63 of 79

70 Z Energy Limited ( and ) in their submissions opposes the B ranking given to the Z Eastside service station building located at 116 Grey Street, Hamilton East. The submitter argues that the use of the site as a service station is integral to the heritage value of the site and by imposing onerous restriction on the use of the site it would make it difficult to operate the site as a service station. As a result they request that the heritage ranking be removed from the site or the ranking be retained only if a suitable zoning be established to allow for the ongoing use of the site as a service station. The rezoning of the site has been addressed in the Business Chapter in which it was recommended that no change be made to the current zoning. The Z Eastside service station was identified as a heritage item through the development of the Hamilton East Special Character Zone (Variation 20 to the now Operative District Plan), in which a number of significant heritage items, including the service station were included in the Operative District Plan. The proposed plan has continued that protection and identifies the site s significance in terms of its association with the Morris Stores and Motor Company and its architectural Moderne Style design which contributes to Hamilton East s distinctive sense of place. The view of Council heritage experts Matthews and Matthews Architects is that the former Morris Stores and Motor Services Building should be included as a Category B building in Schedule 8A of the Plan, based on the research, review and assessment against the heritage criteria. They have also indicated do indicate that the continuous use of the building for its original purpose forms part of its significance. The submitter does not provide any information that shows that this building does not warrant a B ranking. As the service station has been operating on the site prior to the notification of the Proposed District Plan the activity has existing use rights as well as this under Rule 19.3 p) of the Proposed District Plan the non-complying drive through activity under the neighbourhood centre zoning would be considered a discretionary activity which would allow the service station to operate on the site while still ensuring the protection of the historic values associated with the service station building. Based on the above it is my recommendation that no changes be made to the ranking of this building. Barry Harris (Hamilton City Council) ( ) in their submission seek that the schedules in appendix 8 be amended to include a reference note to individual assessment report prepared for individual heritage items and sites. The nature and extent of the heritage items being protected are described in these reports. The introduction of a note following Schedules 8A, 8B and 8C would help plan users identify the nature and extent of the features being protected. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton)( FS16.002) in their further submission supports the submission by Hamilton City Council stating the inclusion of a reference to the assessment reports would allow plan users to identify the reasoning being the identification of a building or site as being significant. They also state that this would also highlight the fact that this assessment was done based on factors such as association and architecture rather than a balanced assessment which should include state of repair, structural state and extent of alteration. Accordingly, it is recommended that a note be included. The inclusion of a note referencing the assessment reports would ensure that plan users are aware of additional information supporting the listed heritage and archaeological sites heritage values. Sub. Name FS. Name Sub. Point FS. Point Robert W. Belbin Rankings of Significance Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning Support Amend Rule Ranking of Significance with regards to building rankings within Temple View. Reject The submission seeking amendment to Rule 8A with regards to building ranking within Temple View be rejected based on the following: The submission point contains no relevant justification as to why the amendment to the ranking of these buildings would be appropriate. The Church of FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 64 of 79

71 Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Jodi N. Belbin Rankings of Significance The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Support Retain the ranking in schedule 8A Built Heritage given to heritage buildings within Temple View as notified and include the Matthew Cowley Administration Building. Accept in Part The submission point seeking the retention of the ranking to building within Temple View be Accepted based on the following: Detailed.assessment of these building has been undertaken to justify the current ranking. The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 8A to include the Matthew Cowley Administration Building be rejected based on the following: The submitter has not provided any supporting evidence for the inclusion of this building. FS Oppose Accept in part The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted in part Grace McCarthy Rankings of Significance The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Support Strongly in favour of giving all buildings on former CCNZ Campus in Temple View the highest possible heritage rankings as set out in Rankings of Significance. Reject The submission seeking amendment to Rule 8A with regards to building ranking within Temple View be rejected based on the following: The submitter has not provided any supporting evidence for the amendment to the ranking. FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Waylon Bowker Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Oppose Remove 126 Forest Lake Road from Schedule 8A: Built Heritage Reject The submission seeking amendment to Schedule 8A by removing 126 Forest Lake Road be rejected based on the following: The submitter has not provided any supporting evidence for the amendment to Schedule 8A. Does not support the intent of the objectives and policies FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 65 of 79

72 Hamilton East Community Trust Schedule 8A Built Heritage structures buildings and associated sites Support The Notre Dame des Missions building (H50) at 47 Clyde Street is identified as a Category A heritage building Accept The submission point seeking the retention of the ranking of the Notre Dame des Missions building (H50) be accepted based on the following: Detailed.assessment of these building has been undertaken to justify the current ranking. Supports the intent of the Objectives and Policies Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) Hamilton East Community Trust FS Oppose Reject The submission point which FS opposes has been accepted Appendix 8 Heritage Support in part The Hamilton Municipal Baths (H88) is identified as a Category A heritage building or structure Reject The submission point seeking the increase in the ranking of the municipal baths be rejected based on the following: Detailed assessment of these building has been undertaken to justify the current ranking. Sink or Swim Features Map 45B Support Retain Municipal Baths as a 'B' Heritage Ranked item Accept The submission point seeking the retention of the ranking of the Municipal Baths (H88) be accepted based on the following: Detailed.assessment of these building has been undertaken to justify the current ranking. Supports the intent of the objectives and policies Sink or Swim Schedule 8A Built Heritage structures buildings and associated sites Support Retain the listing of the Municipal Baths as a B ranking heritage item. Accept The submission point seeking the retention of the ranking of the Municipal Baths (H88) be accepted based on the following: Detailed assessment of these building has been undertaken to justify the current ranking. Supports the intent of the objectives and policies Hamilton East Community Trust Schedule 8A Built Heritage structures buildings and associated sites Support in part Supports the a Ranking for the Notre Dames de Missions building at 47 Clyde Street and requests that the Hamilton Municipal Pools and Steele Park be given Category A heritage rankings. Accept The submission point seeking the retention of the ranking of the Notre Dame des Missions building (H50) be accepted based on the following: Detailed assessment of these building has been undertaken to justify the current ranking. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 66 of 79

73 Hamilton East Community Trust Zoning Map 45A Support in part Map 45A-requests that heritage building sites and places are not adversely affected by inappropriate high density development and rezoned accordingly. Accept in Part The submission point seeking the amendment to the zoning of sites with heritage buildings be accepted in part based on the following: Support the intent of the Objective and policies Support the principles of the RMA Recommended amendments to Zoning Maps is contained in Appendix D (refer ) Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) Schedule 8A Built Heritage structures buildings and associated sites Pita Witehira Appendix 8 Heritage The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Elizabeth Patricia Witehira Oppose Oppose Oppose Schedule 8A Built Reject Heritage - structures, buildings and associated sites which has upgraded the Notre Dames des Missions to an A ranked item. Develop additional criteria relating to the assessment of buildings that include state of repair and earthquake risk as factors. Amend 8-1 Assessment of Historic Buildings and Structures to ensure meaningful consultation with Iwi/Maori to ensure structures of Significance to Maori and of National Importance are protected. Reject The submission seeking additional buildings be added to Schedule 8A be rejected based on the following: The submitter has not provided adequate supporting evidence to justify a lesser ranking. Detailed assessment of the building has been undertaken to justify the current ranking. Does not support the intent of the Objectives and Policies The submission seeking additional buildings be added to Schedule 8A be rejected based on the following: The submitter has not provided adequate supporting evidence for the inclusion of additional buildings into Schedule 8A. FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Temple View Character Area Oppose 5) Increase the heritage ranking of H106, H107, H109, H133, H134 and H135 from Ranking B to Ranking A in Schedule 8A. Reject The submission seeking additional buildings be added to Schedule 8A be rejected based on the following: The submitter has not provided adequate supporting evidence for the inclusion of additional buildings into Schedule 8A. Detailed assessments of the building has been undertaken Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 67 of 79

74 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Pita Witehira The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc Wiremu Puke (Te Taniko O Kirikiriroa Trust) New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Temple View Heritage Society 6) List the Matthew Cowley Building and the feature wall and Mendenhall Library as Ranking A in Schedule 8A: Built Heritage. to justify the current ranking. FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Temple View Character Area Oppose 5) Increase the heritage ranking of H106, H107, H109, H133, H134 and H135 from Ranking B to Ranking A in Schedule 8A. 6) List the Matthew Cowley Building and the feature wall and Mendenhall Library as Ranking A in Schedule 8A: Built Heritage. Reject The submission seeking additional buildings be added to Schedule 8A be rejected based on the following: The submitter has not provided adequate supporting evidence for the inclusion of additional buildings into Schedule 8A. Detailed assessment of the building has been undertaken to justify the current ranking. FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected All Historic Heritage Support in part Amend Chapter 19 to increase scheduling of historic sites and places of significance to Waikato-Tainui in particular those of an intangible nature i.e. wahi tapu/wahi taonga. Reject The submission seeking amendment to Schedule 8A by increasing scheduling of historic sites and places of significance to Waikato Tainui be rejected based on the following: The submitter has not provided any supporting evidence for the amendment to Schedule 8A. FS Oppose Reject The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected FS Support Reject The submission point which FS supports has been rejected FS Support Reject The submission point which FS support has been rejected Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 68 of 79

75 Tom Roa Appendix 8 Heritage Oppose Amend Appendix 8 to include additional heritage buildings of significant to Maori and of National Importance (refer to the submission for buildings and locations). Reject The submission seeking amendment to Schedule 8A by increasing scheduling of historic sites and places of significance to Waikato Tainui be rejected based on the following: The submitter has not provided any supporting evidence for the amendment to Schedule 8A. The Church of FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand FS Support Reject The submission point which FS supports has been rejected Historic Places Trust (General Manager) Ngapuhi FS Support Reject The submission point which FS supports has been rejected Jodhi Ponga FS Support Reject The submission point which FS supports has been rejected Hill Laboratories Limited Features Map 45B Oppose Amend Planning Map 45B by removing H100 on Lot 1 DPS and show on Lot 2 DPS Accept The submission seeking amendment to Map 45B to relected the correct location of H100 be accepted based on the following: Reflected the correct location of the heritage building Supports the intent of the objectives and policies Recommended amendments to Rule Map 45B of the Plan is contained in Appendix D (refer ) SKYCITY Hamilton Ltd Schedule 8A Built Heritage structures buildings and associated sites Oppose Amend the Heritage Ranking for H39 Central Post Office. Reject The submission point seeking the amendment to the ranking of the Central Post Office Building (H39) be rejected based on the following: Detailed assessment of these building has been undertaken to justify the current ranking. The submitter has not provided additional information that would support the change in ranking. SKYCITY Hamilton Features Map Oppose Amend Planning Map 45B by Reject The submission point seeking the amendment to the ranking of the Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 69 of 79

76 Ltd 45B including the Central Post Office as a Built Heritage B Ranking. The University of Waikato The University of Waikato Features Map 47B Support Support provisions in the plan that protect the heritage and ecological sites on the University Campus seen on Features Map 47B Zoning Map 47A Support Map 47A-Support the provisions that protect the heritage and ecological sites on the University Campus (features map) Peter Dornauf Schedule 8A Built Heritage structures buildings and associated sites Lynette Joyce Williams Schedule 8A Built Heritage structures buildings and associated sites Support in part Support in part Amend Schedule 8A Built Heritage structures buildings and associated sites by including additional items. Accept Accept Reject Undertake a systematic survey Reject of the city in order to identify additional heritage structures, buildings and associated sites and cultural and archaeological sites. Include the following heritage items and areas in Schedule 8A Built Heritage structures buildings and associated sites River Road - 1 Victoria St - 68 Pembroke St / Lake Domain - Innes Memorial Arch, Central Post Office Building (H39) be rejected based on the following: Detailed assessment of these building has been undertaken to justify the current ranking. The submitter has not provided additional information that would support the change in ranking. The submission supporting the protection of heritage sites on the University Campus be accepted as it: Supports the intent of the objectives and policies The submission supporting the protection of heritage sites on the University Campus be accepted as it: Supports the intent of the objectives and policies The submission seeking additional buildings be added to Schedule 8A be rejected based on the following: The submitter has not provided any supporting evidence for the inclusion of additional buildings into Schedule 8A. The submission seeking additional buildings be added to Schedule 8A be rejected based on the following: The submitter has not provided adequate supporting evidence for the inclusion of additional buildings into Schedule 8A. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 70 of 79

77 corner Victoria & Bridge Street - 24 Anglesea Street Te Rapa Road Pembroke St Grey Street - 23 Ruakiwi Road - Ruakura Homestead - Rukuhia Soil Research Station buildings - A block + Registry Building, University of Waikato - 58A Lake Crescent - Caro Street Telephone Exchange - Girl Guide Camp Fire, Parana Park - Annie McPherson Memorial Bridge, Parana Park - Former Parr house / caretaker s residence, Parana Park - 62 Alexandra Street Vialou Street Forest Lake Road Victoria Street, Hamilton - Fairfield Primary School - Hamilton West School original school building Grey Street Grey Street Grey Street Sandwich Road & 2 Marnane Terrace - 21 Rostrevor Street - 12 Little London Lane Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 71 of 79

78 Niall Baker Schedule 8A Built Heritage structures buildings and associated sites Andrew Bydder Schedule 8A Built Heritage structures buildings and associated sites The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) The New Zealand Historic Places Trust Support in part Oppose - 7 Queen s Ave, Frankton - Wooden piles associated with 1864 jetty - Piles of the Union Bridge, built The remains of Roose Shipping Co. s wharf - Richmond Estate Heritage Area -parts of Pembroke and Selwyn Streets - Church College Campus - 33 Naylor St Review Schedule 8A Built Heritage Structures Buildings and Associated Sites of the plan to consider the potential heritage significance of other structures, buildings and associated sites within the city. Schedule 8A Built Heritage structures buildings and associated sites - consider numerous sites and areas to add into the schedule Reject Reject The submission seeking additional buildings be added to Schedule 8A be rejected based on the following: The submitter has not provided adequate supporting evidence for the inclusion of additional buildings into Schedule 8A. The submission seeking additional buildings be added to Schedule 8A be rejected based on the following: The submitter has not provided adequate supporting evidence for the inclusion of additional buildings into Schedule 8A. FS Oppose Accept The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected FS Support reject The submission point which FS opposes has been rejected Schedule 8A Built Heritage structures buildings and associated sites Support in part Amend the current content of Schedule 8A: Built Heritage to include additional items. House, 32 Albert Street Workers Dwelling, 84 Forest lake Road Reject The submission seeking additional buildings be added to Schedule 8A be rejected based on the following: The submitter has not provided adequate supporting evidence for the inclusion of additional buildings into Schedule 8A. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 72 of 79

79 Rukuhia soil Research station (former), at 3019 Ohaupo Road Schedule be amended to ensure that information in the Schedule is aligned with information reflected in the NZHPT register regarding NZHPT registered items Accept The submission seeking additional to Schedule 8A be accepted based on the following: Improve the administration of the Plan Recommended amendments to Schedule 8A of the Plan is contained in Appendix C (refer ) Frances Dene Letford Schedule 8A Built Heritage structures buildings and associated sites Oppose Include the Rukuhia Soil Research Station, located within the Stage 1 of the Peacocke Structure Plan, in Schedule 8A: Built Heritage (Structures, Buildings and Associated Sites). Reject The submission seeking additional buildings be added to Schedule 8A be rejected based on the following: The submitter has not provided adequate supporting evidence for the inclusion of additional buildings into Schedule 8A. Z Energy Limited Schedule 8A Built Heritage structures buildings and associated sites Oppose Delete Historic Heritage B Ranking on the building located at 116 Grey Street Or Rezone 116 Grey Street to provide a suitable zoning for 116 Grey Street that provides restricted discretionary status for the service station activity, as well as for alterations and additions to the existing service station, and to signage. Reject The submission point seeking the removal of 116 Grey Street from Schedule 8A be rejected based on the following: Detailed assessment of these building has been undertaken to justify the current ranking. The submitter has not provided any supporting evidence for the amendment to Schedule 8A. Z Energy Limited Zoning Map 46A Oppose Rezone 116 Grey Street to Business 6 Zone and retain Rule 6.3gg) regarding drivethrough services (including automotive fuel retailing) as a restricted discretionary activity Reject The submission point seeking the removal of 116 Grey Street from Schedule 8A be rejected based on the following: Detailed.assessment of these building has been undertaken to justify the current ranking. The submitter has not provided any supporting evidence for the amendment to Schedule 8A. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 73 of 79

80 within the Business 6 zone Or Amend Rule 6.3 to specifically provide for the on-going operation and upgrading of the service station at this site, including alterations, additions and signage, as (at worst) a restricted discretionary activity, noting that the protection of the relevant historic qualities of the building are similarly provided for as a restricted discretionary activity. Delete Historic Heritage B Ranking on the building located at 116 Grey Street Or Rezone 116 Grey Street to provide a suitable zoning for 116 Grey Street that provides restricted discretionary status for the service station activity, as well as for alterations and additions to the existing service station, and to signage. Barry Harris (Hamilton City Council) Appendix 8 Heritage Support in part Amend Schedule 8A, 8B and 8C to include reference to individual assessment reports. Accept The inclusion of a note referencing assessment reports of Historic Heritage items and Archaeological sites in Schedule 8 should be accepted as it would: Support the intent of the objectives and policies Provide clarity to the plan user Recommended amendments to Schedule 8A and 8B of the Plan is contained in Appendix C (refer ) Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 74 of 79

81 Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) FS Support Accept The submission point which FS supports has been accepted Analysis: Schedule 8B Group 1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc ( ) supports Schedule 8B Group 1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites. However they request that a review of sites scheduled under Group 2 be undertaken to determine if they should be included in Group 1. They also request archaeological sites should be cross referenced against the New Zealand Archaeological Association. The schedules relating to archaeological sites are currently referenced against the New Zealand Archaeological Association records. Following a cross checking of the reference information that makes up part of the information supplied via the district plan against these records it was established that the NZAA records are incorrectly referenced. To ensure consistency and accuracy in the Plan it is recommended the references to the NZAA records need to be changed from S18/# to S14/#. Notwithstanding the correcting of the NZAA referencing, it is considered that the assessments undertaken of all archaeological sites to establish their appropriateness adequately address the significance to determine the scheduling of individual archaeological sites. The submitter has not provided any further information to enable the reassessment of the Group 2 sites. Therefore, it is recommended that no changes be made to Schedule 8B and 8C. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) in their submission supports Schedule 8B in part and request that reference to Section 19: Historic Heritage be include in the table. NZHPT seek that this reference informs readers of the relevant rules in Chapter 19 and that this list in Schedule 8 is generally not exhaustive and that NZHPT should be consulted regarding the possibility of other Archaeological sites. As part of 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table reference is made to Appendix 8 Historic Heritage and a note has been included at the end of the table providing reference to NZHPT as well as stating that not all sites may be included in Schedule 8 B and C. Based on these existing references there is not need to provide an additional reference in Schedule 8. Sub. Name FS. Name Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc Sub. Point FS. Point Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning Schedule 8B Group 1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites Support Supports the Schedule 8B Group 1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites. Accept in part The submission points seeking the retention of Schedule 8B Group 1 and that the archaeological site be cross references with NZAA be accepted in part as other submission points have requested changes to Schedule 8B. Recommended amendments to Schedule 8B and 8C of the Plan is contained in Appendix C (refer ) Peter Dornauf Schedule 8B Group 1 Oppose That archaeological / cultural sites that are list in Schedule Refer This submission is not relevant to Schedule 8B Group 1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites and is addressed as part of Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 75 of 79

82 Archaeological and Cultural Sites 8C Group Archaeological and Cultural Sites 'for information purposes', seems entirely inadequate. Schedule 8C Group 2 Archaeological and Cultural Sites. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust Schedule 8B Group 1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites Support in part Retain Schedule 8B: Group 1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites with the inclusion of a reference to Section 19: Historic Heritage. Reject The submissions be rejected on the basis that: New Zealand Historic Places Trust is references in Chapter 19 Creates unnecessary duplication Analysis: Schedule 8C Group 2 Archaeological and Cultural Sites The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) supports Schedule 8C in part but seek the inclusion of a reference to NZHPT be included. They seek that this reference informs readers of the relevant rules in Chapter 19 and that this list is generally not exhaustive and that New Zealand Historic Places Trust should be consulted regarding the possibility of other Archaeological sites. As part of 19.3 Rules Activity Status Table reference is made to Appendix 8 Historic Heritage and a note has been included at the end of the table providing reference to NZHPT as well as stating that not all sites may be included in Schedule 8 B and C. Based on these existing references there is not need to provide an additional reference in Schedule 8. Urlich Properties Limited / Z.I & T Urlich ( and ) through their two submission points they oppose Schedule 8C and Features Map 55B with specific reference to the location of Archaeological site A104. The submitter argues that the archaeological site A104 a Flour Mill is identified incorrectly and that it should be shown on Lot 1 DPS and not Lot 2 DPS The submitter states that a concrete pillar is the only remaining visible evidence of the mill and this is located on Lot 1 DPS The New Zealand Archaeological Association (NZAA) Site Record S14/102 indicates that a flour mill was built in the 1870 s and used until 1900 and according to their diagrams is located along the bank of the Mangatukutuku stream located on Lot 2 DPS The historical records for the site as shown in the diagram below indicates that in addition to the flour mill located on Lot 2 DPS 7832 a second mill was also located on Lot 1 DPS Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 76 of 79

83 Diagram showing location of flour mills at Mill Creek (Urlich Ave) South of West Hamilton A history of the early European settlement of Rukuhia district Nancy Raynes Revised Edition 1988 Owing to the fact that there is still the potential for the discovery of archaeological artifacts relating to the use of the area as a flour mill even though there are no physical structures left on the site, the site has been included in Schedule 8C - Group 2 Archaeological Sites. The Group 2 classification does not introduce any additional controls through the District Plan other that ensuring owners and developers are aware of their responsibilities under the Historic Places Act. The identification of the archaeological site on both Lot 2 DPS 7832 and Lot 1 DPS would better reflect the location of the archaeological site relating to the flour mill site and provide land owners and potential developers with the relevant information relating to the requirements under the Historic Places Act. The records held by the New Zealand Archaeological Association does not identify a specific site but rather identifies a broad location. By including both sites in the Group 2 classification it would ensure a better alignment with the records held by NZAA. Therefore, both sites should remain as tagged in the proposed district plan as notifed. Southern Cross Hospitals Limited (Bloxam Burnett and Olliver Ltd) ( ) oppose Features Map 45B and the reference to the Group 2 archaeological site on Lot 2 DP 17455, stating that the site has been fully developed for hospital purposes and therefore the potential for archaeological discovery is no longer there. The New Zealand Archaeological Association has identified the area as a Maori Oven site (S18/40) and has included the area in their register. The inclusion of the site in Group 2 of Schedule 8C does not introduce any additional controls under the District Plan other that providing an efficient and effective method of ensuring owners and developers are aware of their responsibilities under the Historic Places Act. Under the Historic Places Act it is unlawful without prior approval from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for any land owner or developer to destroy damage or modify the whole or any part of an archaeological site regardless of whether the site is identified within the District Plan or whether the activity is permitted under the plan. As the site is a Group 2 site and the plan does not provide controls over the area the identification of the site in the plan it is recommended that the site demarcation be retained to identify obligations Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 77 of 79

84 under the Historic Places Act. Peter Dornauf ( ) oppose Schedule 8C stating that the listing of these sites in Schedule 8C for information purposes only seems entirely inadequate. It is recognised that some archaeological sites have been destroyed by development and are not easily identifiable. However, the inclusion of these sites in Group 2 of the Schedule is important to ensure that procedures are followed under the Historic Places Act rather than introducing controls over the use of these sites. Therefore it is my recommendation no changes be made and that Schedule 8C be retained subject to any changes recommended. Sub. Name FS. Name The New Zealand Historic Places Trust Urlich Properties Limited / Z.I & T Urlich - Sub. Point FS. Point Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning Schedule 8C Group 2 Archaeological and Cultural Sites Schedule 8C Group 2 Archaeological and Cultural Sites Support in part Oppose Retain Schedule 8B: Group 2 Archaeological and Cultural Sites with the inclusion of a reference to NZHPT. Amend Appendix 8, Schedule 8C, Site Number A104 so that the legal description for the site is Lot 1 DPS Accept in part Accept in part The submission points seeking the retention of Schedule 8B Group 2 has be accepted in Part as other submission points have make amendments to Schedule 8B Group 2 and reference to NZHPT is already made. The submission point seek the removal of the Archaeological reference from Lot 2 DPS 7832 and the placement of a reference on Lot 1 DPS accepted in part as it would: Support the intent of the objectives and policies Provide clarity to the plan user Improve consistency with the Historic Places Act, and Archaeological site located on both Lot 2 DPS 7832 and Lot 1 DPS Recommended amendments to Appendix 8 Schedule 8C of the Plan is contained in Appendix D (refer ) Urlich Properties Limited / Z.I & T Urlich Features Map 55B Oppose Amend the location of A104 so that it appears on Lot 1 DPS Remove the Culvert Block Flood Hazard Area from Lot 2 DPS 7832 and Lot 1 DPS Accept in part The submission point seek the removal of the Archaeological reference from Lot 2 DPS 7832 and the placement of a reference on Lot 1 DPS accepted in part as it would: Support the intent of the objectives and policies Provide clarity to the plan user Improve consistency with the Historic Places Act, and Archaeological site located on both Lot 2 DPS 7832 and Lot 1 DPS Recommended amendments to Appendix 8C and Map 55B of the Plan is contained in Appendix C and Appendix D (refer ) Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 78 of 79

85 Southern Cross Hospitals Limited (Bloxam Burnett and Olliver Ltd) Features Map 45B Oppose Remove reference to archaeological site A113 from Lot 2 DP located on Planning Map 45B. Reject The submission point seek the removal of the Archaeological reference from Lot 2 DP be rejected as it would: Not support the intent of the objectives and policies Improve consistency with the Historic Places Act Peter Dornauf Schedule 8B Group 1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites Oppose That archaeological / cultural sites that are list in Schedule 8C Group Archaeological and Cultural Sites 'for information purposes', seems entirely inadequate. Reject The submission point stating that Schedule 8C is entirely inadequate be rejected as Schedule 8C: Support the intent of the objectives and policies Improve consistency with the Historic Places Act Identifies responsibilities under the RMA and Historic Places Act. Title: Historic Heritage Issue: Submissions and Further Submissions Page 79 of 79

86 Appendix B List of Submitters and Further Submitters referred to in this s42a Report Submitters in alphabetical order by name: Andrew Bydder Barry Harris (Hamilton City Council) Blagojevic Family Trust Elizabeth Patricia Witehira Frances Dene Letford Generation Zero Waikato Grace McCarthy Hamilton East Community Trust Hamilton Youth Council Hill Laboratories Limited Isobel Anne Bennett (YWCA (Young Womans' Christian Association) of Hamilton Inc) Jodi N. Belbin Lynette Joyce Williams McConnell Property Ltd Niall Baker

87 Peter Dornauf Pita Witehira Robert W. Belbin Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) Shona Betty Shaw (Murray V. Shaw Builders Ltd) Sink or Swim SKYCITY Hamilton Ltd Southern Cross Hospitals Limited (Bloxam Burnett and Olliver Ltd) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board The New Zealand Historic Places Trust The University of Waikato Tom Roa Tram Lease Limited Urlich Properties Limited / Z.I & T Urlich Waikato Regional Council

88 Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Inc Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc Waitomo Properties Ltd Waylon Bowker Wiremu Taylor Puke (Namtok Consultancy Ltd Ngati Wairere) Z Energy Limited Further submitters in alphabetical order by name: 490 Grey Ltd as the Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for Living Lt d Andrew Yeoman Graeme Ward (WINTEC) Jodhi Ponga New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) FS FS FS FS2.01 FS71.01 FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS

89 Ngapuhi Property Council New Zealand Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) SKYCITY Hamilton Limited Temple View Heritage Society The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS

90 Tram Lease Limited Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Limited Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry) FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS

91 Wiremu Puke (Te Taniko O Kirikiriroa Trust) FS FS18.001

92 Appendix C1 Chapter 19 Historic Heritage (Tracked change version) As per the recommendations contained in this s42a Report. Additions are underlined; deletions in strikethrough. Comment boxes identify submission point references to which amendments relate e.g.

93 19 Historic Heritage 19.1 Purpose a) Historic heritage is a natural or physical resource and is defined in the Act. This chapter addresses historic structures and their immediate surroundings, and sites of archaeological or cultural significance. b) The purpose of this chapter is to identify those individual buildings, structures, places and sites that are significant, and therefore warrant recognition and protection. These items are listed in Volume 2, Appendix 8: i. Schedule 8A: Built Heritage (buildings, structures and associated sites). ii. Schedule 8B: Group 1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites. c) There is potential for cultural artefacts to be found and for archaeological sites to be discovered throughout the City. Schedule 8C: Group 2 Archaeological and Cultural Sites in Volume 2, Appendix 8, identify areas where there is a higher potential for finding artefacts and archaeological sites. There are no additional controls in the plan on these sites that are identified for information purposes only. If artefacts or archaeological sites are discovered an Authority must be obtained from The New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Buildings and Structures d) Rapid growth over the last decade has resulted in redevelopment and intensification of both residential and business sites and in some circumstances this has led to the loss of heritage values. Demolition of heritage buildings often results because a viable use has not been, or cannot be, identified, or because of the high cost of maintenance, restoration or adaptation. Heritage items are a finite resource which cannot be replaced. e) Unsympathetic alterations or additions can damage heritage values associated with heritage buildings or structures. While modifications are often needed to make built heritage usable (e.g. telecommunication upgrading, energy-efficiency and conforming with fire, earthquake and access standards) these need to be undertaken in a manner that protects the heritage value. f) Removing buildings from their original setting can change their context and diminish their historical validityhistoric significance. The modification of the surrounding environment can also reduce heritage values. For example, the removal of mature trees and vegetation, changes to fences, or the addition of new buildings on the site can all reduce the overall heritage value. Comment [HCC1]: Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) Niall Baker ( ) and New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) (FS182.03) Archaeological and Cultural Sites g) Hamilton has many sites of archaeological and cultural significance. Some of these are associated with European settlement, while others are significant to Waikato iwi and local hapu. h) Archaeological sites include any place that was associated with human activity that occurred before 1900AD. Archaeological sites can include military redoubts, Volume 1 19 Historic Heritage Page 19-1

94 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council objects and locations associated with industry (e.g. flour mills and a lime kiln), as well as locations of early settlement. i) Many sites in the City are not visible on the surface, but may have underground features and artefacts which could be disturbed or damaged through earthworks and construction. Digging foundations and other activities can damage historical sites, especially if there is a lack of awareness of historical significance or the potential to uncover historic features. Important features of a site (like filled-in trenches of a pa or kumara pits) may still exist below the surface. j) While many sites have been destroyed or damaged by urban development and are not easily recognisable for their original purpose and form, their historical or cultural importance has not diminished. Sites of archaeological and cultural significance form an important part of the cultural history of the City and should be protected, where practicable, for the benefit of current and future generations. k) The relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, waahi tapu and other taonga may be destroyed or compromised through inappropriate development. Kaitiakitanga or guardianship and protection of the land, water, waahi tapu and other taonga is an important issue for Waikato iwi and local hapu Objectives and Policies: Historic Heritage All Historic Heritage Objective Significant buildings, structures, sites and items that define the City s historic heritage are identified and protected. Policies a The City s historic heritage shall be protected from the adverse effects of subdivision, use and development. by having regard to: i. The character and degree of modification, damage, loss or destruction. ii. The duration and frequency of an effect. iii. The magnitude or scale of an effect in relation to the values and significance of the item. iv. The irreversibility of an effect (e.g. the loss of unique features). v. The opportunities for remediation and the costs and technical feasibility of remediation. vi. The resilience of a heritage feature to change (e.g. the ability of the feature to assimilate change, or the vulnerability of the feature to change). Volume 1 19 Historic Heritage Page 19-2

95 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council Explanation vii. The probability of an effect (e.g. the likelihood of unforeseen effects, ability to take a precautionary approach). viii. Cumulative effects (e.g. the loss of multiple features, factors, values or associations) b Ensuring that where features have been destroyed or damaged, they are recognised through on-site marking.the historical heritage values of these sites are recorded and recognised to ensure the historical legibility of Hamilton City. Historic places make a significant contribution to the sense of identity and wellbeing of the City's residents. A wide range of heritage values need to be protected, including buildings, structures, sites and their surroundings with historical, social, cultural, architectural or technological significance. The District Plan matches levels of protection with the classification of the item so the City s most significant items are protected. Heritage resources are vulnerable to change, and once lost cannot be replaced. It is therefore important to seek means to avoid adverse effects on historic places. The District Plan controls activities recognised as having an adverse effect on the heritage values of identified historic places. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust has the primary responsibility for the regulation of activities relating to archaeological sites under the Historic Places Act Comment [HCC2]: Waikato Regional Council ( ), New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) & (FS ) Comment [HCC3]: The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) Objective The heritage values of a diverse and representative range of natural, physical and cultural resources are protected. Policies a Items of significant heritage value (buildings, objects, areas, trees and sites) shall be scheduled b The loss of heritage values associated with scheduled items shall be avoided c Outstanding examples of a particular type of site, or sites that are highly significant to the community shall be scheduled. Explanation Historic heritage is an integral part of Hamilton s character and its future development. For this reason the destruction or alteration of buildings, or significant elements of buildings, objects, areas, trees and Māori sites that are of heritage significance will be assessed against criteria which seek to maintain an item s heritage value. The loss of heritage values will be considered through a resource consent process. Volume 1 19 Historic Heritage Page 19-3

96 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council Buildings and Structures Objective The heritage values of significant buildings, structures and their immediate surroundings are protected. Policies a Demolition or relocation of buildings and structures listed in Schedule 8A shall be avoided b Subdivision and development shall retain, protect and/or enhance the heritage values of any building or structure listed within Schedule 8A c Subdivision and development shall avoid any potential cumulative adverse effects on any building or structure listed in Schedule 8A d Subdivision and development shall adhere to the conservation principles of International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) being the New Zealand Charter (2010) for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value where applicable e Heritage buildings and structures shall be used in a manner that ensures essential heritage qualities are not damaged or destroyed f The design, materials and finish of any development shall be consistent with identified heritage values g The continued use or adaptive reuse of any building or structure of identified heritage value shall be encouraged h The site surrounding the heritage building or structure shall be protected to the extent that it contributes to the heritage values i Encourage the strengthening of buildings in Schedule 8A to increase their abuility to withstand future earthquakes while minimising the significant loss of associated heritage values. Comment [HCC4]: Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Niall Baker ( ) Comment [HCC5]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) Volume 1 19 Historic Heritage Page 19-4

97 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council Explanation The demolition of historic places can result in the loss of associated heritage values. The aim of the District Plan is to minimise the loss of any historic buildings and structures within Volume 2, Appendix 8, Schedule 8A. Demolition of highly significant historic buildings and structures will be considered only in exceptional circumstances. Inappropriate additions or major alterations to historic buildings and structures also have the potential to destroy or degrade heritage values. However, minor or routine maintenance and repair enables items to be maintained. In most cases, the exterior of historic buildings and structures is more sensitive to change through unsympathetic changes than the interior. Changes to the interior of heritage buildings are less not controlled as change is considered necessary to ensure buildings are useable. The strengthening of Historic Heritage Buildings to meet earthquake strengthening requirements is important to ensure heritage buildings and structures are safe and useable. However the strengthening of these buildings and structuresstill needs to ensure the heritage values are retained. Removal of a building from its original site or changes to a building s setting (e.g. destruction of gardens, trees and other heritage buildings) can affect heritage values and reduce its significance. However in some circumstances, relocating the item offsite may be the only way to protect the item. Other structures, signs or lighting on historic buildings and structures can also impact on heritage values. The District Plan also encourages activities that will facilitate the retention and enhancement of historic buildings and structures. Greater flexibility in what historic buildings and structures can be used for, while ensuring the management of any potential adverse effects, can help their preservation by finding an ongoing use. Guidance on the principles for the conservation of places of cultural heritage value can be found in ICOMOS being the New Zealand Charter (2010) for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value. Comment [HCC6]: Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) and Naill Baker ( ) Comment [HCC7]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) Archaeological and Cultural Sites Objective Significant archaeological and cultural sites should beshall be protected from damage or destruction. Policies a Subdivision, use and development shall be managed to minimise the risk ofavoid damage to archaeological and cultural sites where they exist, or are likely to exist b The protection and management of sites of archaeological and cultural significance shall reflect their significance and overall heritage values.be informed by their significance c Activities or development shall not adversely affect the physical structure and integrity of scheduled sites. This may includes: Comment [HCC8]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) and Waikato Regional Council ( ) Comment [HCC9]: Waikato Regional Council ( ) Comment [HCC10]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) Comment [HCC11]: The New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) ( ) Volume 1 19 Historic Heritage Page 19-5

98 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council Explanation i. Inappropriate Pplanting, ii. The removal of vegetation where it affects the stability of the site, and iii. Addition, excavation or compaction of any soil, rock or other materials d The relationships of tangata whenua with sites of spiritual, cultural or historical significance shall be recognised and provided for e Where features have been destroyed or damaged,of significant cultural sites shall belost these features should be recored and recognised through on-site marking.to ensure the historical legibility of Hamilton City. The policies recognise that activities that disturb the ground pose a significant threat to archaeological and cultural sites, and aim to control these activities. In some cases, the original features of a site may be lost or damaged through exposure to weather, earthworks, damage from tree roots and coverage of a site by buildings or impermeable surfaces. However, sub-surface features may still survive. The aim of the policies is to protect the physical integrity and features of the site. Identification of sites before development occurs is particularly important. If the general location of sites can be signalled then developers and landowners are able to plan development that minimises or avoids disturbance. An important concern for tangata whenua is the need to protect sites from accidental or intentional interference. The District Plan will record and protect only those sites which iwi are comfortable to make known. The location of other sites is known only to Waikato iwi and local hapu. The policies also recognise the importance of these sites to Māori. Where development has already taken place and the site s features have been destroyed or damaged, recognition of the site s existence is desirable through signs, planting or some other method. Even where these sites no longer exist physically they still hold cultural significance, particularly to Waikato iwi and local hapu. Comment [HCC12]: The New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) ( Comment [HCC13]: Lynette Joyce Williams ( ) Niall Baker ( ) and The New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) ( ) 19.3 Rules - Activity Status Table Activity Class Volume 2, Appendix 8, Schedule 8A: Built Heritage (structures, buildings and associated sites) a) Maintenance and repair P b) Internal alterations of buildings P Volume 1 19 Historic Heritage Page 19-6

99 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council Activity Class c) Accessory buildings or new buildings within any scheduled site ranked A D d) Accessory buildings or new buildings within any scheduled site ranked B RD e) Accessory buildings or new buildings within the Major Facilities Zone Waikato Hospital Campus and Wintec City Campus f) Alterations or additions (excluding maintenance and repair) to the exterior of any structure or building ranked A g) Alterations or additions (excluding maintenance and repair) to the exterior of any structure or building ranked B P D RD h) Demolition of any structure or building ranked A NC i) Demolition of any structure or building ranked B NCD j) Earthquake strengthening works resulting in no visible structural change to the external building façade k) Earthquake strengthening works resulting in visible structural change to the external building façade l) Erecting, constructing or extending any structure or fence on a site RD m) Erecting, constructing or extending any structure or fence on a site within the Major Facilities Zone Waikato Hospital Campus and Wintec City Campus n) Signs (refer also to Chapter 25.10: City-wide Signs) RD o) Signs within the Major Facilities Zone Waikato Hospital Campus and Wintec City Campus p) Subdivision of a allotment containing a scheduled Historic Heritage Item and sites identified in Volume 2 Appendix 8, Scedule 8A and 8B (Refer to Chapter 23: Subdivision and Chapter 24: Financial Contributions). p) Change of use to an activity otherwise listed as non-complying in the underlying zone rules for any historic place identified in Schedule 8A P RD P refer also to Chapter 25.10: Citywide Signs q) Removal off site or relocation on site of any structure or building ranked A DNC r) Relocation on existing site of any structure or building ranked A D r)s Removal off site or relocation on site of any structure or building ranked B D D RD Comment [HCC14]: McConnell Property Ltd ( ), Waitomo Properties Ltd ( ), Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Inc ( ), Isobel Anne Bennett (YWCA (Young Womans' Christian Association) of Hamilton Inc) ( ), Shona Betty Shaw (Murray V. Shaw Builders Ltd) ( ), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board ( ), Lynette Joyce Williams ( ), Niall Baker ( ), Roman Catholic Bishop of Hamilton (Catholic Diocese of Hamilton) (FS16.005), Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry)(FS ), Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Limited(FS ), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS , FS , FS180.62, , FS ), Waitomo Properties Limited (Harkness Henry)(FS and FS ) Comment [HCC15]: Lynette Joyce Williams ( ), Niall Baker ( ) and New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager) (FS ) Comment [HCC16]: The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) Comment [HCC17]: The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) Volume 2, Appendix 8, Schedule 8B: Group 1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites s)t Minor work on all sites t) Earthworks involving less than 40m 3 of material in a single activity or cumulative activities in any one year period on a site in Group 1 u) Any Earthworks earthworks involving 40m 3 or more of material in a single activity or cumulative activities in any one year period on a site in Group 1 v) Signs on a site in Group 1 (refer also to Chapter 25.10: City-wide Signs) RD w) Any earthworks on a site in Group 2 P P P RD Comment [HCC18]: The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ), Waikato- Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc ( ) and New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager)(FS ) Volume 1 19 Historic Heritage Page 19-7

100 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council Note 1. If archaeological material, koiwi or taonga is uncovered on a site which pre-dates 1900, then the site is an archaeological site in terms of the Historic Places Act Any disturbance of archaeological sites, regardless of their listing or otherwise in this District Plan, is not permitted under Section 10 of the Historic Places Act Consent of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust is required to modify or disturb an archaeological site under Section 46 of the Historic Places Act. For further information or to make an application, contact the nearest office of the Historic Places Trust. An authority is required for all such activity whether or not the land on which an archaeological site may be present is designated, a resource or building consent has been granted, or the activity is permitted under the Regional or District Plan Rules Specific Standards Maintenance and Repairs to a Schedule 8A Item a) In any repair or maintenance to the exterior of a building or structure, the heritage values for which the Historic Place was scheduled shall be respected. This will be achieved by: i. Using the same or similar materials. ii. Replicating or otherwise mmaintaining consistency with the scale, proportion, finishes and techniques. b) Minor maintenance Maintenance to a building or structure shall be limited to: i. Works for the purpose of weatherproofing. Comment [HCC19]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) Comment [HCC20]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) ii. Plumbing and electrical work. c) Minor repairs shall be for the purpose of repair, patching, piecing in, splicing or consolidating and shall use materials that are the same colour, texture and design as the materials being replaced Archaeological and Cultural Sites: a) In the event that during earthworks on any site any archaeological feature, artifact or human remains are found the Accidental Discovery Protocol within Volume 2, Appendix 8-2 will be complied with Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria Formatted: Font: Not Bold Comment [HCC21]: Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc ( ) and New Zealand Historic Places Trust (FS a) In determining any application for resource consent for a restricted discretionary activity, Council shall have regard to the matters referenced below, to which Council has restricted the exercise of its discretion. Activity Specific Matter of Discretion and Assessment Criteria Reference Number (Refer to Volume 2, Appendix 1.2) Schedule 8A: Built Heritage (structures, buildings and associated sites) Volume 1 19 Historic Heritage Page 19-8

101 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council i. Accessory buildings or new buildings within any identified site ranked B* ii. Alterations or additions (excluding maintenance and repair) to the exterior of any structure or building ranked B iii. Internal alterations (excluding maintenance and repair) of buildings ranked A iviii. Earthquake strengthening works resulting in visible structural change to the external building façade* v.iv Erecting, constructing or extending any structure or fence* viv. Removal off site or relocation on site of any structure or building ranked B viivi. Signs* A2, A3, A4, I1-I3 A2, A3, A4, I1-I3 A2, A3, A4, I1-I3 A2, A3, A4, I1-I2 A2, A3, A4, I1-I3 A2, A3, A4, I1-I3 A2, A3, A4, I1-I2 Comment [HCC22]: SKYCITY Hamilton Ltd ( ) and ( ), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board ( ), Barry Harris (Hamilton City Council) ( ) and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (FS ) Schedule 8B: Group 1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites viiivii. Any Earthworks involving 40m 3 or more of material in a single activity or cumulative activities in any one year period on a site in Group 1 ixviii. Signs* Standard Specific x.ix Any activity not complying with any relevant standard in Rule Note A2, A3, A4, B6, I1-I2 A2, A3, A4, I1-I2 Matter of Discretion and Assessment Criteria Reference Number (Refer to Volume 2, Appendix 1.2) A1, A2, A3, I1-I3 Comment [HCC23]: The New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ), Waikato- Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc ( ) and New Zealand Historic Places Trust (General Manager)(FS ) 19.6 Notification Rule 1. Refer to Chapter for activities marked with an asterisk (*) a) Except as provided for by Section 95A(2)(b) and (c), 95B(2) and (3) and 95C(1) to (4) of the Act applications for any Restricted Discretionary Activity identified with an asterisk (*) in the table above will be considered without notification or the need to obtain approval from affected persons. Volume 1 19 Historic Heritage Page 19-9

102 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council 19.7 Other Resource Consent Information Refer to Chapter 1: Plan Overview for guidance on the following. How to Use this District Plan Explanation of Activity Status Activity Status Defaults Notification / Non-notification RulesDefaults Rules Having Early or Delayed Effect Refer to Volume 2, Appendix 1: District Plan Administration for the following. Controlled Activities Matters of Control Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters for Discretion and Assessment Criteria Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria Design Guides and Design Assessment Criteria Information Requirements Acronyms Used in the District Plan Definitions Used in the District Plan Other Methods of Implementation Volume 1 19 Historic Heritage Page 19-10

103 Appendix C2 Appendix 8 Heritage (Tracked change version) As per the recommendations contained in this s42a Report. Additions are underlined; deletions in strikethrough. Comment boxes identify submission point references to which amendments relate e.g.

104 Appendix 8: Heritage 8-1 Assessment of Historic Buildings and Structures Rankings of Significance Rankings for historic buildings and structures listed in Schedule 8A have been established as follows. Plan Ranking A: Historic places of highly significant heritage value include those assessed as being of outstanding or high value in relation to one or more of the criteria and are considered to be of outstanding or high heritage value locally, regionally or nationally. Plan Ranking B: Historic places of significant heritage value include those assessed as being of high or moderate value in relation to one or more of the heritage criteria and are considered to be of value locally or regionally. The heritage value of historic places has been assessed based on evaluation against the following individual heritage criteria Heritage Assessment Criteria a) Historic Qualities i. Associative value: The historic place has a direct association with or relationship to, a person, group, institution, event or activity that is of historical significance to Hamilton, the Waikato or New Zealand. A person, group, institution, event or activity that is of great historical significance regionally or nationally is closely associated with the place A person, group, institution, event or activity that is of great historical significance locally, regionally or nationally is closely associated with the place A person, group, institution, event or activity that is of historical significance to the local area, or region is associated with the place Outstanding High Moderate ii. Historical pattern: The historic place is associated with important patterns of local, regional or national history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes, social or economic trends and activities. Historic themes or patterns of national, regional or local importance are strongly represented by the place Historic themes or patterns important to the local area or region are represented by the place High Moderate Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-1

105 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council b) Physical /Aesthetic/Architectural Qualities i. Style/Design/Type: The style of the historic place is representative of a significant development period in the city, region or the nation. The historic place has distinctive or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature which may include its design, form, scale, materials, style, ornamentation, period, craftsmanship, or other design element. Notable local, regional or national example in terms of its aesthetic and architectural qualities, or rare or important surviving local, regional or national example of a building type associated with a significant activity High Good representative example locally or regionally in terms of its aesthetic and architectural qualities Moderate ii. Designer or Builder: The architect, designer, engineer or builder for the historic place was a notable practitioner or made a significant contribution to the city, region or nation, and the place enlarges understanding of their work. Designer or builder whose achievements are of great importance to the history of the community, region or nation High Designer or builder whose achievements are of considerable importance to the history of the community, region or nation Moderate iii. Rarity: The place or elements of it are unique, uncommon or rare at a local, regional or national level, or in relation to particular historic themes. (Research information explains why the place or elements of it are unique, uncommon or rare.) iv. Integrity: The place has integrity, retaining significant features from its time of construction, or later periods when important modifications or additions were carried out. The place retains significant features from the time of its construction with limited change, or changes made are associated with significant phases in the history of the place High The place retains significant features from the time of its construction, and modifications and alterations made are not associated with significant phases in the history of the place c) Context or Group Qualities Moderate i. Setting: The physical and visual character of the site or setting is of importance to the value of the place and extends its significance. The place remains on its original site, the physical and visual character of the setting reinforce an understanding of the heritage values and historic development of the place, and built or natural features within the setting are original or relate to significant periods in the historic development of the place The place has been relocated, but its new setting is compatible with heritage values High/ Moderate Low Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-2

106 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council ii. Landmark: The historic place is an important visual landmark or feature. The historic place is a conspicuous, recognisable and memorable landmark in the city The historic place is a conspicuous, familiar and recognisable landmark in the context of the streetscape or neighbourhood iii. Continuity The historic place makes a notable contribution to the continuity or character of the street, neighbourhood, area or landscape The historic place makes a moderate contribution to the continuity or character of the street, neighbourhood, area or landscape High Moderate High Moderate iv. The historic place is part of a group or collection of places which together have a coherence because of such factors as history, age, appearance, style, scale, materials, proximity or use, landscape or setting which, when considered as a whole, amplify the heritage values of the place, group and landscape or extend its significance. The historic place makes a very important contribution to the collective values of a group or collection of places High The historic places contribute to the collective values of a group d) Technological Qualities Moderate i. The historic place demonstrates innovative or important methods of construction, or technical achievement, contains unusual construction materials, is an early example of the use of a particular construction technique or has potential to contribute information about technological or engineering history. Regionally or nationally important example High Locally important example e) Archaeological Qualities Moderate/ Considerable i. The potential of the historic place to define or expand knowledge of earlier human occupation, activities or events through investigation using archaeological methods. ii. The place is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust or scheduled in the District Plan for its archaeological values, or is recorded by the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Recording Scheme, or is an archaeological site as defined by the Historic Places Act f) Cultural Qualities i. The historic place is important as a focus of cultural sentiment or is held in high public esteem; it significantly contributes to community identity or sense of place or provides evidence of cultural or historical continuity. The historic place has symbolic or commemorative significance to people who use or have Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-3

107 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council used it, or to the descendants of such people. The interpretative capacity of the place can potentially increase understanding of past lifestyles or events. (Research information explains how the place is a focus for cultural sentiment, is held in public esteem, contributes to identity or continuity, has symbolic or commemorative value or has interpretive potential.) g) Scientific Qualities i. The potential for the historic place to contribute information about a historic figure, event, phase or activity. The degree to which the historic place may contribute further information and the importance, rarity, quality or representativeness of the data involved. The potential for the place to contribute further information that may provide knowledge of New Zealand history. 8-2 Accidental Discovery Protocol (ADP): Archaeological Sites, Archaeological Areas, Historic Areas or Waahi Tapu Where, during earthworks on any site, any archaeological feature, artefact or human remains are accidentally discovered or are suspected to have been discovered, the following protocol shall be followed: i. All work on the site will cease immediately. The contractor/works supervisor will shut down all equipment and activity. ii. iii. iv. The area shall be secured and the consent holder or proponent and Hamilton City Council must be advised of the discovery. The NZ Historic Places Trust must be notified by the consent holder or proponent so that the appropriate consent procedure can be initiated. The consent holder or proponent must consult with a representative of the appropriate iwi to determine what further actions are appropriate to safeguard the site of its contents. In the case where human remains have accidentally been discovered or are suspected to have been discovered the following will also be required; v. The area must be immediately secured by the contractor in a way which ensures human remains are not further disturbed. The consent holder or proponent must be advised of the steps taken. vi. vii. The Police shall be notified of the suspected human remains as soon as practicably possible after the remains have been disturbed. The consent holder or proponent shall notify the appropriate iwi and NZ Historic Places Trust and Hamilton City Council within 12 hours of the suspected human remains being disturbed, or otherwise as soon as practically possible. Excavation of the site shall not resume until the Police, NZ Historic Places Trust and the relevant iwi have each given the necessary approvals for excavation to proceed. Comment [HCC1]: Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc ( ) and New Zealand Historic Places Trust (FS ) Note: If any land use activity (such as earthworks, fencing or landscaping is likely to modify, damage or destroy any archaeological site (whether recorded or unrecorded) an authority consent from the NZ Historic Places Trust must also be obtained for the work to lawfully proceed. Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-4

108 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council Schedule 8A: Built Heritage (structures, buildings and associated sites) Note: Reference needs to be made to assessment reports prepared for individual heritage items and sites to determine their heritage values. (Hamilton City Council Built Heritage Inventory Records ) Comment [HCC2]: Barry Harris (Hamilton City Council) ( ) ID# Heritage Item Address Legal Description Plan Ranking Key Heritage Criteria NZHPT Ranking Planning Map No. H1 H2 Beale HouseCottage 11 Beale St Lot 4 DPS Frankton Rifle Range Junction Rd Railway House Factory Lot 9 DP A a b c d e f g I (769) 46B A a b c d f I (4946) 43B Comment [HCC3]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) Comment [HCC4]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) H3 Fairfield Bridge Victoria St Road reserve A a b c d e f g I (4161) 36B H4 St Peter's Anglican Cathedral 51 Victoria St Part of Allotment 407 Town of Hamilton West Part of Allotment 59A Town of Hamilton West A a b c d e f II (4206) 45B Comment [HCC5]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) H5 Former Bank of New Zealand 117 Victoria St Lot 1 DPS A a b c d f I (768) (NZHPT Heritage Order) 45B H6 Greenslade House 1 Wellington St Lot 1 DP and Sec 3 SO60256 A a b c f I (4163) 45B H7 Hamilton Courthouse 116 Anglesea St Pt Allotment 407 Town of Hamilton West and Pt Allotment 407B Town of Hamilton West A a b c d f II (4207) 45B H8 Victoria Bridge Bridge St Road reserve A a b c d e f g I (722) 45B Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-5

109 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council ID# Heritage Item Address Legal Description Plan Ranking Key Heritage Criteria NZHPT Ranking Planning Map No. H9 Claudelands Bridge (Former Hamilton / Railway Bridge) Claudelands Rd Road reserve Bridge No.6 ECMT over Waikato River LO 28971/2 A a b c d f g II (4201) 45B Comment [HCC6]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) H10 St Mary's Convent Chapel H11 Oddfellows Hall 47 Clyde St Lot 1 DP ; Lot 2 DP and part of Lot 1 DP Cook St Lot 4 DP A a b c f II (5460) 46B A a b c d f II (4456) 46B H12 Band Rotunda Grantham St Pt Lot 443A Town of Hamilton West H13 Hamilton Club Grantham St Allotments 414, 415, 429 and 430 Town of Hamilton West A a b c f II (4208) 45B A a b c e f II (773) 45B H14 Former Police House H15 Hamilton East Masonic Centre H16 Claudelands Grandstand 160 Grey St Pt Allotments 301A Town of Hamilton East 285 Grey St Lots 1 and 2 DPS 80758, PT ALLT 78 Twn Hamilton East 800 Heaphy Tce Lot 2 DP A a b c f II (4196) 46B A a b c d f - 46B A a b c d f II (4198) 37B H17 Frankton Hotel 40 High St Part of Allot 1 Te Rapa Parish A a b c f II (4211) 44B H18 Petals Flower Shop/ Kaiapoi House H19 Grand Central Hotel 17 Hood St Lot 1 DPS Hood St Part of Allot 81 Town of Hamilton West A a b c d f II (2702) 45B A a b c f II (5310) 45B H20 Stationmaster's House Hungerford Cres Part of Sec 28 Hamilton East Town Belt A a b f II (previously 775) 56B Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-6

110 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council ID# Heritage Item Address Legal Description Plan Ranking Key Heritage Criteria NZHPT Ranking Planning Map No. H21 Lake House 102 Lake Cres Lot 3 DPS 6302 A a b c d e f II (2701) 54B H22 PS Rangiriri Memorial Park Riverbank adjacent to Allotment 417 Town of Hamilton East A a b c d e f g - 45B H23 Nickisson House 156 Nixon St Lot 1 DPS A a b c d f II (2700) 46B H24 Jolly House (Chateau Windermere) 39 Queens Ave Lots,2,3 & 5 DPS 8264 and lot 1 DP A a b c d II (5300) 44B Comment [HCC7]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) H25 Frankton Rifle Range Railway House Rd Factory Kiln Lot 1 DPS A a b c d f g - 43B Comment [HCC8]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) H26 Farrer 660 River Rd Lot 3 DPS Homestead (also known as Bankwood House) H27 Water Tower Ruakiwi Rd Lot 2 DP H28 Hockin House 15 Selwyn St Lot 74 DP17643 A a b c f II (771) 27B A a b c d f II (4210) 45B A a b c f II (4209) 55B Comment [HCC9]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) H29 Silverdale Homestead 8 Sheridan St Lot 15 DPS 9205 A a b c f II (4194) 48B H30 Riverlea House 10 Silva Cres Pt Lot 13 DPS A a b c d f II (4195) 57B Comment [HCC10]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) H31 St Andrew's Church 2 Te Aroha St Lot 3, Lot 4, Lot 5 DP 7767 A a b c d f - 45B H32 Frankton Signal Box Tui Ave (Minogue Park) Allot 413 Pukete Parish and Lot 3 DP A a b c d f II (4458) 35B H33 St Peter's Hall 55 Victoria St Allotment 449 and 450 Town of Hamilton West A a b c f II (4205) 45B H34 Barton and Ross Building Victoria St Lot 1 DPS A a b c f - 45B Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-7

111 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council ID# Heritage Item Address Legal Description Plan Ranking Key Heritage Criteria NZHPT Ranking Planning Map No. H35 Former Post Office/Social Welfare 132 Victoria St Allotment 55 Town of Hamilton West A a b c f II (5299) 45B H36 Former Hamilton Hotel Victoria St Lot 1 DPS A a b c f II (4203) 45B H37 Wesley Chambers 237 Victoria St Pt Allotment 87 Town of Hamilton West A a b c d f II (5301) 45B H38 Commercial Hotel 287 Victoria St Lot 2 DP A a b c f - 45B H39 Central Post Office 346 Victoria St Lot 2 DPS A a b c d f - 45B H40 Pascoe's Building (also known as Frear s Building) 357 Victoria St Lot 1 DPS A a b c f II (5298) 45B H41 Cadman's Garage 596 Victoria St Lot 5 DP A a b c f II (5302) 37B H42 Public Trust Building 610 Victoria St Lot 6 DP A a b c e f II (4944) 37B H43 Former NZ Dairy Co-op Building H44 Frankton Junction NZ Railways Institute 661 Victoria St Lot 1 DPS Weka St Lot 1 DPS A a b c f II (4199) 37B A a b c f II (5297) 43B Comment [HCC11]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) H46 Knox Church Hall 50 Albert St Allotment 301 Town of Hamilton East B a b c f - 46B H47 Old Hamilton Technical School Block F Anglesea St Part of Section1 SO59086 A a b c f - 45B H48 Former Waikato Brewery 14 Bridge St Lot 2 DPS B a b c f - 45B Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-8

112 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council ID# Heritage Item Address Legal Description Plan Ranking Key Heritage Criteria NZHPT Ranking Planning Map No. H49 F.E Smith house H50 Notre Dames des Missions 129 Cambridge Rd Lot 2 DPS Clyde St Lot 2 DP B a b c - 47B A a b c f - 46B H51 Frankton Cafe 119 Commerce St Part of Lot 1 DEEDS 191 B a b c - 44B H52 Hamilton East School Building (1) H53 Hamilton East School Building (2) 7 Dawson St Allotment 406 Town of Hamilton East 7 Dawson St Allotment 406 Town of Hamilton East H54 House 74 Firth St PT ALLOT 260 Town of Hamilton East H55 House (Laurenson Settlement) H56 House 102 Forest Lake Rd 104 Forest Lake Rd Lot 1 DPS Pt Lot 13 DP 7943 B a b c d f - 45B B a b c d f - 45B B a b c - 46B B a b c - 35B B a b c - 35B Comment [HCC12]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) H57 House (Laurenson Settlement) 126 Forest Lake Rd Lot 22 DP 7943 B a b c - 35B Comment [HCC13]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) H58 House 128 Forest Lake Rd Lot 23 DP 7943 B a b c - 35B H59 Former Hamilton Railway Station 164 Hillcrest Rd Pt Lot 10 DP 3733 A a b c d f II (2703) 47B H60 Former Rogers House 2 London St Lot 2 DPS B a b c - 37B H61 St Paul's Methodist Church H62 NZ Dairy Co Building (1) 62 London St 160 Norton Rd Lot 1 DPS 7437 Lot 2 DPS B a b c f - 37B B a b c d - 35B Comment [HCC14]: New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-9

113 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council ID# Heritage Item Address Legal Description Plan Ranking Key Heritage Criteria NZHPT Ranking Planning Map No. H63 Ingleholm house H64 All Hallows Chapel, Southwell School H65 House H66 Diocesan School Dining Room H67 Diocesan School Cherrington House 11 O'Neill St Lot 2 DP Lots 15 & Pt Lot 17 DP Peachgrove Rd PT Lot 12 DP 4213 Lot 1 DPS Radnor St Lot 1 DP River Rd Lot 3 DPS River Rd Lot 3 DPS B a b c d - 37B B a b c d f - 38B B a b c d - 45B B a d c f - 27B B a b c f - 27B H68 Railway house 124 Tasman Rd Lot 1 DPS B a b c - 15B H69 Reid's Studio 55 Victoria St Allotments 449 & 450 Town of Hamilton West B a b c f - 45B H70 George Smith House 65 Victoria St Allotment 448 Town of Hamilton West B a b c - 45B H71 Howdens Jewellers H72 Paul's Book Arcade H73 Alexandra Building H74 Victoria Buildings 179 Victoria St 211 Victoria St 221 Victoria St 260 Victoria St Pt Allotment 84 Town of Hamilton West Lot 3 DPS Allotment 86 Town of Hamilton West Lot 2 DP B a b c f - 45B A a b c f I ( 7438) 45B B a b c - 45B B a b c - 45B H75 House 1319 Victoria St Lot 11 DP B a b c e f - 36B Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-10

114 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council ID# Heritage Item Address Legal Description Plan Ranking Key Heritage Criteria NZHPT Ranking Planning Map No. H76 House 1331 Victoria St Lot 9 DP B a b c e f - 36B H77 Hamilton Borough Municipal Offices Alma Street Lot 5 DP B a b c d f - 45B H78 Former 45 Waterloo Lot 1 DPS Triangle Petrol Street Station B a b c f - 43B H79 Former Frankton Junction Supply Stores 245 Commerce St Lot 1 DPS B a b c f - 44B H80 Railway Signal Commerce St H81 Old Telegraph Pole H82 Former Waikato Hospital & Charitable Aid Society H84 St James Church and Hall H85 NZ Dairy Co Building (2) Commerce St 17A and 17B Hood St 159, 161 and 163 Massey St 136 Norton Rd Road reserve adjacent to Lot 1 DPS Road Reserve adjacent to Lot 1 DPS Pt Allotment 81 Town of Hamilton West Lots 4,5 & 6 DP 5031 Lot 5 DPS B a c d f - 44B B a c d f - 44B A a b c f II (9279) 45B B a b c f - 43B A a b c d - 35B H86 Diocesan School Sunshine Classrooms 660 River Rd Lot 2 DP B a b c f - 27B H87 Hamilton Transformer Building 88 Seddon Rd Sec 1 SO Hinemoa Park B a b c d - 36B H88 Municipal Baths 26 Victoria St Pt Allotment 443A Town of Hamilton West B a b c d f - 45B Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-11

115 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council ID# Heritage Item Address Legal Description Plan Ranking Key Heritage Criteria NZHPT Ranking Planning Map No. H89 Hamilton Buildings H90 Harker's Building H91 Former Guthrie Bowron, (now known as Sahara Cafe building) H92 Grocotts Building 109 Victoria St 191 Victoria St 254 Victoria St Victoria St H93 H & J Court Ltd 303 Victoria St Pt Allotment 81 Town of Hamilton West Pt Allot 85 Town of Hamilton West Lot 1 DP Pt Allotment 86 Town of Hamilton West and Lot 2 DPS Pt Lot 1 DPS B a b c - 45B B a b c - 45B B a b c - 45B B a b c - 45B B a b c - 45B H95 Former Dalton s Building (Michael Hill Building) 1-5 Ward Street Lot 1 DPS B a b c - 45B H96 Kings Building 456 Victoria St Lot 2 DPS B a b c - 45B H97 Irvine s Chemist Victoria St Lot 6 DP B a c - 45B H98 Former Housing NZ Building (Fine Arts Society Building) 803 Victoria St Lot 2 DP 8153 B a b c - 37B H99 Puna s Building H100 County Buildings H101 House Commerce St Lot 1 DPS Grey St Lot 2 DPS Kotahi Ave Lot 2 DP B a b c f - 44B B a b c d f - 45B B a b c e - 36B Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-12

116 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council ID# Heritage Item Address Legal Description Plan Ranking Key Heritage Criteria NZHPT Ranking Planning Map No. H102 House 95 Lot 1 DP Pembroke St H104 House 31 Eton Dr Lot 59 DP 7744 B b - 45B B a b c f - 58B H105 Oxford Chambers 530 Victoria St Lot 8 DPS B a b c - 45B H106 David O McKay Building H107 G. R. Biesinger Hall H108 The Hamilton New Zealand Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints H109 Wendell B Mendenhall Library H110 Star Flats Church College, Temple View Church College, Temple View 509 Tuhikarame a Rd, Temple View Church College, Temple View H111 House 111 Peachgrove Rd H113 Former Morris Stores and Motor Services Part of Lot 1 DPS Part of Lot 1 DPS Part of Allot 62 Tuhikaramea Parish, Part of Allot 371 Tuikaramea Parish Part of Lot 1 DPS Frances Lots 4, 5, 6 Street (Units and 7 DPS ) B a b c d f - 60B B a b c f - 60B A a b c d e f - 60B B a b c d f - 60B B a b c - 38B Lot 3 DP 8657 B a b c - 38B 116 Grey St Lot 2 DP and Pt Lot 1 DP H114 House 33 Naylor St Pt Allot 295 Town of Hamilton East H115 House 44 Lot 1 DPS Brookfield St B a b c f - 46B B a b c - 46B B a b c - 56B H116 House 82 Grey St Lot 7 DP B a b c f - 46B Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-13

117 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council ID# Heritage Item Address Legal Description Plan Ranking Key Heritage Criteria NZHPT Ranking Planning Map No. H117 House 121 Grey St Lot 1 DPS B a b c - 46B H118 House 5 Albert St Lot 5 DPS H119 House 154 Galloway St Lot 3 DP B b c - 46B B a b c - 46B H120 House H129 House H130 House H131 House 624 Grey St Lot 1 DPS Armagh St Pt Lot 51 DP Armagh St Lot 49 DP Armagh St Lot 48 DP B a b c d - 45B B a b c e - 46B B a b c - 46B B a b c 46B H133 First House / George Biesinger House Church College, Temple View Part of Lot 1 DPS B a b c f - 60B H134 Kai Hall Church College, Temple View Part of Lot 1 DPS B a b c f - 60B H135 Block Plant Church College, Temple View Part of Lot 1 DPS B a b c f - 60B H136 Waikato Hospital Band Rotunda H137 Bishopscourt and Episcopal Chapel (Former) Hamilton YWCA Waikato Pt Allotment Hospital 25 Te Rapa Grounds, Parish Pembroke St 28 Pembroke St, Corner Clarence St, Hamilton Lot 2 DP (CT SA422/176) South Auckland Land District B a b f - 55B B a b c d f g II 45B Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-14

118 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council Schedule 8B: Group 1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites Note: Reference needs to be made to assessment reports prepared for individual Archaeological and Cultural sites to determine their archaeological and cultural significance (NZAA Site Records) Comment [HCC15]: Barry Harris (Hamilton City Council) ( ) Site Number (NZAA Number*) Name Legal Description Map Number A1 (S18S14/165 ) Te Awa o Katapaki Borrow Pits Lot 18 DPS 85254, Pt Lot 13 DPS B Comment [HCC16]: Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc ( ) A2 (S18S14/204 ) Lime Kiln, Taunga Waka and Te Puru O Hinemoa Sec 2 SO B A3 (S18S14/189 ) Te Totara Lot 2 DPS B A4 (S18S14/46) Kairokiroki Pa Lot 1 DP , Lot 2 DP , Lot 2 DP , Lot 1 DP B A5 (S18S14/59) A6 (S18S14/201 ) Te Kourahi Pa Pt Lot 514 DPS B Mangaiti Borrow Pits Road Reserve 18B A7 (S18S14/38) Miropiko Pa Lot 1 DP 31703, Lot 2 DP 31703, Pt Allot 215 Kirikiriroa PSH 37B A8 (S18S14/77) Un-named Pa Lot 1 DPS 16456, Lot 48 DPS B A9 (S18S14/208 ) A10 (S18S14/111 ) A11 Kukutaruhe Lot 33 DPS B Umu (Oven) Pt Allot 4 Pukete PSH 7B Koromatua Urupa (burial grounds) Pt Allot 371 Tuhikaramea PSH 60B A12 (S18S14/25, S18S14/28) Owhango Pa Lot 3 DPS 9044, Lot 24 DPS 64834, Lot 15 DPS 71459, Pt Lot 2 DPS 9044, Lot 25 DPS 64834, Lot 33 DPS 65265, Lot 6 DPS B A13 (S18S14/27) Kukutaruhe Pa Lot 24 DPS 16087, Lot 4 DPS 16087, Lot 5 DPS 16087, Lot 6 27B Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-15

119 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council Site Number (NZAA Number*) Name Legal Description Map Number DPS A14 ( S18S14/28) Te Inanga Pa Lot 4 DPS 5738, Lot 3 DPS 5738, Lot 2 DPS 5738, Lot 1 DPS B A15 (S18S14/3) Tupari Pa Lot 3 DPS 28101, Pt Lot 2 DPS 28101, Lot 10 DPS 9657, Lot 1 DPS 88068, Pt Lot 1 DPS 9657, Lot 8 DPS B A16 (S18S14/34, S18S14/64) A17 (S18S14/37) Te Rapa Pa Sec 2 SO B, 55B Waitawhiriwhiri Urupa Allot 286 Pukete PSH 36B A18 (S18S14/39) Kirikiriroa Pa Lot 1 DPS 65343, Lot 1 DPS 87404, Lot 4 DP , Lot 2 DPS 87404, Lot 3 DP 31762, Lot 6 DPS 87404, Lot 3 DPS 87404, Lot 1 DPS 81452, Lot 2 DP , Pt Lot 11 DP 11019, Lot 5 DPS 5279, Lot 3 DPS 65343, Pt Lot 12 DP 11019, Lot 1 DP , Pt Lot 11 DP 11019, Lot 7 DPS 87404, Lot 1 DP , Pt Lot 12 DP 11019, Lot 3 DP 10335, Lot 2 DPS 81452, Pt Lot 2 DP 10335, Lot 1 DPS 27882, Lot 4 DP B, 45B A19 (S18S14/41) Opoia Pa Lot 3 DP 14636, Lot 2 DP 14636, Lot 1 DP 14636, Allots 471, 465, 466 and 472 Kirikiriroa PSH, Lot 3 DP B, 45B A20 (S18S14/44) Te Pa O Ruamutu Lot 33 DPS 9899, Lot 34 DPS 9899, Lot 1 DPS 34675, Lot 32 DPS 9899, Lot 26 DPS 9899, Lot 23 DPS 9899, Lot 44 DPS 9899, Lot 27 DPS 9899, Lot 24 DPS 9899, Lot 35 DPS 9899, Lot 28 DPS 9899, Lot 25 DPS 9899, Lot 29 DPS 9899, Lot 1 DPS B A21 (S18S14/60) Te Parapara Pa Pt Allot 252A Kirikiriroa PSH 56B A22 (S18S14/63) Waitawhiriwhiri Pa Lot 1 DPS 63511, Pt Lot 6 DP 14611, Pt Lot 7 DP B A23 Whatanoa Pa Allot 457 TN OF Hamilton West 36B (S18S14/90) A24 Te Raratuna O Tutumua - Allot 4A Pukete PSH 7B Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-16

120 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council Site Number (NZAA Number*) Name Legal Description Map Number (S18S14/97) A25 (S18S14/30, S18S14/19) Pa/Urupa Pukete Pa Sec 2 SO 59857, Lot 1 DPS 55931, Sec 1 SO 58300, Sec 1 SO 59857, Lot 4 DP B A26 (S18S14/66) Te Nihinihi Pa Pt Sec 23 Hamilton East TN BELT, Allot 446 TN OF Hamilton East, Lot 3 DPS 21107, Lot 1 DPS B A27 (S18S14/79) Mangaonua Pa Lot 2 DPS B A28 Te Moutere o Koipikau Pa Graham Island 55B *The NZAA number refers to the New Zealand Archaeological Association reference number for the site. Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-17

121 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council Schedule 8C: Group 2 Archaeological and Cultural Sites Site Number (NZAA Number*) A100 (S18S14/1 76) Name Legal Description Map Number Borrow Pits Lot 4 DPS 81210, Lot 2 DPS B Comment [HCC17]: Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc ( ) A101 (S18S14/2 09) Matakanohi Borrow Pits Pt Allot 32 Pukete PSH, Pt Lot 3 Allot 31 Pukete PSH 17B, 18B, 26B, 27B A103 (S18S14/4 5) Narrows Military Redoubt Allot 483 Kirikiriroa PSH 56B, 57B A104 (S18S14/1 02) Flour Mill Lot 2 DPS 7832 and Lot 1 DPS B Comment [HCC18]: Urlich Properties Limited / Z.I Urlich ( ) and ( ) A105 (S18S14/1 65) Te Awa o Katapaki Borrow Pits Pt Lot 21 DPS 86166, Pt Lot 8 DPS 86166, Lot 17 DPS 85254, Pt Lot 9 DPS B A106 (S18S14/2 3) A107 (S18S14/4 8) Waahi Taonga Lot 16 DPS B Pa Lot 3 DPS B A108 (S18S14/5 7) Hamilton West Military Redoubt Pukerangiora Pt Allot 59A TN OF Hamilton West 45B A109 (S18S14/9 5) Narrows Redoubt Military Redoubt Allot 412 TN OF Hamilton East 46B A110 (S18S14/1 16) A111 (S18S14/1 61) Rotokaeo Waahi Taonga Lot 2 DPS 6986, Lot 3 DPS B Kairokiroki Waahi Taonga Lot 2 DPS B, 57B A112 (S18S14/4) Waiwherowhero Borrow Pits Lot 32 DPS 73457, Lot 29 DPS 73457, Lot 31 DPS 73457, Lot 30 DPS 73457, Lot 16 DPS 58002, Lot 28 DPS 73457, Lot 17 DPS 58002, Lot 1 DPS 73457, Lot 18 DPS 58002, Lot 142 DPS 58002, Lot 37 DPS 11797, Lot 38 DPS 11797, Lot 26B Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-18

122 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council Site Number (NZAA Number*) Name Legal Description Map Number 12 DPS 58002, Lot 67 DPS 79722, Lot 3 DPS 88119, Lot 2 DPS 88119, Lot 1 DPS 88119, Lot 87 DPS 76047, Lot 11 DPS 58002, Lot 85 DPS 76047, Lot 86 DPS 76047, Lot 88 DPS 76047, Lot 89 DPS 76047, Lot 13 DPS 58002, Lot 90 DPS 76047, Lot 94 DPS 76047, Lot 95 DPS 76047, Lot 93 DPS 76047, Lot 91 DPS 76047, Lot 92 DPS 76047, Lot 14 DPS 58002, Lot 96 DPS 76047, Lot 15 DPS 58002, Lot 32 DPS 73457, Lot 29 DPS 73457, Lot 31 DPS 73457, Lot 30 DPS 73457, Lot 16 DPS 58002, Lot 28 DPS 73457, Lot 36 DPS 11797, Lot 6 DPS 58002, Lot 7 DPS A113 Putikitiki Oven Lot 2 DP B (S18S14/4 0) A114 Te Wehenga Urupa Road Reserve (Grey Street) 45B A115 Waipahihi Pa Road Reserve (Armagh Street), Lot 6 DP 1258, Lot 1 DPS 22233, Lot 2 DPS 22233, Pt Lot 3 DPS 22233, Lot 4 DPS 22233, Pt Lot 5 DPS 22233, Pt Lot 12 DP79, Pt Lot 51 DP 11312, Lot 50 DP 11312, Lot 54 DP 11312, Lot 55 DP B A116 The Hamilton Punt/borrow pits Pt Lot 2 DPS 257, Lot 1 DPS 12771, Allot 498 TN of Hamilton West, Lot 1 DPS 257 Allot TN of Hamilton West A117 Mangakookoea Pa Lot 2 DPS 17549, Lot 1 DP , Lot 2 DPS 89533, Lot 2 DP , Lot 1 DPS 83830, Lot 2 DPS 83830, Lot 2 DPS A118 (S18S14/8 6) A119 (S18S14/7 2) 45B 36B Pukete Waahi Taonga Lot 3 DPS B Te Tara-ahi Pa (later Moules Redoubt) Lot 1 DP 35065, Lot 1 DP A120 Matakanohi Pa Lot 20 DPS 379, Lot 4 DPS 74739, Lot 2 DPS B 27B Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-19

123 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council Site Number (NZAA Number*) Name Legal Description Map Number A121 Urupa (unnamed) Sec 2 SO 60256, Pt Allot 397, 398, 399 TN of Hamilton East 45B A122 Te Toka O Arurei Urupa Lot 2 DP B A123 Hua O Te Atua Urupa Riverbank Reserve (adjacent to Marlborough Place) 45B *The NZAA number refers to the New Zealand Archaeological Association reference number for the site. Sites in Group 2 are included in the plan for information purposes only. Volume 2 8 Historic Heritage Page 8-20

124 Appendix C3 Appendix 1 District Plan Administration Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria 1 Heritage Values (Tracked change version) As per the recommendations contained in this s42a Report. Additions are underlined; deletions in strikethrough. Comment boxes identify submission point references to which amendments relate e.g.

125 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council landscape qualities and characteristics. G4 The extent which any fence: a) Detracts from the amenity values or safety of the public realm and adjoining properties. b) Is necessary to provide security for a business and/or public wellbeing. G5 Whether changes in topography or other mitigation measures will provide appropriate screening. H Sites Adjoining the Riverbank H1 Whether development of a site adjoining the riverbank: a) Is landscaped to provide a suitable transition between the built and natural environment. b) Considers the extent to which the scale and design of any building or structure is compatible with that of adjoining development, the street and reserve areas, and with the character and amenity, heritage or open space values of the Riverfront Overlay Area (refer to Appendix 5, Figure 5-1) and adjoining riverbank area. c) Makes adequate provision for building design and configuration, site layout and/or landscaping which enhances the visual and/or physical relationship to the Waikato River. In particular the proposal should encourage pedestrian access to and facilitate public use and enjoyment of, the promenade and environs of the Waikato River. d) Accommodates vehicle parking and/or movement so as to minimise impacts on the riverbank. e) Adequately mitigates the impact of large developments and vehicular oriented activities on the amenity values of the riverbank environment. I I1 Heritage Values General The extent to which the proposal, development, excavation or subdivision of a historic heritage site or place: a) Is consistent with the identified heritage values, including scale, design, form, style, bulk, height, materials and colour, and retains, protects or enhances the historic context. b) Provides for design, layout or location of the activity, including associated building platforms, vehicle access and services on site in a manner that will minimise the disturbance of the site. c) Provides for the on-going maintenance of the site to ensure that the site is preserved and that damage does not occur. d) In Schedule 8A of Appendix 8 maintains visual linkages between the building or structure and the street. e) Is compatible with the reasons for inclusion of the building, structure or site and its significance in Schedules 8A or 8B, of Appendix 8. f) Addresses cumulative effects on heritage values. g) The irreversibility of an effect (e.g. the loss of unique features) h) The opportunities for remediation and the costs and technical feasibility of Comment [HCC3]: Waikato Regional Council ( ), New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( ) & (FS ) Volume Restricted Discretionary Activities Page 1-18

126 Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 remediation. i) The resilience of the heritage feature to change (e.g. the ability of the feature to assimilate change, or the vulnerability of the feature to change). gj) Adheres to the conservation principles of International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter (2010) for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value, where applicable. hk) Includes consultation with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT). il) In the event of relocation, has adequately considered whether the relocation is necessary and whether appropriate measures are proposed to ensure any potential adverse effects on heritage values are avoided, remedied or mitigated. jm) Incorporates proposed planting, fencing and identification (e.g. signage) sufficient to ensure site recognition. Whether the heritage values of any buildings or places identified in Schedules 8A or 8B of Appendix 8 would be adversely affected by the proposal. Whether the proposal including modification, re-use, renovation or restoration to the building or structure: a) Contributes positively to the character of the surrounding area and maintains the relationship of the building or structure with its setting. b) Will have positive environmental, social, or cultural effects for the wider community. c) Considers the extent to which the primary façade of a scheduled building is proposed to be altered, and whether the main determinants of the style and character, and the heritage significance, of the building are maintained or restored. d) Ensures new buildings respect the design, scale and materials of any original façade. Temple View Heritage Area The extent to which new development or earthworks (including the planting or removal of vegetation and trees) would adversely effect the landscape setting and views of the Temple from Tuhikaramea Road. Whether works to a transport corridor or parking area continue the consistent use of materials and kerb edging used throughout the Heritage Area. The extent to which provision has been made for the investigation, recording or preservation of any archaeological deposits or features. Temple View Character Area The extent to which development maintains the characteristic setback of buildings from the transport corridor, visibility between the dwelling and the transport corridor and high levels of landscaping and permeable surfaces within the front building setback. The extent to which the proposed development, building, structure, alteration or addition is compatible with the scale, form style, bulk, height, colour or materials of surrounding buildings or structures within the same comprehensive development plan area. Whether removal of any building or structure within the Character Area will affect Volume Restricted Discretionary Activities Page 1-19

127 Appendix C4 Chapter 1 Plan Overview (Tracked change version) As per the recommendations contained in this s42a Report. Additions are underlined; deletions in strikethrough. Comment boxes identify submission point references to which amendments relate e.g.

128 PROCESS TO DETERMINE NOTIFICATION OF RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATIONS Chapter 1: Plan Overview Rule Notification/Non-notification Rules START Is the Activity: marked with an asterisk (*) in Rules 4.10a), 5.6a), 6.6a), 7.7a), 8.9a), 9.6a), 9.7a), 10.6a), 11.6a), 12.7a), 14.7a), 15.7a), 16.6a), 18.7a), 19.5a), 20.5a), 23.8a), a), a), or a); or a Show home in the Residential Intensification Zone NO Notification will be determined in accordance with s95 of the Act YES Has the applicant requested notification in accordance with s95a(2)(b)? Does a national environmental standard require notification or limited notification in accordance with s95a(2)(c) or s95b(2)? Does s95c(1) apply in relation to the notification of consent applications after a request for further information or report? YES NO Is the Activity failing a relevant standard or standards in the Plan? (Excluding standards identified in Rules 18.7 a), 19.5 a) i, iv, v, vii, or ix 20.5 a) ii., a) iii. to vii., and a) iv. to v.) YES Notification will be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act in relation to the effects of not complying with that standard or standards. NO Is the Activity identified in Rules a) i. or ii., or failing a standard identified in Rules 18.7 a) or a) iv. to v.? YES Does the activity cause minor or more than minor adverse effects on the State Highway Network? YES New Zealand Transport Agency will be considered an affected person and be notified on a limited basis. Does the Activity fail a standard identified in Rule a) iv.? YES Does the activity cause minor or more than minor adverse effects on the Rail Network? YES Kiwirail will be considered an affected person and be notified on a limited basis. Does the Activity fail a standard identified in Rule a) v.? Is the Activity identified in Rules 19.5 a) i, iv, v, vii or ix. YES Does the activity cause minor or more than minor adverse effects on the operation of Hamilton Airport? YES The operator of Hamilton Airport will be considered an affected person and be notified on a limited basis. NO YES Does the activity cause minor or more than minor adverse effects on heritage buildings, structures, sites NO and items identified in Schedule 8A and 8B? YES New Zealand Historic Places Trust will be considered an affected person and be notified on a limited basis. The activity will be considered without notification (or limited notification) or the need to obtain approval from affected persons NO New Zealand Historic Places Trust ( )

129 Appendix D Zoning Map Changes 1

130 53 As Notified D A W S O N S T R E E T Chapter 19 Historic Heritage Zone Proposed Change to Features Map D A W S O N S T R E E T S42a Report Appendix D ± ± As Recommended V O N T E M P S K Y S T R E E T [` T V O N T E M P S K Y S T R E E T [` T2 A113 1 B E A L E S T A113 1 B E A L E S T B E A L E S T R E E T B E A L E S T R E E T [` [`[` [` [` [` A119 [`[` [` [` [` A119 MAP: 45B and 46B Submission No: Meters Date:15 October 2013 V1

131 Chapter 19: - Historic Heritage Proposed Change to Zoning Map S42a Report Appendix D 1 1 B E A L E S T R E E V O N T E M P S K Y S T R E E T As Notified ± As Recommended ± 1 1 B E A L E S T R E E B E A L E S T R E E T 1 V O N T E M P S K Y S T R E E T B E A L E S T R E E T Site Plan 5 5 E 1 E 1 MAP: 45A and 46A Submission No: Meters Date:15 October 2013 V1

132 E E Chapter 19 Historic Heritage Zone Proposed Change to Features Map S42a Report Appendix D As Notified T8 ± As Recommended ± [` [` [` T8 [` MAP: 45B Submission No: Meters Date:15 October 2013 V1

133 Chapter 19: - Historic Heritage Proposed Change to Zoning Map S42a Report Appendix D T As Notified ± As Recommended ± T T E R R A C E T E R R A C E ROUGH ROUGH Site Plan MAP: 45A E Submission No: Meters Date:15 October 2013 V1

134 Recommended Changes to Figure 4-1, Hamilton East, Dwelling Control Area and Pre 1940 Dwellings Appendix D Submitter: Date: 15 October 2013 O'NEILL STREET MYRTLE STREE T BROOKLYN ROAD CLAUDELANDS ROAD NEW STREET MASONSAVENUE TE AROHA STREET WHYTE STREET ARGYLE STREET ARMAGH STREET BELL STREET BOND STREET BAINS AVENUE JAMES STREET FRANCES STREET PEACHGROVE ROAD J OS HUA LANE EMMADALE LANE RUAKURA ROAD FINCHLEY PLACE SUBSTATION ROAD NOTTINGHAM DRIVE CHANCERYCLOSE THIS TLEWOOD AVENUE ± OPOIA ROAD RIVER ROAD RIRO STREET SCOTT AVENUE CAMERON ROAD PEACHGROVE ROAD OLD FARM ROAD INVERNESS AVENUE DAWSON STREET WILSON STREET YORK STREET MEMORIAL DRIVE VON TEMPSKY STREET BEALE STREET KELVIN PLACE CLYDE STREET PINFOLD AVENUE NELSON STREET CASSIDY STREET YORK STREET VICTORIA STREET GRANTHAM STREET DEY STREET GREY STREET TISDALL STREET COOK STREET ANGLESEA STREET RADNOR STREET COATES STREET WELLINGTON STREET NIXON STREET BROWN STREET TERRACE GALLOWAY STREET FOX STREET COBHAM DRIVE HILLSBOROUGH FIRTH STREET ALBERT STREET FINDLAY STREET MACFARLANE STREET JELLICOE DRIVE GALWAY AVENUE NAYLOR STREET FERGUSSO N STREET JELLICOE DRIVE PLUNKET TERRACE BLEDISLOE TERRACE ONSLOW STREET GRAHAM STREET BROOKFIELD STREET Legend Pre 1940 Dwellings Dwelling Control Area Y AVENUE COBHAM DRIVE Hamilton East Area COBHAM DRIVE HUNGERFOR D CRES CENT Meters

135 Chapter 19: - Historic Heritage Proposed Change to Zoning Map S42a Report Appendix D As Notified k Park ARAWA STREET ± As Recommended ± k Park ARAWA STREET MASSEY STREET MASSEY STREET C A M P B E L L STRE Site Plan LYON STREET PITT ST C A M P B E L L STRE LYON STREET PITT ST MAP: 43A Submission No: Meters Date:15 October 2013 V1

136 URLICH AVENUE Chapter 19: Historic Heritage Proposed Change to Features - A104 Significant Archaeological Sites S42a Report Appendix D As Notified ± ± As Recommended URLICH AVENUE COLLINS ROAD OHAUPO ROAD COLLINS ROAD OHAUPO ROAD A104 A m 38.2m OHAUPO ROAD TOMIN ROAD 38.2m OHAUPO ROAD TOMIN ROAD MAP: 55B and 62B I55 GLENVIEW TERRACE Submission No: , Meters I55 GLENVIEW TERRACE Date:15 October 2013 V1

137 B E A L As Notified Chapter 19 Historic Heritage Zone Proposed Change to Features Map - H100 B E A L S42a Report Appendix D ± ± As Recommended [` [` A119 A MAP: 45B and 46B [` [` Submission No: Meters [` [` Date:15 October 2013 V1

138 Appendix E Built Heritage Inventory Records H39 H50 H57 H88 Central Post Office Notre Dame des Missions House (126 Forest Lake Road) Municipal Baths H106 David O McKay Building H107 G.R. Biesinger Hall H109 Wendell B Mendenhall Library H113 Former Morris Stores and Motor Services (116 Grey St) H133 First House/George Biesinger House H134 Kai Hall H135 Block Plant Matthews and Matthews Architects Report 1

139 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H39 Building/ Site Name: Address: Central Post Office and Dome 346 Victoria Street District Plan Reference: H39, Map 45B, category A Legal Description: Lot 2 DPS Zone: Registered NZHPT: Central City Zone No Date of Construction: 1939 Designer/ Builder: Current use/building type: Visible materials: canopies Edgecumbe and White, architects; W.B. Young, builder Former Post office, now Sky City Casino Plastered reinforced concrete, steel framed windows. Glazed 1

140 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H39 HISTORIC SUMMARY: The former Chief Post Office building at 346 Victoria Street is the fourth purpose-built post office serving the central district in Hamilton and was opened in The first post office was opened in 1874, in an army tent by the eastern bank of the Waikato River. The post office occupied two further temporary premises before the first purpose-built post office was opened in Victoria Street in In 1898 a new timber post office was erected on an adjacent site and a year later it was badly damaged by fire. A two storey brick post office was opened in 1902 and this would remain the Chief Post Office at Hamilton until i. (This post office remains at 132 Victoria Street, opposite Hood Street, and has been adapted for use as the ArtsPost gallery.) 1939, the heavy earthmoving machinery moved in and chiselled down the hill leaving behind more than three acres of flat land. vii As Garden Place hill was demolished, the new Hamilton Central Post Office arose. The election of the first Labour government in 1935 heralded great changes for the post office. The government quickly set about implementing its social policy. There was increased access to welfare benefits brought about by a raft of social legislation passed in 1936 and the years following, including the1938 Social Security Act. This had considerable implications for the post office which was responsible for the distribution of public funds to those entitled to state benefits. ii In order to cope with the increase in business, the Post and Telegraph Department planned a 4-5 year work programme which began in iii Hamilton would gain a new Chief Post Office building as part of this nationwide expansion of post office facilities. Traditionally the design of post offices was the responsibility of the Government Architects office within the Ministry of Works. However, the massive rise in design work for the post office and other government departments left the staff overstretched. In 1937 the Director of the Post and Telegraph Department reported that: On account of the pressure of work on the Public Works Department, my Department has been authorised to employ private architects for building work that the Public Works Department is unable to handle expeditiously. iv Looking across Garden Place to the Hamilton Chief Post Office under construction, c1939. Hamilton City Libraries, HCL The Hamilton architectural firm of Edgecumbe and White was engaged to prepare plans for the new Chief Post Office in Hamilton. The principals of the partnership at the time were John Harold Edgecumbe and Harold Leonard White. The firm had also designed the Tauranga Post Office in The site of the new Chief Post Office building held a prominent position on the edge of a new central business district development. The building represents a period when the Post Office was a point of great importance and pride, and a major focus of both ordinary and commercial life in New Zealand towns and cities. The new post office, located several blocks to the north of the old post office, was built during the excavation of Garden Place hill. The hill was an inconvenient feature which hampered the commercial development in the area in the early twentieth century. Many of Hamilton s early shops and businesses had been located in the Ferrybank area, but in the mid 1870s the main business zone was located at the southern end of Victoria Street. v In the twentieth century commercial development crept further to the north, away from the ferry landing which had provided a vital transport link in earlier years and closer to the railway station which offered a more modern and efficient form of transport. The Garden Place hill had gradually become a blemish within the commercial area, rather than a geographic feature on the edge of it. vi While removal of the hill had been mooted as early as the 1920s, it proved to be a controversial issue for many years. Finally in Looking across Garden Place to the Hamilton Chief Post Office, c1960s. Hamilton City Libraries, HCL

141 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H39 Local building firm W.B. Young Ltd, the largest building firm in Hamilton at the time, was responsible for building the new post office. William Bennett Young came to Hamilton in 1905 at the age of seven and began working as a builder on his own account in viii W.B. Young Ltd mainly worked in the commercial sector and built one of the first welded steel framed buildings in New Zealand, Bledisloe hall, built in ix The firm was also responsible for the Huntly Town Hall and Library (1920s), the State Theatre in Hamilton (1932), the Hamilton Municipal building, New Zealand Insurance building in Garden Place, Manchester Unity building, Western Building Society building, Alma Street Radio building and the AMP building in Garden Place. x In 1965 he noted that the post office was one of the buildings he was most proud of. xi In 1936 Young was elected first president of the Hamilton Master Builders Association. xii Young was also active in local community organisations serving as president of the Claudelands Bowling Club. He was also a life member of the St John Ambulance Association and the YMCA. He died at Hamilton in April 1983 at the age of 85. xiii Building work on Edgecumbe and White s new post office began in August 1938, on a site formerly occupied by the Hamilton Courthouse, erected in In 1931 a new courthouse was built in Angelsea Street and the engineering staff of the Post and Telegraph Department moved into the former courthouse in Victoria Street. The former courthouse building was sold for removal in early 1938 and the new post office building built in its place. xiv The foundation stone for the new post office building was laid on 24 May 1939 by Postmaster General F. Jones. xv A notable feature of the building was a Lenscrete dome over the public area on the ground floor. On 2 December 1940 the building was officially opened by the Postmaster General, former miner and unionist turned politician, P.C. Webb (known as Paddy). It had been erected as cost of 70,000. xvi While the Hamilton Chief Post Office initially looked out on the barren wasteland that had been the Garden Place hill, the surroundings gradually improved. Development at the edges of Garden Place was no doubt hindered by the labour and materials shortages of the 1940s occasioned by the Second World War. However, by the mid 1950s Garden Place was edged with four new five storey buildings, the largest in Hamilton at the time, with the new post office xvii clearly visible just across Victoria Street. Development of the area continued with further new high rise buildings and municipal buildings. In 1960s the car park that had occupied the centre of Garden Place was replaced with a grassed recreation area and the following xviii decade cars were banished from the periphery, making it a pedestrian mall. The Central Post Office had become the most visible public building on Hamilton s main street as viewed from the new heart of the city at Garden Place. In 1982 alterations were carried out to the Hamilton Chief Post Office building including recladding the front façade. Due to deterioration of some of the original Hinuera Stone cladding, the stonework was covered in a panel material to a different design A verandah was added and the interior remodelled at the same time. Five years later mail handling services were transferred to premises in nearby London Street but the Chief Post Office building retained its role as a PostShop. In 1990 the building was sold and remodelled for use as backpacker accommodation, with marble form the interior removed at this time. xix It was subsequently converted into a casino. Substantial alterations were made including raising the height of the dome and extending the building. xx a) Historic Qualities i) Associative Value: The Historic Place has a direct association with or relationship to, a person, group, institution, event or activity that is of historical significance to Hamilton, the Waikato or New Zealand. The former Hamilton Chief Post Office is associated with the Post and Telegraph Department (later known as the Post Office Department), which had the building erected and utilised it as the key post office building in Hamilton for half a century. It is also associated with the wellknown miner, trade unionist and politician Paddy Webb who officially opened the building in 1940 when he held the position of Postmaster-General. ii) Historic Pattern: The Historic Place is associated with broad patterns of local, regional or national history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes, social or economic trends and activities. The former Hamilton Post Office is associated with the expansion of post office services brought about by the social legislation introduced by the first Labour government in the 1930s. It is associated with the development of the Garden Place locale as the new focus of Hamilton s central business district. It is has been associated with provision of postal services to the people of Hamilton for half a century. In recent years the building has become one of many former post office buildings to be sold and redeveloped for an alternative use. b) Physical/ Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities: i Style/Design/Type: The style of the Historic Place is representative of a significant development period in the city, region and or the nation; The Historic Place is associated with a significant activity, reflected in its design, function or type. The Historic Place has distinctive or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature which may include its design, form, massing, scale, proportions materials, ornamentation, period, craftsmanship, or other design element. The 1939 Post Office is very significant as an example of the work of Hamilton architectural firm of Edgecumbe and White. The design of the post office is similar to other post offices and public buildings designed at a similar time under the direction of Government architect J T Mair such as the Government Life Insurance Office in Nelson(1938), the Public Works Department Building in Napier (1939)and Invercargill Post Office (1941) The symmetrical arrangement of the main facade and division into bays with a central raised parapet are typical of stripped classical and Art Deco styles however use of restrained, low relief decorative detail and the effect of full height pilasters between the windows demonstrate the progression towards the international modern style. The former Hamilton Post Office is one of a recognisable group of post office buildings of this period in a number of New Zealand cities, which are high quality, enduring and recognisable public buildings forming part of these urban environments. Original drawings show that the ground floor contained a main public space beneath the dome with counters on three sides. The post office savings bank was at the right front corner of the building with clerical areas behind. A private box lobby and large mail room were located along the north side, with parcels room at the rear of the main public space. Lifts were located to the left side of the lobby and a main staircase was to the right, leading up to the Post Master General s Office. 3

142 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H39 An outstanding feature of the Hamilton Post Office was the dome. Original architectural drawings describe it as a Lenscrete dome and show that it was cleverly constructed of sixteen hundred and sixty glass lenses, set within a steel reinforced concrete shell with perimeter ring beams. Young constructed virtually the whole glass dome himself. xxi Front elevation, Hamilton Post Office. Waikato Museum Collection, 1963/70/12, part of sheet 6, dated September Diagram showing Lenscrete glass and ferro-concrete dome construction contained in a British Architects Standard catalogue. xxii 4

143 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H39 Ground floor plan, Waikato Museum Collection, 1963/70/12, Sheet 3. Plan of Hamilton Post Office Lenscrete dome. Waikato Museum Collection, 1963/70/12. Lenscrete glass and concrete construction was promoted in an English Architects standard catalogue in and is likely to be a patented system used for the Hamilton Post Office. xxiii It was described as a homogenous mass of glass and concrete and was similar to methods used for pavement glass lenses. Lenscrete glazed domes were used in the Regal cinema in Margate and Lenscrete pavement lights were used outside Harrods. 5

144 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H39 ii Designer or Builder: The architect, designer, engineer or builder for the Historic Place was a notable practitioner or made a significant contribution to the city, region or nation, and the place enlarges understanding of their work. The 1939 Post Office is very significant as an example of the work of Hamilton architectural firm of Edgecumbe and White. John Harold Edgecumbe was born in Frankton, son of George Edgecumbe, publisher of the Waikato Argus and later director of the Waikato Times. He worked for a time as a builder before being articled to architect W.A. Holman at Auckland. In 1913 he went to England to complete his architectural training. He joined the Royal Engineers with whom he served during the First World War, being awarded the Military Medal for bravery in It appears that he returned to New Zealand soon after this, when he formed a partnership with White in He had interests other than architecture, serving as a director of the Waikato Times as his father had done. Edgecumbe retired in 1948 and died at Te Aroha in Little is known of Harold Leonard White. He continued to work as an architect after the retirement of John Edgecumbe when their firm was known as Edgecumbe White and Leigh. White was a partner in subsequent firms White and White, White McDonald and Kennedy, White White and McDonald, and White Leigh DeLisle and Fraser. In 1957 White was made a Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Architects. Edgecumbe and White designed a number of prominent public buildings in the Waikato and served as the architects to the Waikato Hospital Board for a number of years. These included the Hamilton Municipal Offices (H77,1932), Otorohonga Post Office (1933), Exhibition Hall for the Waikato Winter Show Association (1934), Administration and Central Block of Hamilton Hospital (1937 and 1941), Tauranga Post Office (1938), Hamilton Post Office (1939), Cambridge Clock Tower, Bledisloe Hall in Hamilton (1938), Ngaruawahia Hall and the South British Insurance Company premises in Hamilton. xxiv The practice was responsible for the design of the main administration building, Dining room and early open-air classrooms at Diocesan School for Girls in Hamilton, (H 66, 67 and 86). Edgecumbe and White and associated practices have made important contributions to the architecture of Hamilton and the Waikato. The former Hamilton Chief Post Office is also associated with the well-known local building firm run by W.B. Young. iii Rarity: The Historic Place or elements of it are unique, uncommon or rare at a local, district or national level, or in relation to particular historic themes. The Lenscrete dome is an uncommon feature of the Hamilton Post Office. Iv Integrity: The Historic Place has integrity, retaining significant features from its time of construction, or later periods when important modifications or additions were carried out. While alterations have been made to the building it retains significant features from the time of its construction together with later modifications. In 1983 alterations were carried out to the Hamilton Chief Post Office building including re-cladding the front façade and the addition of a verandah. In 1990 the building was sold and used as backpacker accommodation before being converted into a casino. Substantial alterations were made including raising the height of the dome and extending the building. xxv Alterations to the front include forming new openings at ground level and the addition of canopies and balconies. c) Context or Group Values i The physical and visual character of the site or setting of the Historic Place is of importance to the value of the place; The former Post Office is located in a prominent position in Victoria Street, opposite Garden Place. It was a substantial building when built, compared to the predominant two storey scale in the Mainstreet and continues to make an important contribution to the streetscape. The post office abuts adjacent development on its northern and eastern sides with a service lane on its south side. The south elevation is plainly detailed with plastered walls and vertically proportioned windows arranged in pairs and singly, close to the Victoria Street frontage. ii The Historic Place is an important visual landmark or feature, The building is located on the east side of Victoria Street opposite Garden Place and is a landmark building in Victoria Street. iii The Historic Place makes an important contribution to the continuity or character of the street, neighbourhood, area or landscape. The former Post Office makes an important contribution to the built character of Victoria Street, opposite Garden Place. iv The Historic Place is part of a group or collection of places which together have a coherence because of such factors as history, age, appearance, style, scale, materials, proximity or use, landscape or setting which, when considered as a whole, amplify the heritage values of the place and group/ landscape or extend its significance, The building forms part of a group of public and commercial buildings built around Garden Place. Removal of the Garden Place hill and the formation of the level plaza in the centre of central Hamilton commenced in 1939, and by the mid 1950s Garden Place was edged with four new five storey buildings, the largest in Hamilton at the time, with the new post office clearly visible just across Victoria Street. It is one of two significant post office buildings remaining in Victoria Street, the other located at 132 Victoria Street (H35). 6

145 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H39 f) Cultural Qualities: The Historic Place is important as a focus of cultural sentiment; The Historic Place significantly contributes to community identity or sense of place or provides evidence of cultural or historical continuity, the Historic Place has symbolic or commemorative significance to people who use or have used it, or to the descendants of such people. The interpretative capacity of the Historic Place can potentially increase understanding of past lifestyles or events. The building represents an important focus of community and business life that Post Offices represented in all towns and communities in New Zealand in the first half of the twentieth century. The building represents a period when the Post Office was a point of great importance and pride, and a major focus of both day to day and commercial life in New Zealand. It is a substantial well designed and detailed public building occupying a prominent central site in Hamilton, providing evidence of the consolidation of the central business district in the late 1930s. The building has potential, through interpretive information to add to an understanding of the development of public facilities in Hamilton. The building has featured in a monograph describing 36 of Hamilton s historic structures. xxvi The building is recognised as significant by its inclusion in the Schedule of Heritage Items Appendix 2.3-II in the Hamilton District Plan. g) Scientific Qualities: Aerial photo, Hamilton City Council. d) Technological Qualities: The Historic Place is representative of innovative or important methods of construction, contains unusual construction materials, is an early example of the use of a particular construction technique or has potential to contribute information about technological or engineering history The building was constructed of reinforced concrete and designed to meet the latest regulations in earthquake resistance requirements at the time. It is well detailed and constructed using high quality materials and finishes such as granite to the base of the main facade, steel framed windows and the glass lens dome. e) Archaeological Qualities: i The potential of the Historic Place to define or expand knowledge of earlier human occupation, activities or events through investigation using archaeological methods. ii The potential of the Historic Place to provide evidence to address archaeological research questions. iii The Historic Place is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for its archaeological values, or is recorded by the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Recoding Scheme, or is an archaeological site as defined by the Historic Places Act (Not assessed as part of this evaluation). The potential for the Historic Place to contribute information about an historic figure, event, phase or activity. The degree to which the Historic Place may contribute further information and the importance, rarity, quality or representativeness of the data involved. The building has potential to add to an understanding of Hamilton s history through the provision of interpretive information. The building contributes information about the work of architects Edgecumbe and White in Hamilton and use of reinforced concrete construction and specialised features such as the glass lens dome. Summary of assessed significance and management category The place is scheduled in Category A. The place is considered to be of highly significant heritage value locally and regionally and has high significance in relation to the following criteria: a)historic Qualities; High, b) Physical/Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities; High, c) Context or Group Values; High, d) Technological Qualities; moderate, e) Archaeological Qualities;(not assessed) f) Cultural Qualities, High. The former Hamilton Post Office is of great significance as the fourth purpose-built post office in Hamilton, opened in Post office buildings such as this one were part of a major building and public works programme undertaken by the first Labour Government. Its construction reflected the growing needs of Hamilton, which was developing rapidly during the 1920s and 1930s. It is an important example of the work of architects Edgecumbe and White of Hamilton who designed a number of other significant public buildings in the Waikato, 7

146 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H39 as well as well-known local building firm run by W.B. Young. It is one of a group of important public and commercial buildings clustered around Garden Place in Hamilton. Form prepared 2012 Revision Surveyor/ Researcher: Tania Mace, Matthews & Matthews Architects Ltd Sources for information: i Gibbons, p.60 and Gerald Lawson, New Zealand Chief Post Offices: A Chronological Postal History Study, Auckland, 2004, pp ii Howard Robinson, A History of the Post Office in New Zealand, Wellington, 1964, p.206. iii Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1936, F-1, p.5. iv Ibid., 1937, F-1, p.5. v Gibbons, p.5. vi Ibid., p.196. vii Ibid., pp viii Waikato Times, 4 December 1965, Supplement, p.3. ix Gibbons states that the Bledisloe Hall was often referred to as the first all-steel-welded building in the world. However, an article on Steel Framing in New Zealand states that the first fully welded steel framed structure in the world was the five storey Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company building in Pennsylvania. This article also notes that the 1939 former New Zealand Road Services Building in Dunedin utilised welded steel framing for its roof structure and was amongst the earliest building in New Zealand incorporate welded steel framing. Gibbons, p.226; Evening Post, 14 February 1935, p.15 and Nigel Isaacs, Steel Framing in New Zealand, Build, Vol. 121, December 2010-January 2011, pp x W.B. Young, W B Young s Life Story, unpublished manuscript, Hamilton City Library, p.11 and 12, and William Bennett Young, DNZB file, , Hamilton City Library. xi Waikato Times, 4 December 1965, Supplement, p.3. xii Young, p.18. xiii Waikato Times, 5 April 1983, p.5. xiv Waikato Times, 21 February 1931, p.3 and 2 December 1940, p.5; Certificate of Title 66/58, Land Information New Zealand; Post Offices Hamilton Old Courthouse Telegraph Engineers Office , AATE A Box 441 d 33/50, Archives New Zealand, Auckland, 15 January xv Waikato Times, 24 May 1939, p.8. xvi Evening Post, 3 December 1940, p.11 and Len Richardson, Webb, Patrick Charles Biography, from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara The Encylopedia of New Zealand, updated 1 September 2010, xvii Gibbons, p.246. xviii Ibid., p.293. xix Report by Opus- Review and assessment of Heritage Items and Archaeological sites in Hamilton City, 23 February 2001, H39: Central Post Office Dome. xx Ivan Clulee, Post Office Buildings in the Central North Island, Auckland, 2010, pp xxi Gibbons, pp.217 and 218 and Transcription of Interview 2 with Mr W.B. Young, dated 13/1/81, Hamilton City Library, p.1 xxii xxiii xxiv Sheppard Files E23j and W584h, Architecture Library, University of Auckland and Butt Scrapbook, Vol. 2, p.8 and Vol.11, p.60, Hamilton City Library. xxv Ivan Clulee, Post Office Buildings in the Central North Island, Auckland, 2010, pp xxvi Heritage Hamilton; a celebration of the city s historic buildings, Waikato Institute of Technology (Wintec) and Hamilton City Council 2006 pp

147 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H50 Address: 47 Clyde Street, Hamilton East Building/ Site Name: Notre Dame des Missions/ Convent for the Sisters of the Mission HISTORIC SUMMARY: In 1939, Auckland architect Daniel B Patterson designed a new convent for the Sisters of the Mission in Clyde Street, Hamilton. The new convent was officially opened by the Bishop of Auckland, James Liston, in Four Sisters of Our Lady of the Missions arrived in Hamilton in 1884, initially living in a cottage in Cook Street and teaching from the Hibernian Hall, before purchasing a site in Clyde Street where a timber school and boarding hostel was built. The Institute of Notre Dame des Missions was founded by Euphraise Barbier (later known as Reverend Mother Marie of the Heart of Jesus). It was established in Lyon, France on 15 August 1861, as a new foundation to train religious teachers for foreign missionary work. In October 1864 four sisters from the fledging foundation planned to establish an institute in New Zealand. They sailed from France to London, then onto New Zealand, and after a five month journey they arrived at Napier in In February of the same year they quickly established the first Missionary Convent of their Order. In 1868 a further four sisters left Lyon and travelled to Christchurch; and then six sisters travelled to Nelson in In Nelson they established an orphanage, a day and boarding schools dedicated to the Sacred Heart. The Reverend Mother Marie travelled twice around the world to visit the orders she established. i District Plan Reference: H50, Map 46B, Category B Legal Description: Allotments 15 and 16 Town of Hamilton East, DP Zoning: Registered NZHPT: Community Facilities Zone No Date of Construction: 1939 Designer/ Builder: Current use/building type: Visible materials: Architect Daniel Boys Patterson Auckland, 1914 ANZIA and 1926 FNZIA Church buildings Plastered brick, terracotta tiled roof, timber joinery The first convent, completed in Hamilton City Libraries, HCL A school was established in Hamilton in July 1884 by the Reverend Mother, under orders from the Bishop of Auckland Dr. J. E. Luck, to cater for day pupils and boarders. ii Similar to Catholic schools established at a similar time, by different orders in other New Zealand 1

148 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H50 centres, this was in response to the need seen at the time to provide religious instruction and education in the era of public, and secular, schooling iii. Reverend Mother selected four sisters from the Institute of Notre Dame des Missions from the south Island and from Napier to establish a new foundation in Hamilton East, including Sister Mary St Germaine, Sister Mary of the Seven Dolours, Sister Mary Angele and Sister Francis of Assisi iv. Prior to the sister s arrival, the Catholic community in Hamilton had been administered by two Benedictine Fathers. The sisters rented two houses and commenced the building of a convent and schools on two acres of land near the Catholic Church; the land was purchased for 120. Due to the comparative poverty of the Hamilton Parish, the Reverend Mother, who had travelled with the sisters to Hamilton, contributed to the cost of constructing a convent on the Clyde Street site, together with the Catholic community who helped raise a sum of 120 in Plans were drawn and approved and the foundation stone was laid on 26 October In the same month Reverend Mother Marie of the Heart of Jesus asked Mr. O Hanlon from Napier to oversee the construction of the convent; the building was completed on 4 June The sisters moved to a spacious convent after their confined quarters in Cook Street. In 1885 His Lordship Bishop Luck officiated at the opening of the new three-storey timber convent. The sisters established a day school for children of the parish. Classes for the older girls were established in French, drawing, music and needlework. v During this time the Catholic community in Hamilton had approximately 100 members. By 1889 there were six sisters who worked in the Hamilton Parish. In November of that year a new school was opened next to the convent. The classrooms vacated by the pupils of the parish school were used for the purpose of the establishment of a Select School. In 1926 St Mary s Convent Chapel was designed by Hamilton architect Jack Chitty and built by Hargreaves, Stapleton & Rolfe, at a cost of 2,500 vi In 1930 a marble altar and pair of angels complete with a cluster of electric lights in the form of a crown was designed for the interior of the chapel. vii By 1938 the old convent was considered unsafe and development of a new building was initiated. viii Daniel Boys Patterson, an Auckland-based architect, designed the convent for the Sisters of the Mission in two stages. In 1938 a building permit was obtained from Hamilton Borough Council (HBC) to construct a convent in brick and concrete; the building firm was W.H. Whittaker & Co. Ltd., and the cost was 11, 777. ix This was for the centre block and the east wing. In 1939 Daniel Boys Patterson drew architectural plans for a new three storey centre block for the Sisters of the Mission in Clyde Street, Hamilton East. x Patterson s drawings for the west wing were also prepared in xi On the 6 December 1939 the sisters applied to the Hamilton Borough Council for a building permit to construct a west wing in brick. The builder was T. Clements and the cost of the build was 14,000. xii Elevations of the East Wing designed by Daniel B Patterson, dated June Auckland Architecture Archive, University of Auckland. In 1944 St Mary s convent employed Ellis & Burnand, a Hamilton building firm, to make additions to the convent at a cost of 150. xiii A one-storey brick laundry with a corrugated iron roof was erected in In November 1958 a book room was added at a cost of 300. A separate Recreation Hall was constructed in It has a concrete foundation with Ferroconcrete walls, which are brick faced, and aluminium roof on steel portal trusses; the interior walls were plastered smooth, ceilings pinex board and the floors parquet on concrete. xiv In January 1981 Hamilton registered architects White and MacDonald were commissioned to design a store room. The convent was home to around 30 sisters who taught at St Columba s in Frankton, St Mary s Primary School and Sacred Heart College in Hamilton East. Now the sisters live in units near the Chapel and the convent is used as a hostel for boarders at Sacred Heart College. xv 2

149 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H50 a) Historic Qualities i) Associative Value: The Historic Place has a direct association with or relationship to, a person, group, institution, event or activity that is of historical significance to Hamilton, the Waikato or New Zealand. The convent has important associations with the Institute of Notre Dame des Missions founded by Euphraise Barbier (later known as Reverend Mother Marie of the Heart of Jesus). in Lyon, France in It has important associations with the four sisters from the Institute of Notre Dame des Missions, who established a convent and school in Hamilton in The building has important associations with the Sisters who lived here and taught at St Columba s in Frankton, St Mary s Primary School and Sacred Heart College and for students who have stayed here. It has been a substantial feature of Clyde Street in Hamilton East for over seventy years. ii) Historic Pattern: The Historic Place is associated with broad patterns of local, regional or national history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes, social or economic trends and activities. The building is an important part of a group of religious and educational structures built by the Institute of Notre Dame des Missions and the Catholic Church in Clyde Street and Grey Street, to serve the local residential population. It demonstrates the important role of Catholic Religious orders in the provision of education and social services in Hamilton, and New Zealand. b) Physical/ Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities: i Style/Design/Type: The style of the Historic Place is representative of a significant development period in the city, region and or the nation; The Historic Place is associated with a significant activity, reflected in its design, function or type. The Historic Place has distinctive or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature which may include its design, form, massing, scale, proportions materials, ornamentation, period, craftsmanship, or other design element. The convent is significant for its architectural design incorporating elements of the Romanesque style such as an arcaded loggia, arched ground floor windows and arched panels above the first floor windows and central tower and niche, as well as Spanish Mission influences such as the pierced corner piers. This style was also used on a number of buildings built for the Catholic Church around the 1930s in Auckland, designed by the practice of Tole and Massey, such as the 1930 Star of the Sea Convent in Howick and 1939 Dominican Convent in Northcote in Auckland. Plan showing west wing to be constructed and the east and central wings built or under construction by Auckland Architecture Archive, University of Auckland. The east wing was designed to house a boarder s reception and refectory as well as music rooms on the ground floor. A children s infirmary, dormitory and study room were on the first floor with sleeping cubicles and bathrooms on the second floor. The west wing housed the Sister s community room, office, infirmary and some bedrooms at ground level with bedrooms and bathrooms located on the first and second floors along with xvii a workroom and study. Daniel B Patterson also designed the high brick wall to Clyde xviii Street. It is a substantial building, symmetrically arranged, with an H- shaped plan. It has a plastered finish with a clay tiled hipped and gabled roof set behind parapets. Original drawings show that the building was constructed of plastered cavity brick walls with reinforced concrete beams, floors and foundations. Timber floors were laid over concrete floor slabs and the roof structure was timber framed. Internal walls were brick. Door and window joinery was timber. xvi 3

150 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H50 ii Designer or Builder: The architect, designer, engineer or builder for the Historic Place was a notable practitioner or made a significant contribution to the city, region or nation, and the place enlarges understanding of their work. The convent is significant as an example of the work of architect Daniel Boys Patterson. Architect: Daniel Boys Patterson 1914 A.N.Z.I.A, 1926 F.N.Z.I.A`: Patterson was born in Southampton, he trained and worked as an architect in England and later emmigrated with his wife Elsie and their daughter, to New Zealand in Their son also known as Daniel Boys Patterson was born in New Zealand of that year. Paterson senior became a member of the New Zealand Institute of architects in By the 1930s, Patterson was one of Auckland s most prestigious architects, designing commercial buildings, churches as well as many buildings for the ASB Bank. Later as the senior partner in the firm of Patterson, Lewis and Sutcliffe he oversaw the expansion of the ASB branches into suburban Auckland. He was a member of the board of governors of the Diocesan High School, a Council Member of the Sailor s Home and had served as a District Grand Master of the English Constitution of the Masonic Lodge in Auckland. Patterson died on 3 May 1962 aged 82 years. xix A selection of prominent buildings designed by Patterson include: 1914 Ellison Chambers Queen Street, Plans for the west wing, dated 4 December Auckland Architecture Archive, University of Auckland Additions to St Mary s Convent, Ponsonby, Auckland, 1918 Patterson Wing at St John s College, 1922 Roman Catholic School and Convent, Avondale, 1923 Fire Station, Ponsonby, Auckland, 1924 Gifford s Building on the corner of High Street and Vulcan Lane, Auckland City, 1925 Church Te Aroha 1926 Mt Albert Borough Council Offices 1930 St Stephens College, Bombay, 1931 Auckland Savings Bank, Jervois Road, Auckland 1931 St David s Presbyterian Church Khyber Pass, Auckland 1938 the Commercial Hotel in Victoria Street, Hamilton Details of reinforced concrete beams and wall columns in east wing. dated June Auckland Architecture Archive, University of Auckland. The firm of Patterson Lewis and Sutcliffe designed numerous branches of the Auckland Savings Bank in the 1950s and 60s as well as Holy Family Home for the Aged, Hastings in xx 4

151 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H50 iii Rarity: The Historic Place or elements of it are unique, uncommon or rare at a local, district or national level, or in relation to particular historic themes. The Convent is a relatively uncommon building type and demonstrates the important role of Catholic Religious orders in the provision of education and social services in New Zealand. With the decline in women joining religious orders, convent buildings of this scale are no longer likely to be purpose-designed and built. Iv Integrity: The Historic Place has integrity, retaining significant features from its time of construction, or later periods when important modifications or additions were carried out. The building is significant for its integrity, retaining its original form and architectural detail. iv The Historic Place is part of a group or collection of places which together have a coherence because of such factors as history, age, appearance, style, scale, materials, proximity or use, landscape or setting which, when considered as a whole, amplify the heritage values of the place and group/ landscape or extend its significance, The convent forms part of significant group of historic buildings on the north side of Clyde Street together with the 1926 St Mary s Chapel adjacent (H10). It forms part of a significant precinct of Catholic educational and religious buildings including St Mary s Cathedral in Grey Street, the Presbytery, Marion Catholic School, and Sacred Heart College on the opposite side of Clyde Street. c) Context or Group Values i The physical and visual character of the site or setting of the Historic Place is of importance to the value of the place; The setting of the convent makes an important contribution to its significance. The building is set back from Clyde Street with landscaped grounds and central courtyard enclosed by a high brick wall at the street edge, with an entrance on axis with the main convent entry. The brick wall is a significant feature of the streetscape in Clyde Street and was designed by architect Daniel Patterson at the same time as the convent. Part of Plan showing west wing to be constructed and the east and central wings built or under construction by Auckland Architecture Archive, University of Auckland. ii The Historic Place is an important visual landmark or feature, The convent is a substantial building and a prominent feature on Clyde Street. iii The Historic Place makes an important contribution to the continuity or character of the street, neighbourhood, area or landscape. The former convent makes an important contribution to the established character and sense of place in Clyde Street. Aerial photo, Hamilton City Council 5

152 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H50 d) Technological Qualities: The Historic Place is representative of innovative or important methods of construction, contains unusual construction materials, is an early example of the use of a particular construction technique or has potential to contribute information about technological or engineering history The building demonstrates construction techniques and materials of the late 1930s including a reinforced concrete structure, timber over concrete floor slabs and brick cavity infill walls. e) Archaeological Qualities: i The potential of the Historic Place to define or expand knowledge of earlier human occupation, activities or events through investigation using archaeological methods. ii The potential of the Historic Place to provide evidence to address archaeological research questions. iii The Historic Place is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for its archaeological values, or is recorded by the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Recoding Scheme, or is an archaeological site as defined by the Historic Places Act (Not assessed as part of this evaluation). f) Cultural Qualities: The Historic Place is important as a focus of cultural sentiment; The Historic Place significantly contributes to community identity or sense of place or provides evidence of cultural or historical continuity, the Historic Place has symbolic or commemorative significance to people who use or have used it, or to the descendants of such people. The interpretative capacity of the Historic Place can potentially increase understanding of past lifestyles or events. The former convent makes an important contribution to the established character and sense of place in Clyde Street. It is a recognised historic building in Hamilton with a long association with the work of the Sisters of Our Lady of the Missions and the Catholic community in Hamilton. The place has featured in a monograph describing 36 of Hamilton s historic structures. xxi The building is recognised as significant by its inclusion in the Schedule of Heritage Items Appendix 2.3-II in the Hamilton District Plan. Interpretive information is provided on site signage panels, increasing understanding and appreciation of an important aspect of Hamilton and New Zealand s history. Summary of assessed significance and management category The place is scheduled in Category A. The place is considered to be of highly significant heritage value locally and has outstanding or high significance in relation to the following criteria: a)historic Qualities; High b) Physical/Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities;- high c) Context or Group Values; -high; f) Cultural Qualities, - high The Convent for the Sisters of the Mission is of great significance for its historic values, having significant associations with the Institute of Notre Dame des Missions founded by Euphraise Barbier in Lyon, France in It has important associations with the four sisters from the Institute of Notre Dame des Missions, who established a convent and school in Hamilton in 1884, and with those who have lived here over time and students who have stayed here. The convent is very significant as an example of the work of architect Daniel B Patterson in Hamilton. Its design, influenced by Romanesque and Spanish Mission style, is consistent with other buildings designed for the Catholic Church in the Auckland region in a similar style around this time. It has been a substantial feature of Clyde Street in Hamilton East for over seventy years and makes an important contribution to the established character and sense of place in Clyde Street, and forms part of a significant group of buildings and features associated with the Catholic Church in Clyde Street. It is a recognised historic building in Hamilton with a long association with the work of the Sisters of Our Lady of the Missions and the Catholic community in Hamilton. Interpretive information is provided on site signage panels, increasing understanding, and appreciation of an important aspect of Hamilton s and New Zealand s history. The place is recognised as significant by its inclusion in the Schedule of Heritage Items Appendix 2.3-II in the Hamilton District Plan and has featured in a monograph describing 36 of Hamilton s historic structures. xxii Form prepared 2012 Revision Surveyor/ Researcher: J Gainsford, Matthews & Matthews Architects Ltd. Sources for information: g) Scientific Qualities: The potential for the Historic Place to contribute information about an historic figure, event, phase or activity. The degree to which the Historic Place may contribute further information and the importance, rarity, quality or representativeness of the data involved. The place contributes to an understanding of Hamilton s history; interpretive information is provided on a signage panel on Clyde Street. i Rejoice in Hope, Centenary of Our Lady of the Missions Hamilton , (Hamilton) and Rejoice in Hope, Centenary of Our Lady of the Missions Hamilton , (Hamilton). ii David Moore, Between the River and the Hills Waikato County (Auckland: Wilson & Horton Ltd., 1976), p.166. iii Sister Anne Marie Power R.S.J., The Grey Lynn Story 1901, Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart, New Zealand Story, 1983, p.115 iv Heritage Hamilton,Wintec,2006, p.36. v Catholic Church, Hamilton Convent Jubilee (Hamilton: Waikato Times, 1935), pp

153 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H50 vi HBC building permit 1473 issued 14 August Hamilton Building Permit Records archived at the Hamilton Public Library vii Catholic Church, Hamilton Convent Jubilee (Hamilton: Waikato Times, 1935), pp3-23., and Rejoice in Hope, Centenary of Our Lady of the Missions Hamilton , (Hamilton), pp viii Heritage Hamilton,Wintec,2006, p.36. ix Permit No. 4192, building fee 12, Hamilton Building Permit Records archived at the Hamilton Public Library and Hamilton City Council Building Records Micro Fiche architectural plans. x Hamilton City Council Building Records, Micro Fiche plans. xi Signed contract drawings by D B Patterson for the Sisters of the Mission Convent, Hamilton, 13 sheets, Auckland Architecture Archive, University of Auckland. xii Permit No. 4710, building fee 12, Building Permit Records archived at the Hamilton Public Library and Hamilton City Council Building Records Micro Fiche architectural plans. xiii HBC Permit No. 284,building fee was 1. Building Permit Records archived at the Hamilton Public Library and Hamilton City Council Building Records Micro Fiche architectural plans. xiv Valuation New Zealand archived at Quotable Value Hamilton. xv Heritage Hamilton,Wintec,2006, p.36 xvi Cross sections, Signed contract drawings by D B Patterson for the Sisters of the Mission Convent, Hamilton, 13 sheets, Auckland Architecture Archive, University of Auckland. xvii Original architectural drawings dated , Auckland Architecture Archive, University of Auckland and Valuation New Zealand records, 1950s. xviii Signed contract drawings by D B Patterson for the Sisters of the Mission Convent, Hamilton, 13 sheets, Auckland Architecture Archive, University of Auckland. West Wing, Sheet 4, xix NZ Herald, May 1962, Obituary. Historic Places, May 1995, pp.16-18, Corporate Image, article by Douglas Lloyd Jenkins. xx Sheppard Collection, File P317d, Daniel Boys Patterson. Architecture Library, University of Auckland. xxi Heritage Hamilton; a celebration of the city s historic buildings, Waikato Institute of Technology (Wintec) and Hamilton City Council 2006 pp xxii Heritage Hamilton; a celebration of the city s historic buildings, Waikato Institute of Technology (Wintec) and Hamilton City Council 2006 pp

154 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H57 Building/ Site Name: Address: House 126 Forest Lake Road (Corner of Walsh Street) HISTORIC SUMMARY: The house at 126 Forest Lake Road is one of a group of nine houses known as the Laurenson Settlement built on the north-western side of Forest Lake Road as workers dwellings between 1914 and 1916, under the Workers Dwellings Act A further two houses were built in The houses were built for applicant purchasers and were designed by Woburn Temple, a Department of Labour Staff Architect. In New Zealand workers housing was largely developed by the Government. The Workers Dwelling Act 1905 provided the basis for the development of the first state housing schemes, under the Liberal Government led by Richard Seddon. Architects were invited to submit plans and thirty four designs were selected from 150 entries. No two houses were to look the same and the intention was to move away from row-housing types. A different approach was proposed for the North and South Islands. i District Plan Reference: H 57, Map 35B, Category B Legal Description: Lot 22 DP 7943 Zone: Registered NZHPT: General Residential Zone No Date of Construction: c.1915 Designer/ Builder: Current use/building type: Visible materials: Architect Woburn Temple Residential Rusticated timber weatherboards, timber joinery, brick chimney, corrugated iron roof. The first homes were built and rented on the outskirts of the four main cities to provide good quality but affordable homes for working families. ii Examples include the surviving row of houses in Patrick Street in Petone near Wellington. A range of designs, by prominent New Zealand architects, was used to develop the first twenty five houses in Petone in what was known as the Heretaunga settlement. iii The houses were quite elaborate and proved to be beyond the means of many workers. iv The Windle Settlement in Dunedin was developed in , also under the Workers Dwelling Act It included a range of one and two-storeyed houses, as well as semidetached houses creating a modest, yet picturesque ideal of early twentieth century suburban living in New Zealand v. However the state-developed workers houses were not always located close enough to workplaces and high quality construction meant the rents were more than most working people could afford vi. The New Workers Dwelling Act passed in 1910 eased income restrictions. The government built 646 workers houses over the thirteen year period that the Workers Dwelling Act was in place. The government also passed the Government Advances to Workers Act in 1906 providing a successful scheme offering low-interest loans to those wishing to build their own homes. Following World War I the New Zealand Railways Department became one of the largest house builders and landlords in the country. A sawmill and house construction factory was established at Frankton Junction, producing almost 1400 prefabricated homes between 1923 and Whole settlements of railway workers housing were built along the main trunk line at Frankton, Taumaranui, Te Kuiti, Ohakune, Taihape, Marton Junction and elsewhere. vii The railway housing settlement in Frankton, Hamilton, the largest in the country, is recognised by the Hamilton City Council as a heritage precinct. The first Labour Government, elected in 1935 established the Department of Housing Construction and initiated a state housing scheme, building houses throughout New Zealand for rental to working families. In Hamilton the Government requisitioned an area of land known as Hayes Paddock in 1937 for state housing. Construction commenced in 1939 and by 1945 over 210 houses as well as a group of local shops had been built. viii Other areas of state housing in Hamilton included the Richmond block built just before Hayes Paddock which was a Department of Housing Construction subdivision built along Valley Terrace, Park Terrace and part of Horne Street just off Cobham Drive. The Melville Block, 1

155 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H57 built just after Hayes Paddock by the Department of Housing Construction was located in Bader Street, Slim Street and Montgomery Crescent. Blocks called Bankwood and Fletcher s bounded by Bankwood Road, Tongariro St, Hukanui Rd and Comries Road, in Fairfield, were based on subdivision layout plans from early 1970s. ix The group of 11 houses in Forest Lake Road, Hamilton, were built by the State under the Workers Dwellings Act In June 1912, a narrow strip of land on the north side of Forest Lake Road was surveyed for the Laurenson Settlement for the Department of Labour. Two of the 36 residential lots were set aside to form Walsh Road and Moore Street. The land originally formed part of farmland located in the Parish of Pukete, Allotments 75 and 76. This land was owned by Mary Walsh, wife of John W. Walsh, a flax miller of Te Rapa, when it was acquired by the Crown, with title registered in the name of the Crown on 8 October Frankton Borough Council were to supply electricity to the Laurenson Settlement if the Government would erect poles and mains for about 30 chains, to the nearest house. x Tenders were called in February 1914 for building the first six houses by F W Rowley, Superintendent of Workers Dwellings. xi By July 1914 the framework and roof of one villa was complete and timber had been delivered for the construction of other dwellings. The first six houses were completed by March 1915, in six different designs, to meet individual tastes and necessities xii, prepared by architect Woburn Temple. The houses were either four or five rooms with a section. Purchasers paid a small deposit and subsequent regular instalments at a weekly average of 12s: 10d for a four roomed house and 16s: 6d for a five roomed house. xiii Plans for eight of these designs are known to exist. xiv Approximately seven and a quarter acres were left available in the settlement for construction of further new dwellings. xv In July to August 1915 the government authorised the erection of 100 workers dwellings and the Officer of the Labour Department at Hamilton, Mr McCormick, received applications for dwellings at the Laurenson settlement at the Forest Lake estate. Tenders were advertised for the erection of three workers dwellings in Forest Lake Road as part of the designated programme of 100 workers houses throughout New Zealand during xvi A further three houses were completed by 31 March In 1919 the Workers Dwelling Act 1910 was superseded by the Housing Act and under this act two further dwellings were built and then purchased in the Laurenson Settlement (No.s 134 and 148B), possibly as a part of a group of about 25 houses that were to be erected throughout Hamilton under the new act during xvii It is thought that the remaining sections shown on DP 7943 were sold to private buyers or utilised for state housing in the 1930s and 40s. The name Laurenson Settlement is noted on the 1912 survey plan and is thought to refer to Scottish-born Liberal Member of the House of Representatives for Lyttleton, George Laurenson (Feb Nov. 1913) who briefly served as the Minister for Marine, Labour and Customs in He had a deep interest in social movements and had supported the Workers Dwelling Act, xviii DP 7943, dated 1912 showing proposed Laurenson Settlement surveyed for the Department of Labour. Sourced from LINZ. Crown Copyright reserved. When first built the Laurenson Settlement was located in the middle of the Te Rapa countryside. Prior to the development the only people residing on Forest Lake Road were famers and their families. xix The location of the railway line close to Forest Lake Road may have provided an incentive to house railway workers on the outskirts of Frankton township. Early residents in the Laurenson Settlement included a number of railway employees including two NZ Railways firemen, a railways engineman, a railways guard, a railways driver as well as an engineer, motor mechanic and iron monger. xx 2

156 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H57 a) Historic Qualities i) Associative Value: The Historic Place has a direct association with or relationship to, a person, group, institution, event or activity that is of historical significance to Hamilton, the Waikato or New Zealand. The houses built in Hamilton as part of the Laurenson settlement in Forest Lake Road are significant for their associations with Government development of worker housing. ii) Historic Pattern: The Historic Place is associated with broad patterns of local, regional or national history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes, social or economic trends and activities. The house at 126 Forest Lake Road is significant as an example in Hamilton of the development of workers housing by the state in the 1910s, built under the Workers Dwelling Act of Hamilton retains significant examples of government-built housing including the 1910s Laurenson Settlement at Forest Lake Road, the 1920s railway housing settlement at Frankton and 1930s-40s state housing at Hayes Paddock. These places in Hamilton are significant in representing national trends in the development of workers housing in New Zealand from a range of periods. b) Physical/ Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities: i Style/Design/Type: The style of the Historic Place is representative of a significant development period in the city, region and or the nation; The Historic Place is associated with a significant activity, reflected in its design, function or type. The Historic Place has distinctive or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature which may include its design, form, massing, scale, proportions materials, ornamentation, period, craftsmanship, or other design element. Woburn Temple designed 15 Workers' Dwellings for this settlement, each of single-storey villa or transitional bungalow type. Prospective owners could change the design to suit their specific needs. Plans for eight of these designs are known to exist. xxi Typical of the time the drawings are contained on one sheet and include a floor plan, cross section, front elevation, side elevation with one or two details for some of the houses. The house at 126 Forest Lake Road is a modest transitional villa. Transitional villas, built in the 1910s were typically planned as villas but began to incorporate some elements of the bungalow style such as verandahs covered by an extension of the main roof supported on plain posts with simpler brackets instead of the elaborate decorative detail of late Victorian villas. The house at 126 Forest Lake Road is based on Design No. 7 (PWD 54911). This was one of the simpler plan types developed by the Department of Labour with a generous central hall, three bedrooms, living room and bathroom within the main roof form, with a kitchen, toilet and wash house in the rear lean-to. The house has a hipped roof and bullnosed verandah across the front elevation with shallow arched boards between the posts, rather than fretwork more typical of earlier villas. It has shallow eaves with timber brackets. A lean-to extends on the western half of the rear (north) elevation with another lean-to on the eastern half of the same elevation. On the eastern elevation this lean-to is recessed slightly and has a door and windows. A more recent (possibly 1930s) square bay window with casement and hinged sashes projects to the rear of the property (north) from the eastern lean-to. The hipped roof is of corrugated steel sheeting. The building is clad in rusticated weatherboards. The windows are double-hung sash windows; in the front elevation are two pairs of windows opening onto the verandah. The front door has narrow panels either side which are partly glazed. A pale brick (possibly Huntly bricks) chimney extends through the roof on the west side. This chimney is in the same style as that at #78 Forest Lake Road. ii Designer or Builder: The architect, designer, engineer or builder for the Historic Place was a notable practitioner or made a significant contribution to the city, region or nation, and the place enlarges understanding of their work. The house at 126 Forest Lake Road appears similar to standard design No. 7, prepared by the Department of Labour under the Workers Dwelling Act Copy of PWD The houses were designed by Woburn Temple, Department of Labour Staff Architect from 1907 until Although early workers houses were based on designs submitted by New Zealand architects, by 1909 in order to reduce costs, the design of all houses built under the Workers Dwelling Act were the responsibility of Department of Labour staff architect, Woburn Temple. xxii 3

157 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H57 iii Rarity: The Historic Place or elements of it are unique, uncommon or rare at a local, district or national level, or in relation to particular historic themes. The group of houses in Forest Lake road provide a rare example of state-provided workers housing in Hamilton, dating from the 1910s. Iv Integrity: The Historic Place has integrity, retaining significant features from its time of construction, or later periods when important modifications or additions were carried out. The exterior appears to retain original materials and features such as timber brackets supporting the front eaves (above the verandah), front door, windows, verandah balustrade and shallow arched frieze and brackets to the verandah. Modifications appear to have been made to the rear lean-to and a pergola structure has been built onto the front of the verandah, over the main entry path. c) Context or Group Values i The physical and visual character of the site or setting of the Historic Place is of importance to the value of the place; The house remains in its original position with modest landscaped front yard. The front garden setting, with lawns and shrubs adds to the historic values of the house. The pathway leading from the gate at the corner of the property and curving towards the front of the house reflects that shown on the view of the front of the house shown on PWD ii The Historic Place is an important visual landmark or feature, (Not considered applicable) iii The Historic Place makes an important contribution to the continuity or character of the street, neighbourhood, area or landscape. The villa at 126 Forest Lake Road contributes to the established residential character of the northern side of Forest Lake Road. iv The Historic Place is part of a group or collection of places which together have a coherence because of such factors as history, age, appearance, style, scale, materials, proximity or use, landscape or setting which, when considered as a whole, amplify the heritage values of the place and group/ landscape or extend its significance, The house forms part of a group of 11workers dwellings built in Forest Lake Road in which include numbers 78,82,84,102, 104, 106, 126, 128 and 140. Numbers 134 and 148B Forest Lake Road were also built as workers dwellings possibly during Four of the houses are included in the schedule of historic places in the Proposed Hamilton District Plan including 102 (H55), 104 (H56), 126 (H 57) and 128(H58) Forest Lake Road. The dwelling at 84 Forest Lake Road is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust in category II (Register No.4346). Aerial photo, Hamilton City Council 4

158 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H57 d) Technological Qualities: The Historic Place is representative of innovative or important methods of construction, contains unusual construction materials, is an early example of the use of a particular construction technique or has potential to contribute information about technological or engineering history. The houses demonstrate domestic timber construction and detailing typical of the early 1900s. e) Archaeological Qualities: i The potential of the Historic Place to define or expand knowledge of earlier human occupation, activities or events through investigation using archaeological methods. ii The potential of the Historic Place to provide evidence to address archaeological research questions. iii The Historic Place is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for its archaeological values, or is recorded by the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Recoding Scheme, or is an archaeological site as defined by the Historic Places Act (Not assessed as part of this evaluation). f) Cultural Qualities: The Historic Place is important as a focus of cultural sentiment; The Historic Place significantly contributes to community identity or sense of place or provides evidence of cultural or historical continuity, the Historic Place has symbolic or commemorative significance to people who use or have used it, or to the descendants of such people. The interpretative capacity of the Historic Place can potentially increase understanding of past lifestyles or events. The group of houses in Forest Lake Road has the potential to increase understanding and awareness of the development of workers housing in Hamilton and New Zealand, through interpretation and, information. The house has been recognised as being of value by its inclusion in the Schedule of Heritage Items Appendix 2.3-II in the Hamilton District Plan g) Scientific Qualities: The potential for the Historic Place to contribute information about an historic figure, event, phase or activity. The degree to which the Historic Place may contribute further information and the importance, rarity, quality or representativeness of the data involved.- The place has potential to add to an understanding of Hamilton s history through the provision of interpretive information. It contributes information about the provision of worker housing and the work of architect Woburn Temple in Hamilton. Summary of assessed significance and management category The place is scheduled in Category B. It is considered to be of significant heritage value locally or regionally and high or moderate value in relation to the following criteria: a)historic Qualities; High, b) Physical/Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities; high, c) Context or Group Values; High, The house at 126 Forest Lake Road is of significance as a Hamilton example of the type of workers houses developed by the government, under the Workers Housing Act Together with other significant examples in Hamilton of state-built housing including the railway housing settlement in Frankton and state housing at Hayes Paddock it demonstrates different approaches to the provision of worker housing at different periods. The Forest Lake Road group of houses provide evidence of the work of architect Woburn Temple and the range of standard house designs prepared by the Department of Labour under the Workers Dwelling Act The house retains significant features from the time of its construction and its front garden setting is consistent with its period of construction and reflects original architectural drawings. Sources for information: Research information courtesy of New Zealand Historic Places Trust is gratefully acknowledged: Laurenson Settlement Workers Dwellings Forest Lake Road, Hamilton, NZHPT Review Report 28 June Form prepared 2012 Revision : Matthews & Matthews Architects Ltd. i Gael Ferguson: Building the New Zealand Dream,pp.64, 65. ii http/ iii iv Gael Ferguson: Building the New Zealand Dream, pp. 65. v vi viewed November vii http. viii The Houses of Hayes Paddock, Hamilton, 2008, Essay Dr Ann McEwan, pp ix John Adam to J Matthews , based on John Adam s research at Archives New Zealand and site visits x Waikato Argus, 8 Nov. 1913, cited in Craig Willis, Report for New Zealand Historic Places Trust: The Laurenson Settlement, Forest Lake Road, Hamilton,, p.1 xi Waikato Times 3 Feb

159 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H57 xii AJHR, v.iii (1915), cited in Craig Willis, Report for New Zealand Historic Places Trust: The Laurenson Settlement, Forest Lake Road, Hamilton, p.3 xiii Ibid. xiv Stan-Barton report cited in Laurenson Settlement Workers Dwellings Forest Lake Road, Hamilton, NZHPT Review Report 28 June Scanned copies of 7 designs provided by NZHPT in 2011 including No 1 PWD 54905, No 5 PWD 54909, No 6 PWD 54910, No7 PWD 54911, No 10, PWD 54914, No 11 PWD 54915, No 13, PWD xv AJHR, v.iii (1915), cited in Craig Willis, Report for New Zealand Historic Places Trust: The Laurenson Settlement, Forest Lake Road, Hamilton, p.3 xvi AJHR, V.11(1917) h11b:18, Waikato Times 31 July 1915, 12 August 1915, 29 and 31 Jan xvii AJHR, V.ii( ) cited in Craig Willis, Report for New Zealand Historic Places Trust: The Laurenson Settlement, Forest Lake Road, Hamilton, p.4 xviii Craig Willis, Report for New Zealand Historic Places Trust: The Laurenson Settlement, Forest Lake Road, Hamilton, p.1 xix Waikato Roll(1911), 13,39,84-85, 131, cited in Craig Willis, Report for New Zealand Historic Places Trust: The Laurenson Settlement, Forest Lake Road, Hamilton, p.7 xx Craig Willis, Report for New Zealand Historic Places Trust: The Laurenson Settlement, Forest Lake Road, Hamilton, p.5 xxi Stan-Barton report cited in Laurenson Settlement Workers Dwellings Forest Lake Road, Hamilton, NZHPT Review Report 28 June Scanned copies of 7 designs provided by NZHPT, Tauranga in 2011 including No 1 PWD 54905, No 5 PWD 54909, No. 6 PWD 54910, No7 PWD 54911, No 10, PWD 54914, No 11 PWD 54915, No 13, PWD d. Stan-Barton report cited in Laurenson Settlement Workers Dwellings Forest Lake Road, Hamilton, NZHPT Review Report 28 June xxii Stan- Barton, D, report 1994, New Zealand Historic Places Trust, unpaged. 6

160 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H88 Building/ Site Name: Address: Municipal Tepid Baths 26 Victoria Street, Hamilton HISTORIC SUMMARY: The Municipal Tepid Baths were constructed in 1912 and were originally known as the Coronation Baths. They have been continuously used for close to one hundred years (opening on 23 December 1912) and at one time attracted 80,000 swimmers a year. District Plan Reference: Legal Description: Zoning: H88, Map 45B, Category B Pt Allotment 445A, Town of Hamilton West Community Facilities Zone Part of 1864 survey plan for Hamilton West. SO378A, Sourced from LINZ. Crown Copyright reserved. Registered NZHPT: Date of Construction: 1912 Designer/ Builder: Current use/building type: Visible materials: structure. Not registered Borough Engineer FW Butler, Contractor W. E. Farrelly & Company, and Messers Morton and Sample Municipal swimming baths Concrete pool tank and tiered seating, timber framed canopy Hamilton was established in 1864 as a planned settlement of the Waikato Militiamen on what was Ngatiwairere land. i. Development of the town on the west side of the Waikato River expanded up from the original ferry landing along Hillsborough Terrace (now called Grantham Street). Small cottages and then shops were built while the militia s redoubt was built on the hill above. The militia s western redoubt was built on site of St Peter s Cathedral in 1864 and the earliest substantial buildings, for defence purposes, were clustered nearby, including barracks, stores and medical facilities. ii In 1870, an area of land between Hillsborough Terrace and Tisdall Street (Victoria Street) comprising two acres and one rood was vested to the Hamilton Borough Council. iii Within this area new civic and commercial buildings were built. The Bank of New Zealand, built on the corner of Hood Street and Victoria Street in 1875 was a catalyst for further development. The Hamilton Town Hall, was built on the Borough reserve, facing Victoria Street, in The first public baths in Hamilton were built on the west side of the Waikato River at the foot of Hillsborough Terrace, now Grantham Street, where the river shelved gradually away from the shore Public swimming baths were initially proposed on both the east and west sides of the Waikato River. The Public Baths Committee called for plans and cost estimates and on 1

161 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H88 11 January 1887 the contract, valued at 233 was awarded to Mr JC Booth. iv The Hamilton West Public Bath was completed in February v The baths closed in 1891 and it was not until 1912 that Hamilton s new swimming baths were built. vi In September 1908 the Borough Engineer was asked to prepare sketch plans of alternative proposals for the construction of new swimming baths. vii However On 27 November 1908 Hamilton Borough Council deferred the matter of the construction of the swimming baths for a further six months. viii In March 1909 the Town Clerk advised that the matter of the baths was deferred again. ix It was not until 1911 that the Borough Council approved the construction of the Municipal Swimming Baths near the Waikato river bank. The council instructed the Borough Engineer, F.W. Butler, to prepare plans, noting that the cost of the structure should not exceed The baths were to be constructed in concrete and to measure 100 feet x 45 feet, and the depth range was to be between three and nine feet. x A works committee was established to confer with the engineer. On 11 October 1911 the Mayor Arthur E. Manning was added to the baths works Committee. xi The Municipal Swimming Baths were built during a significant period of development under the leadership of Mayor Arthur Manning and his Council and financed by a large programme of borrowing during 1912 and xii Manning was particularly well known in the Waikato. He came to Hamilton soon after the turn of the century and quickly made his mark on the town. He was a member of the Hamilton Beautifying Society formed in October 1912, to beautify land owned by the council, and to acquire and beautify further land in Hamilton. xiii He served as mayor of Hamilton from and on three occasions served as a member of the Hamilton Borough Council. In 1915 he negotiated an amalgamation of the two local newspapers, the Waikato Times and Waikato Argus, and played a key role in the development of the newspaper until his retirement from his position as managing director in Over the years he was a member of a wide variety of organisations including the Auckland Education Board, Hamilton Domain Board, Armed Forces Appeal Board and Hamilton Licensing Committee. He also served as deputy chairman of the Farmers Co-operative Auctioneering Company, vice president of the Waikato Racing Club, chairman of the Technical College Board of Managers, president of the Hamilton Amateur Operatic Society, president of the Waikato Cricket Association and chairman of the Waikato Patriotic Society. He served as a Justice of the Peace and was made an M.B.E. He died in 1966 in his 94th year. xiv Hamilton Borough Council called for tenders for the construction of the Municipal Swimming Baths on 28 March Tenders were received from W. E. Farrelly & Company 919 and three shillings, J.P. Murray 1369, W.E. Johns & Company 1369 (it was later reduced to 1289), Hoyter & Gunn The tender of W.E. Farrelly was accepted. xv It appears an alternative offer by Mr. Farrelly was accepted on 31 May xvi The Hamilton Borough Council Municipal Swimming Baths Committee turned their attention xvii to consider the design for the frontage of the baths. On 15 November 1912 the Council s solicitors, Swarbrick & Swarbrick, informed the council that the Municipal Swimming Baths were completed and Hamilton Borough Council had to sign off the project. The document xviii was signed by the Mayor Arthur E. Manning and Councillor Fow. View of the Hamilton Municipal Swimming Baths, Hamilton City Libraries HCL Constructed on the site adjacent to the Hamilton Town Hall, facing Victoria Street, the Municipal Baths were opened on 23 December 1912 by His Worship the Mayor of Hamilton, A. E. Manning. In his opening speech he stated that it was the community s duty to teach young people to swim. xix The first race on opening day was named the Manning Handicap in the mayor s honour. Manning praised Mr Butler who planned the baths, the contractor and Mr Morton and Mr Sample responsible for bringing the baths to completion. xx The complex was artistically painted by Messrs Cole and Braggins in white with green facings. xxi The baths incorporated entrance buildings on the Victoria Street frontage, designed in an Edwardian classical style, symmetrically arranged with a central pediment above paired pilasters with lower bays to each side which had paired windows with multi-paned top-lights. xxii The pool measured just over 30 metres long and 13.7 metres wide with a depth ranging from just xxiii under one metre to 2.7 metres. The space allocated for spectators was limited from the outset. Hamilton Borough Council considered building a balcony at the rear of the complex to accommodate 150 people. The rear fence was moved back and permanent tiered seating was constructed. The swimming baths had seven dressing rooms and the complex was lit by eight gas lamps. The fence around the swimming baths was made higher in xxiv 2

162 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H88 Inward correspondence notes that the Scouts asked Hamilton Borough Council if they could have free access to the baths; this was agreed as long as the Scoutmaster or a responsible adult was in attendance. xxv Hamilton Swimming Club also requested to use of the pool at no cost, this application was granted. xxvi The Hamilton Swimming Club wrote to the Council to xxvii thank them for the use of the pool. In 1915 Hamilton Borough Council considered allowing mixed bathing in the baths on Boxing Day. xxviii In 1916 unruly behaviour of girls at the swimming baths was reported and apologies were sought. xxix Swimming was segregated until around the 1930s. The baths were where thousands of Hamiltonians learned to swim and the scene of numerous carnivals and competitions xxx. The Hamilton Amateur Swimming Club evolved from the earlier Hamilton Rovers sporting clubs, and formed when the baths opened in xxxi The club has a long association with the pools, continuing to manage them in By 1962, when the baths had been in use for fifty years, development of new pool facilities for Hamilton was advocated to serve the rapidly growing Hamilton population. The length of the pool was less than that required for championship events and overcrowding was a problem. From October 1960 to January 1961 the pool had been used by 12,249 swimmers. In the same period from 1961 to 1962 the number had increased to nearly In 1966 a new learner s pool was added. xxxii In 1967 the pediment and flagpole at the front of the Municipal Baths Building was removed. The Hamilton Town Hall adjacent to the baths was demolished in the same year. This site has since been redeveloped for the Hamilton Senior Citizens xxxiii Club. The need for an Olympic size pool and lido facilities was put forward by members of the Hamilton community. Several sites were suggested, including one in Jellicoe Drive. A site in Te Rapa was finally chosen and Hamilton s Centennial Pools opened in the 1970s. xxxiv In 1982 the Hamilton Municipal Baths, which had been proposed for demolition, were given a new lease on life. Council s Recreation and Welfare committee approved a 14 year lease to the Hamilton Amateur Swimming Club and a comprehensive upgrade programme. The lease was conditional on the demolition of the clubrooms and original entrance building and clubrooms along the Victoria Street frontage by June 1983 and a covered way along the xxxvi southern boundary by June xxxv In 1997 around 300 people a day used the baths. In 2001 Hamilton City Council carried out an upgrade costing around a $200,000 to remove asbestos in the grandstand and changing rooms exterior cladding, roofing and floor lining. xxxvii Foundations and piles beneath the grandstand were also rotten and required replacement, along with mechanical equipment. At the time the pool complex catered for around 34,000 swimmers a year and was used by several schools. The work was expected to extend the life of the pools for a further five to six years, when decisions about the future of the facility would xxxviii be considered. a) Historic Qualities i) Associative Value: The Historic Place has a direct association with or relationship to, a person, group, institution, event or activity that is of historical significance to Hamilton, the Waikato or New Zealand. The Hamilton Municipal baths are significant for their associations with Hamilton Borough Council, Hamilton Amateur Swimming Club and the many Hamiltonians who have enjoyed use of the pools. ii) Historic Pattern: The Historic Place is associated with broad patterns of local, regional or national history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes, social or economic trends and activities. The place is significant as evidence of the provision of recreational facilities for Hamilton by the Borough Council in the early twentieth century. The baths have significance as an example of a recreational structure/ building type that was built in many New Zealand towns and cities in the early twentieth century and a number were built at a similar time to the 1912 Hamilton baths. b) Physical/ Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities: i Style/Design/Type: The style of the Historic Place is representative of a significant development period in the city, region and or the nation; The Historic Place is associated with a significant activity, reflected in its design, function or type. The Historic Place has distinctive or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature which may include its design, form, massing, scale, proportions materials, ornamentation, period, craftsmanship, or other design element. When constructed in 1912, the Hamilton Municipal baths included the main pool, measuring 100 feet long by 45 feet wide, seven dressing rooms and an entrance building and clubrooms along the Victoria Street frontage. The buildings along Victoria Street were demolished in This edge is now enclosed by a steel fence. Description: The complex includes the original 1912 pool, the 1966 Learners Pool, (to the north east, adjacent to the Celebrating Age Centre building) and a small pool adjacent to the west end of the main pool, date not confirmed. The pools are surrounded by concrete paving. There is small area of grass in the North West corner of the complex. The complex is fully enclosed by fences or built structures. The Municipal baths complex comprises a variety of utilitarian structures including pools, built structures and fencing. The original Edwardian classically derived architectural character of the main entrance building was lost with the demolition of the building in the 1980s. The entrance to the complex is located at the south corner on the Victoria Street frontage. A section of timber weather board wall encloses the entrance 3

163 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H88 Entrance at southern corner, weatherboard wall to south side. The grandstand to south-east side of the main pool is a timber framed structure with terraced seating covered by a canopy with corrugated iron roof, supported on timber posts and beams towards the north (pool) side and a framed wall on the south side.. The exterior wall is clad with a corrugated iron lining on timber frame. The date of the grandstand structure has not been confirmed. There are concrete steps between the grandstand and the pool. A painted concrete block wall encloses the eastern side of the complex, at the end of the main pool and is a later modification. There is a steel fence at the east end of the Learners Pool. Changing rooms, with concrete block walls and corrugated iron roof are built along the north side of the complex abutting the adjacent building. Between the Main Pool and Learners Pool there is a section of tiered seating sheltered by a fabric awning supported on steel posts, date not confirmed but relatively recent. At the eastern end of the Canopy is a small two storey building, date of construction not confirmed. Canopy between the main pool and Learners pool. Modifications/ changes over time include: Learners Pool, built 1966 Removal of entry buildings 1983, replaced with corrugated steel fence. The fence has subsequently been replaced by a steel post and rail fence. View of the grandstand. Removal of a southern covered way Existing structure with reception office and shop adjacent to Victoria Street boundary a replacement, possibly incorporating some of the earlier structure. 4

164 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H88 Canopy and possibly the tiered seating between the Main pool and the Learners Pool The two storey building between the main and learners pool Concrete block wall at the east side Small pool to east of the main pool, date not confirmed Paving around the pools may have been periodically upgraded Concrete block changing rooms to north, date not confirmed The baths have significance as an example of a recreational structure/ building type that was built in many New Zealand towns and cities in the early twentieth century and a number were built at a similar time to the 1912 Hamilton baths. New baths were opened at Stratford in Taranaki on 9 January xxxix A new swimming pool at Carterton in the Wairarapa was described as the largest inland swimming baths when opened in March xl Taihape had new swimming baths built in xli The swimming baths at Wanganui were used for the national championships in 1905 and the champs were hosted at the Blenheim Municipal baths in xlii In Auckland early public baths included an intertidal pool built in 1881 and an indoor pool in The intertidal Shelly Beach Baths opened in December 1912, the Parnell xliii Baths in March 1914 and the indoor Tepid Baths opened in December The Hamilton Municipal baths have been described as the oldest in-ground public pools still operating in New Zealand. This would need further research to be confirmed. ii Designer or Builder: The architect, designer, engineer or builder for the Historic Place was a notable practitioner or made a significant contribution to the city, region or nation, and the place enlarges understanding of their work. Designed by Borough Engineer FW Butler, Contractor W. E. Farrelly & Company, and Messers Morton and Sample. iii Rarity: The Historic Place or elements of it are unique, uncommon or rare at a local, district or national level, or in relation to particular historic themes. The Hamilton Municipal baths have been described as the oldest in-ground public pools still operating in New Zealand. This would need further research to be confirmed. Iv Integrity: The Historic Place has integrity, retaining significant features from its time of construction, or later periods when important modifications or additions were carried out. The complex has been modified over time with the development of new pools and structures and the removal of others. c) Context or Group Values i The physical and visual character of the site or setting of the Historic Place is of importance to the value of the place; The entrance building that was built up to the Victoria Street frontage gave the baths a formal presence in Hamilton s main street. The demolition of this building in 1983 has seen the loss of this architectural element. The Municipal Baths however remain in close proximity to central Hamilton and to the adjoining reserve. ii The Historic Place is an important visual landmark or feature, ( Not applicable) iii The Historic Place makes an important contribution to the continuity or character of the street, neighbourhood, area or landscape. The Municipal Baths have a long history of use in this part of central Hamilton but are not considered to make a significant contribution to the character of the street - the pool complex sits below street level and the removal of the original entry building has eroded the formal qualities that the place originally had in terms of streetscape. While the pools are located at the edge of the adjacent reserve, the need for fencing and enclosure means that there is currently no visual connection to the surrounding park landscape. iv The Historic Place is part of a group or collection of places which together have a coherence because of such factors as history, age, appearance, style, scale, materials, proximity or use, landscape or setting which, when considered as a whole, amplify the heritage values of the place and group/ landscape or extend its significance, 5

165 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H88 The Municipal Baths were built within the Borough reserve at the south end of Victoria Street and were until 1967, part of a group of civic and recreational facilities including the Hamilton Town Hall, built in 1905 which was later used as a theatre. The Town Hall was demolished in They now form part of a group of scheduled historic places at the south end of Victoria Street in Hamilton including H12, Band Rotunda, H08 Victoria Bridge, H48 Former Waikato Brewery, H69 Reid s Studio, H70 Former George Smith House, H4 St Peter s Cathedral, H33, St Peter s Church Hall. d) Technological Qualities: The Historic Place is representative of innovative or important methods of construction, contains unusual construction materials, is an early example of the use of a particular construction technique or has potential to contribute information about technological or engineering history The construction of the Municipal Baths pool in reinforced concrete in 1912 is a comparatively early use of this method of construction. The earliest concrete used in New Zealand was made using natural cement or hydraulic lime. From around 1860 imported Portland cement began to replace lime before New Zealand cement became widely used in the late 1880s. By 1900, Portland cement was the preferred agent in the concrete mix. The 18m high water tank at the New Zealand Railways workshops in Addington, Christchurch, built in 1883, is recognised as one of the earliest reinforced concrete structures in New Zealand. By the late 19 th century there were a number of patented systems of reinforced concrete being used including the Hennebique, Coignet, and Considere systems xliv. In Auckland, the Hennebique system was first utilised in the construction of the Auckland Harbour Board wharves beginning in 1903 with the extension of the Railway Wharf in ferroconcrete and in the construction of bridges including Grafton Bridge built in xlv The use of reinforced concrete in the construction of buildings commenced around the early1900s. In 1906 the New Zealand Express Company Building in Christchurch was constructed with a reinforced concrete structure to the basement and lower two floors and steel frame above. In September 1910 the New Zealand Herald had remarked that concrete was increasingly used for construction and that Several reinforced concrete structures have xlvi already gone up, and it is expected that the number will be added to shortly. Early Auckland examples built with a reinforced concrete frame include the 1911 Yates Building and four storey Seddon Block at Auckland Institute of Technology in Wellesley Street, built xlvii between 1909 and Concrete framed dairy factories are some of the early examples in the Waikato. Hamilton architect F C Daniel used concrete for the construction of commercial structures as well as domestic dwellings; he designed a number of buildings using the Camerated Concrete system, and reinforced concrete. Examples include the xlviii Waikato County Council Offices built in 1910 in Camerated concrete. The benefits of using reinforced concrete included its strength, fire resistance, vermin resistance as well as claims that it was sound proof. xlix A number of patents for reinforced concrete systems were applied for and other concrete construction systems promoted around this time. From the 1920s onwards there was a much greater acceptance of reinforced concrete as a comprehensive construction medium.l Apart from the traditional use of plastered finishes, the more successful development of finished concrete surfaces involving texture, off-the form, fairface, exposed aggregate and so on occurred following WWII. li e) Archaeological Qualities: i The potential of the Historic Place to define or expand knowledge of earlier human occupation, activities or events through investigation using archaeological methods. ii The potential of the Historic Place to provide evidence to address archaeological research questions. iii The Historic Place is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for its archaeological values, or is recorded by the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Recoding Scheme, or is an archaeological site as defined by the Historic Places Act (Not assessed as part of this evaluation). f) Cultural Qualities: The Historic Place is important as a focus of cultural sentiment; The Historic Place significantly contributes to community identity or sense of place or provides evidence of cultural or historical continuity, the Historic Place has symbolic or commemorative significance to people who use or have used it, or to the descendants of such people. The interpretative capacity of the Historic Place can potentially increase understanding of past lifestyles or events. The Hamilton Municipal Baths have a long history of use and through this, have important associations for many Hamiltonians. The complex has been recognised as being of value to the community by its inclusion in the schedule of historic places in the Hamilton District Plan and featured in a monograph describing 36 of Hamilton s historic structures. lii g) Scientific Qualities: The potential for the Historic Place to contribute information about an historic figure, event, phase or activity. The degree to which the Historic Place may contribute further information and the importance, rarity, quality or representativeness of the data involved. (The place has potential to add to an understanding of Hamilton s history through the provision of interpretive information. Further investigation may contribute to an understanding of the comparatively early use of reinforced concrete in the pool structure.) Summary of assessed significance and management category The place is scheduled in Category B. It is considered to be of significant heritage value locally and high or moderate value in relation to the following criteria: a)historic qualities; high, b) Physical qualities, moderate, c) Context/ group values, moderate, d)technological qualities, moderate, f) Cultural Qualities-moderate. The place is significant as evidence of the provision of recreational facilities for Hamilton by the Borough Council in the early twentieth century. The baths have significance as an example of a recreational structure/ building type that was built in many New Zealand towns 6

166 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H88 and cities in the early twentieth century and a number were built at a similar time to the 1912 Hamilton baths. The main pool built in 1912 in concrete is a reasonably early example of the use of this method of construction. The Hamilton Municipal baths are significant for their associations with Hamilton Borough Council, Hamilton Amateur Swimming Club and the many Hamiltonians who have enjoyed use of the pools. The complex has had a number of modifications over time. Form prepared 2012 Revision Surveyor/ Researcher: J Gainsford, Matthews & Matthews Architects Ltd Sources for information: i Gibbons, P. J., Astride the River: a History of Hamilton, Hamilton City Council, Hamilton N.Z., 1977, p. 35, [39]. ii Paul Gibbons, Astride the River, A History of Hamilton, Christchurch, 1977 p. 39. iii Certificate of Title Vol 20/293, cited in Waikato Committee, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT), Research Report Hamilton Municipal Swimming Baths, January 1997, p.3 iv Waikato Times, 30 June 1887 v WT 22 Feb 1887, p.2 vi Research Report Hamilton Municipal Swimming Baths, January 1997, p.7 vii Hamilton Borough Council Minutes, 25 September 1908, p.213. viii Hamilton Borough Council Minutes, 27 November 1908, p.224. ix Hamilton Borough Council Minutes, 26 March 1909, p.243. x Hamilton Borough Council Minutes, 1 September 1911, p.476. xi Hamilton Borough Council Minutes, 11 October 1911, p.488. xii Paul Gibbons, Astride the River, A History of Hamilton, Christchurch, 1977 p xiii Petra Jane Edmunds, Improving on Nature? A Critical History of the Hamilton Beautification Society, Environment and Nature in New Zealand, August 2008, unpaged. xiv Waikato Times, 5 September 1966, pp.1 and 4. xv Hamilton Borough Council Minutes, 28 March 1912, p.526. xvi Hamilton Borough Council Minutes, 31 May 1912, p.542. xvii Hamilton Borough Council Minutes, 14 June 1912, p.547. xviii Hamilton Borough Council Minutes, 15 November 1912, p.26. xix Waikato Times, 23 December 1912, p.4. xx Waikato Times, 23 December 1912, p.4. xxi Waikato Times, 23 December 1912, p.4. xxii Historic photos included in Waikato Committee, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT), Research Report Hamilton Municipal Swimming Baths, January 1997, p.9, 10. xxiii Heritage Hamilton; a celebration of the city s historic buildings, Waikato Institute of Technology (Wintec) and Hamilton City Council 2006 pp.59. xxiv Hamilton Borough Council Minutes, 21 March 1915, p.244. xxv Hamilton Borough Council Minutes, 22 January 1915, p.226. xxvi Hamilton Borough Council Minutes, 19 March 1915, p.238. xxvii Hamilton Borough Council Minutes, 23 April 1915, p.238. xxviii Hamilton Borough Council Minutes, 17 December 1915, p.305. xxix Hamilton Borough Council Minutes, 7 January 1915, p.306. xxx Heritage Hamilton; a celebration of the city s historic buildings, Waikato Institute of Technology (Wintec) and Hamilton City Council 2006 pp.59. xxxi Waikato Times Hamilton Centenary, Rovers Soccer Club took to Water in Changeover., no page, copy in Waikato Committee, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT), Research Report Hamilton Municipal Swimming Baths, January xxxii Waikato Committee, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT), Research Report Hamilton Municipal Swimming Baths, January 1997, p.2. Copy of article in appendices. xxxiii Waikato Committee, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT), Research Report Hamilton Municipal Swimming Baths, January 1997, p.2, p.14 photos. xxxiv Waikato Committee, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT), Research Report Hamilton Municipal Swimming Baths, January 1997, p.13. xxxv Waikato Committee, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT), Research Report Hamilton Municipal Swimming Baths, January 1997, p.15 xxxvi Ibid, p. 17 xxxvii Copy of newspaper article, no date or page number, Hamilton City Council records, included as an appendix. xxxviii Copy of newspaper article, no date or page number, Hamilton City Council records, included as an appendix. xxxix Supplement to the Auckland Weekly News, 6 February 1908, p.10, image AWNS , Sir George Grey Special Collections, Auckland City Libraries. xl Image AWNS , Sir George Grey Special Collections, Auckland City Libraries. xli Supplement to the Auckland Weekly News, 29 August 1911, p.3 xlii AWNS , Sir George Grey Special Collections, Auckland City Libraries. xliii Conservation Plan for the Parnell Baths, Matthews & Matthews Architects Ltd, 2011, pp.6-7. xliv ICS Reference Library,, 1909 International Textbook Company Stationer s Hall London, Volume 39, Section 16, Page 34 xlv Geoffrey Thornton, Cast in Concrete: Concrete Construction in New Zealand , Auckland, 1996, pp.16, 17-18, 98, 105 and 112. xlvi New Zealand Herald., 20 September 1910, p.7. xlvii Thornton, p.130. Rich and Jeffreys are recorded as contractors on the plaque in the building and Rich and Roche are identified as the engineers on the original watercolour drawing, Sir George Grey Special Collections, Auckland Libraries, xlviii Research undertaken by Jennie Gainsford in Waikato County Council Minutes, 27 January xlix Article on reinforced concrete, Building Progress December l Thornton, p.168. li Thornton, p.156. lii Heritage Hamilton; a celebration of the city s historic buildings, Waikato Institute of Technology (Wintec) and Hamilton City Council 2006 pp

167 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H106 Address: Building/ Site Name: Church College, Temple View David O McKay Building HISTORIC SUMMARY The David O McKay Building forms part of the college campus at Tuhikaramea, Hamilton, developed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, beginning in Construction of the David O McKay building commenced in 1955 with Perry Brown as Crew Leader and Maurice Pearson Foreman. Edward O Anderson was the Supervising Architect. The building contains an auditorium, two gymnasiums including a basketball court, a covered Olympic sized swimming pool with underwater lights, and services areas including a cafeteria, laundry, and butchers shop. The building was 92,000 square feet when constructed and had the combined seating capacity of the gymnasiums and auditorium was i The building takes advantage of the sloping site with the auditorium entrance on the ground floor and the cafeteria entrance on the first floor. The McKay building plan is described as being similar to American school gymnasium and multipurpose buildings of the mid-1950 s through to 1970 ii. It contained elements such as a basket ball court that would have been uncommon at the time, including features such as basket ball hoops that folded into the ceiling of the gymnasium, reminiscent of American gym facilities. The inclusion of an enclosed Olympic sized pool would also have been an uncommon feature at that time, given that Hamilton s Centennial Pools were not opened until the 1970s. The cafeteria kitchen was furnished with purpose-made stainless steel kitchen equipment manufactured to specifications by McAlpine Refrigeration and New Zealand Compressors. District Plan Reference: H 106, Map 60B, Category B Legal Description: Part of Lot 1 DPS Zone: Registered NZHPT: Temple View Zone No Date of Construction: 1955 Designer/ Builder: Church Architecture Department, Edward O Anderson Supervising Architect. Builders: Perry Brown (Crew Leader), Maurice Pearson (Foreman) and Labour Missionaries Current use/building type: Visible materials: Recreation facility Concrete bricks/blocks (from Columbia Block Machine), concrete, structural steel In April 1957 the first Hui Tau was held in the David O McKay Building. (The first Hui Tau had been held at the college in 1954). The use of the McKay building as a school facility began in 1958 with the arrival of the first teachers and students. The College opening social was held in the David O McKay cafeteria on 8 February 1958 and the opening assembly on 10 February On April 19, 1958 the David O McKay building was used to welcome LDS President David O McKay, for whom the building was named iii. David McKay had come to New Zealand to dedicate the New Zealand Temple and Church College of New Zealand. The School was dedicated on April In attendance were the Prime Minister Sir Walter Nash, Francis H Russell the American Ambassador, George Fennmore American Consul, LDS New Zealand President Wendell B Mendenhall, the Minister of Education, LF Ensor Superintendent of Education, Keith Holyoake former Prime Minister, and many other distinguished politicians and guests. The facility is still a central feature and an actively used structure. iv The building is named after David O McKay, one of the longest serving leaders of the LDS Church. McKay was born in 1873 and graduated from the University of Utah in He travelled on a mission to Great Britain before returning in 1899 when he worked as a teacher and then principal. He was married to Emma Riggs in In 1905 at the age of 32 McKay was appointed an Apostle of the church. In 1920 he was assigned the responsibility of undertaking a world-wide tour of LDS missions and travelled to China, Hawaii, Samoa, Tonga, New Zealand and Palestine. He served as president of the church s European Mission from 1923 until 1925, based in London. Within the leadership of the Church, McKay maintained a focus on education and was General Superintendant of the Church s Sunday 1

168 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H106 School programme from 1918 until McKay became President of the LDS Church in 1950 at the age of 77 years old and served in this role until his death in v The Church College complex at Temple View included classrooms, dormitories, gymnasium, auditorium, a library and amenities. The construction of the college was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific, with the construction of several chapels. Construction of the Temple commenced in 1956 and it was dedicated 20 April For the construction of the complex temporary accommodation units and facilities were set up in a camp which had its own kai hall and laundry. A block factory and a joinery factory were also established. The cement block (brick) plant was in operation by July 1951, using imported cement. vi The joinery workshop was the first main building constructed the first bricks for this being laid on 12 August The ground-breaking ceremony for G.R. Biesinger Hall was held in 1960 and the large Wendell B. Mendenhall Library was opened on campus on 16 February vii Seven of the buildings within the Church College complex have been identified as sufficiently significant, nationally and/or locally, for inclusion in the Hamilton City Council s District Plan schedule of heritage structures. These include: The Hamilton New Zealand Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (H108), G.R. Biesinger Hall (H107), First House (H133), David O McKay Building (H106), Wendell B Mendenhall Library (H109), Kai Hall (H134), Block Plant (H135). The LDS church in New Zealand Missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came to New Zealand in 1854 and the first branch of the Church was established, among a small number of European migrants. In December 1875 the first large group of missionaries arrived but again the contact was intermittent until October 1878, the beginning of continuous missionary activity and the more rapid spread of Mormonism. In 1879 the headquarters of the Australian [or Australasian] Mission were established in New Zealand and in 1898 the Australasian Mission was divided into two administrative units: Australian and New Zealand. In 1886 the first LDS Native School was established. Further primary schools were established and in 1911 work was begun on building the Maori Agricultural College at Korongata in Hawkes Bay. Development of the college campus at Tuhikaramea near Hamilton In 1947 a new college project was initiated by Elder Matthew Cowley. Cowley had begun work in New Zealand in 1914, working at the Maori Agricultural College, and returning later in 1938 as President of the New Zealand Mission. Cowley proposed to the General Authorities of the Church the need for a college in New Zealand. Approval was given and in September 1948 Cowley was sent to New Zealand again, this time to find a site for the college. He handed the project over to Gordon C. Young after his appointment as president and Young began looking in viii The site selection was hampered by post-world War II restrictions on land sales, but in April 1949 the LDS bought Bert Meldrum s farm at Tuhikaramea near Hamilton. ix The construction of the college was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific, with the construction of several chapels. x George R. Biesinger was general supervisor of the Church building programme in the South Pacific. He came to New Zealand, with his family, in April 1950 to supervise the construction of the Auckland chapel, the college at Tuhikaramea and buildings in Samoa. xi He remained in New Zealand for ten years. The first project of the New Zealand-wide building programme was the construction of a college at Tuhikaramea. The construction of the college began in 1950 with the ground dedication on 17 November. The architect for the college was Edward O. Anderson, who first visited the site in President Wendell B. Mendenhall undertook the initial negotiations, remaining in New Zealand for two months. He returned to the US and recruited experienced craftsmen and sent them to assist with training and supervision of the work force. xii By the end of 1952 there was a force of 60 men organised into crews for different aspects of the work. Work teams formed strong bonds during their work. Most were married men, and their wives also worked to support the building programme. xiii Thirty six qualified craftsmen, all church members, and their families arrived from America. They provided construction supervision and training for local church members and were instrumental in making the Labour missionary programme a success. xiv Church College, consisting of classrooms, dormitories, gymnasium, auditorium, a library and amenities, was only a part of the construction at the site. xv Temporary accommodation units and facilities were set up in a camp and an old house was moved down to the site. The camp had its own kai hall and laundry. First a block factory and a joinery factory were established. The cement block (brick) plant was in operation by July 1951, using imported cement. xvi The joinery workshop was the first main building constructed and the first bricks for this were laid on 12 August As the project proceeded, permanent houses were built and the Temple View village began to form. The first residence of the village was completed in 1952, and Elder George R. Biesinger and family moved into it before Christmas. This house, known as First House, was a practice training exercise, as a preparation for the subsequent houses built in a strip fronting onto Tuhikaramea Road. The first house (located at 467 Tuhikaramea Road, the first house on the left after the Church College Library) was followed by the construction of ten more cement brick/ block houses. The blocks used in their construction were made in the first block plant and machine which was replaced in 1956 by the Columbia Block machine. The early concrete bricks/ blocks were rougher than those produced by the later Columbia Block Machine. The eleven houses on the east side of Tuhikaramea Road immediately past the college were the first homes constructed in the Church college settlement. Construction of the homes on the other side of the road followed. The houses were used by project administration staff and teachers. Other temporary houses used by Labour Missionaries have since been demolished. xvii Residences were built for the teachers and staff as well as the campus buildings. Dormitories for boys and girls were among the largest buildings on the campus. The camp and later village were supported by the farm; further land had been purchased adjacent to the original piece. Some was peat, some in scrub and some in pasture. A dairy herd was developed and vegetable gardens established to supply the workers, with excess produce being sold. 2

169 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H106 The college opened for classes on 10 February 1958, although the dedication ceremony was not held until a few days after that of the Temple, on 24 April. The intention to build a temple at Hamilton was announced at the Hui Tau (Mormon conference) held 7-12 April The architect Edward O. Anderson inspected the site on 2 June 1955 and his plans were received on 1 September 1955 xviii In early January 1956 the pouring of concrete for the temple foundations and walls began.. xix The supervisor for the Temple construction was Elder E. Albert Rosenvall under Biesinger. xx By the middle of December 1956 the Temple s steel framework had been completed and nearly half of the concrete poured. The cornerstone was laid on 22 December 1956 during a ceremony attended by nearly 2000 people. Following the custom with LDS temples built elsewhere, the church allowed the public to visit and inspect the Temple prior to its dedication; subsequently it would be closed to all but authorised church members. The Temple was open from 22 March to 15 April 1958 and was dedicated on 20 April xxi Following the opening of the Temple, an intensive building programme was carried out in other parts of New Zealand, with 21 chapels being erected and opened between 1959 and 1962, and a further seven chapels in , plus two mission houses. At Temple View, the college campus continued to grow: the ground-breaking ceremony for G.R. Biesinger Hall was held in 1960 and the large Wendell B. Mendenhall Library was opened on campus on 16 February xxii The village continued to expand and a post office was opened in An information centre was built across the road from the Temple steps and a chapel and genealogical resource centre was built within the village to the west. The LDS construction headquarters remained at Temple View. The Dinsdale Chapel on Tuhikaramea Road was one of the last chapels built (1964) using cement bricks from the block plant. The grounds have been described as notable and were designed and laid out as an integral part of the college plan. The College campus including landscape and buildings is described as a significant cultural landscape. xxiii Historical context of the Temple View area The Temple View area was part of the rohe of the Waikato iwi Ngati Mahanga. A pa or village is believed to have existed in the Koromatua area, and another on the hill on which the Temple was built was used also as an urupa for burials. However after the land confiscations of the mid-1860s, some parts of the Tuhikaramea-Koromatua area were allocated as Crown grants to militiamen of the Fourth Waikato Regiment for their service in the Waikato war. By 1866 much of the area was part of the large Rukuhia Estate owned by Auckland speculator-developer James Williamson. Williamson was later in partnership with Alfred Cox and the pair began a major undertaking to drain and develop the extensive swamps as pastoral land. Their estate was broken up by the turn of the century and smaller farms developed. In 1950 when the LDS Church was beginning its building programme, the area was still rural with dairying and sheep farms extending almost to the Frankton School end of Tuhikaramea Road (now Dinsdale). A couple of market gardens also existed. Some of the peat land adjacent to the college and LDS site had been drained and cultivated and was part of the land purchased. xxiv By 1958 the LDS owned 1582 acres, of which 85 acres were housing or contemplated housing, 10 acres occupied by construction factories, 60 acres by the college campus, 30 acres by the Temple and Bureau of Information, and 20 acres in roads; the remaining 1377 acres were farmland. xxv a) Historic Qualities i) Associative Value: The Historic Place has a direct association with or relationship to, a person, group, institution, event or activity that is of historical significance to Hamilton, the Waikato or New Zealand. The building is significant for its associations with an international leader of the LDS Church, David O McKay. The building is also significant for its association with significant events including Hui Tau in 1957 as well as the dedication of the Church College and the New Zealand Temple in It is also significant for its associations with the LDS Labour missionaries involved with its construction. ii) Historic Pattern: The Historic Place is associated with broad patterns of local, regional or national history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes, social or economic trends and activities. Built in 1955, the David O McKay building forms part of the comprehensive development of college campus commencing in The Temple and college area focus for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints in New Zealand and represent a purpose built community. It is the only LDS Temple and college in New Zealand. The construction of the college at this time was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific, with the construction of several chapels. Missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came to New Zealand in 1854, with more continuous missionary activity commencing in b) Physical/ Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities: i Style/Design/Type: The style of the Historic Place is representative of a significant development period in the city, region and or the nation; The Historic Place is associated with a significant activity, reflected in its design, function or type. The Historic Place has distinctive or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature which may include its design, form, massing, scale, proportions materials, ornamentation, period, craftsmanship, or other design element. The building is significant for its Modernist design by the LDS Architectural and Engineering Department, in Salt Lake City. The unadorned white cubic form of the gymnasium sits over a recessed glazed base. The name of the building in surface mounted lettering provides the only relief on the white concrete brick walls. A flat hood projects over the lower level, casting strong shadows. The horizontal form of the cafeteria with its flat canopy contrasts with the vertical proportions of the windows. 3

170 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H106 ii Designer or Builder: The architect, designer, engineer or builder for the Historic Place was a notable practitioner or made a significant contribution to the city, region or nation, and the place enlarges understanding of their work. The building is significant as an example within the campus of designs prepared by the Architectural and Engineering Department, Salt Lake City, Utah. Edward O Anderson was the supervising architect. iii Rarity: The Historic Place or elements of it are unique, uncommon or rare at a local, district or national level, or in relation to particular historic themes. The building was unusual at the time of its construction for the range and scale of recreation facilities included comparative to college facilities in New Zealand at the time. Iv Integrity: The Historic Place has integrity, retaining significant features from its time of construction, or later periods when important modifications or additions were carried out. The building appears to remain largely intact. c) Context or Group Values i The physical and visual character of the site or setting of the Historic Place is of importance to the value of the place; The grounds have been described as notable and were designed and laid out as an integral part of the college plan. The College campus is described as a significant cultural landscape. ii The Historic Place is an important visual landmark or feature, iii The Historic Place makes an important contribution to the continuity or character of the street, neighbourhood, area or landscape. iv The Historic Place is part of a group or collection of places which together have a coherence because of such factors as history, age, appearance, style, scale, materials, proximity or use, landscape or setting which, when considered as a whole, amplify the heritage values of the place and group/ landscape or extend its significance, The David O McKay building forms part of the comprehensive development of college campus commencing in 1950 incorporating a range of buildings and the surrounding designed landscape and farmlands associated with the College. The College campus including landscape and buildings is described as a significant cultural landscape. Aerial photo 2012, Hamilton City Council. 4

171 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H106 d) Technological Qualities: The Historic Place is representative of innovative or important methods of construction, contains unusual construction materials, is an early example of the use of a particular construction technique or has potential to contribute information about technological or engineering history. The building is of significance for its technological qualities as an example of a building constructed using concrete bricks made at the LDS block plant. e) Archaeological Qualities: i The potential of the Historic Place to define or expand knowledge of earlier human occupation, activities or events through investigation using archaeological methods. ii The potential of the Historic Place to provide evidence to address archaeological research questions. iii The Historic Place is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for its archaeological values, or is recorded by the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Recoding Scheme, or is an archaeological site as defined by the Historic Places Act (Not assessed as part of this evaluation).refer report: Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November f) Cultural Qualities: The Historic Place is important as a focus of cultural sentiment; The Historic Place significantly contributes to community identity or sense of place or provides evidence of cultural or historical continuity, the Historic Place has symbolic or commemorative significance to people who use or have used it, or to the descendants of such people. The interpretative capacity of the Historic Place can potentially increase understanding of past lifestyles or events. The David O McKay building housed the key recreational and social facilities as part of the Church College. The importance of the complex at Temple View to the community is evident in the formation of the Temple View Heritage Society formed to campaign for the retention of buildings within the college complex. An envisioning committee including the Church, members of the Temple View Heritage Society, Labour Missionaries Association, Church College Alumni Association and members of the Temple View community and Council have worked together to develop plans for the future of the college campus. xxvi g) Scientific Qualities: The potential for the Historic Place to contribute information about an historic figure, event, phase or activity. The degree to which the Historic Place may contribute further information and the importance, rarity, quality or representativeness of the data involved. (The place may have potential to contribute archaeological information, refer to archaeological report It has potential to contribute to understanding of the history and development of the college campus at Tuhikaramea, Hamilton, developed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) Summary of assessed significance and management category The place is scheduled in Category B. It is considered to be of significant heritage value locally and regionally, setting a standard for school facilities that would come much later to colleges in Hamilton and the Waikato region. It is considered to be of high or moderate value in relation to the following criteria: a)historic Qualities; high, b) Physical/Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities; high, c) Context or Group Values; high, d) Technological Qualities; moderate, e) Archaeological Qualities; not assessed, f) Cultural Qualities, high The David O McKay building is significant as the key recreational facility built in 1955 as part of the Church College. It is named after David O McKay an international leader of the LDS Church, and President at the time the building was constructed. The building is significant for its modernist architectural design, and as an example within the College campus of designs prepared by the LDS Architectural and Engineering Department and supervising architect Edward O Anderson. It is significant as an example of the skills of the Labour missionaries with Perry Brown as Crew Leader and Maurice Pearson Foreman. The building is of significance as an example of a building constructed using concrete bricks made at the LDS block plant. The importance of the complex at Temple View to the community is evident in the formation of the Temple View Heritage Society formed to campaign for the retention of buildings within the college complex. Form prepared 2012 Revision Compiled Matthews & Matthews Architects Ltd Key Sources for information: Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton, Lynette Williams, Hamilton, 30 June 2009, Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory Forms i Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory Form H 106, ii Comment made by Alexy Simmons who noted that the scale, design, plan, and many of the internal details of the college buildings, particularly the David O McKay Building, to be very similar to contemporary American High School facilities. The scale is generally larger then that found in contemporary NZ high schools/ colleges. It was very similar to the facilities at the high school Alexy Simmons attended in the US, and unlike the NZ colleges she has visited. Pers Comment, Alexy Simmons November 2004, recorded on Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory Form H 106, iii On April 9, 1951 David O McKay became the 9 th President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He served as a General Authority for nearly sixty-four years, longer than any other person in Church history. Among other things he is remembered for his contributions to education, his emphasis on missionary work, and for leading the Church toward increased internationalism. iv Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory Form H 106, v 5

172 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H106 vi Cummings, David W. Mighty Missionary of the Pacific Salt Lake City, Bookcraft, Inc. 1961, p.30; Te Rongo Pai 1; History Growth and Development of the Church College of New Zealand and New Zealand Temple Project, Hamilton, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1958p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton, Lynette Williams,Hamilton,30 June 2009 vii Lynette Williams, Hamilton, 30 June 2009,Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton. viii Cummings, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple ix Hunt, Brian W. Zion in New Zealand, Church College of New Zealand, Temple View, New Zealand 1977, p.65. This part of Tuhikaramea became known as Temple View, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. x Cummings, preface, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. xi Hunt p.67, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xii Cummings p.37, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xiii Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. xiv Waikato Times, July , cited in Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, p.18. xv See Site plan, Figure 13, from Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November xvi Cummings p.30; Te Rongo Pai 1958 p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xvii Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory form xviii Cummings p.58, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xix E.g.Cummings 70, 71, 74, 75, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xx Cummings p.58, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xxi Newspaper clipping, Waikato Historical Society scrapbook, Hamilton City Libraries 2 December 1957, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xxii He Mahi Aroha 1963 p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xxiii Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, p. 37. xxiv Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. xxv Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. xxvi 6

173 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H107 Address: Church College, Temple View Building/ Site Name: G.R. Biesinger Hall (GRB Hall) HISTORIC SUMMARY The G.R. Biesinger Hall (GRB Hall) was constructed as a tribute to George R. Biesinger in 1960 and was built in twenty eight days by Labour missionaries. It forms part of the college campus at Tuhikaramea, Hamilton, developed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, beginning in The Church College complex included classrooms, dormitories, gymnasium, auditorium, a library and amenities. The construction of the college was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific, with the construction of several chapels. Construction of the Temple commenced in 1956 and it was dedicated 20 April For the construction of the complex temporary accommodation units and facilities were set up in a camp which had its own kai hall and laundry. A block factory and a joinery factory were also established. The cement block (brick) plant was in operation by July 1951, using imported cement. i The joinery workshop was the first main building constructed the first bricks for this being laid on 12 August The ground-breaking ceremony for G.R. Biesinger Hall was held in 1960 and the large Wendell B. Mendenhall Library was opened on campus on 16 February ii District Plan Reference: H107, Map 60B, Category B Legal Description: Part of Lot 1 DPS Zoning: Temple View Zone Registered NZHPT: No Date of Construction: 1960 Designer/ Builder: Labour Missionaries and other members of the Church of the Latter Day Saints Current use/building type: wharenui / hall Visible materials: Corrugated iron roof, timber weatherboard walls Seven of the buildings within the Church College complex have been identified as sufficiently significant, nationally and/or locally, for inclusion in the Hamilton City Council s District Plan schedule of heritage structures. These include: The Hamilton New Zealand Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (H108), G.R. Biesinger Hall (H107), First House (H133), David O MacKay Building (H106), Wendell B Mendenhall Library (H109), Kai Hall (H134), Block Plant (H135). In 1960 the hall was constructed as a tribute to George R. Biesinger. The Labour missionaries commissioned the construction and the local community donated materials. The missionaries built the hall, which was completed in 28 days. The hall was erected as a surprise for George Biesinger, who was away overseas while it was constructed. The hall is now used as a wharenui. iii The building has a steep pitched gabled roof with a projecting gable ridge with a multi-pane glass northern wall. The entrance to the hall was decorated with Maori carvings. iv The LDS church in New Zealand Missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came to New Zealand in 1854 and the first branch of the Church was established, among a small number of European migrants. In December 1875 the first large group of missionaries arrived but again the contact was intermittent until October 1878, the beginning of continuous missionary activity and the more rapid spread of Mormonism. In 1879 the headquarters of the Australian [or Australasian] Mission were established in New Zealand and in 1898 the Australasian Mission was divided into two administrative units: Australian and New Zealand. In 1886 the first LDS Native School was established. Further primary schools were established and in 1911 work was begun on building the Maori Agricultural College at Korongata in Hawkes Bay. 1

174 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H107 Development of the college campus at Tuhikaramea near Hamilton In 1947 a new college project was initiated by Elder Matthew Cowley. Cowley had begun work in New Zealand in 1914, working at the Maori Agricultural College, and returning later in 1938 as President of the New Zealand Mission. Cowley proposed to the General Authorities of the Church the need for a college in New Zealand. Approval was given and in September 1948 Cowley was sent to New Zealand again, this time to find a site for the college. He handed the project over to Gordon C. Young after his appointment as president and Young began looking in v The site selection was hampered by post-world War II restrictions on land sales, but in April 1949 the LDS bought Bert Meldrum s farm at Tuhikaramea near Hamilton. vi The construction of the college was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific, with the construction of several chapels. vii George R. Biesinger was general supervisor of the Church building programme in the South Pacific. He came to New Zealand, with his family, in April 1950 to supervise the construction of the Auckland chapel, the college at Tuhikaramea and buildings in Samoa. viii He remained in New Zealand for ten years. The first project of the New Zealand-wide building programme was the construction of a college at Tuhikaramea. The construction of the college began in 1950 with the ground dedication on 17 November. The architect for the college was Edward O. Anderson, who first visited the site in President Wendell B. Mendenhall undertook the initial negotiations, remaining in New Zealand for two months. He returned to the US and recruited experienced craftsmen and sent them to assist with training and supervision of the work force. ix By the end of 1952 there was a force of 60 men organised into crews for different aspects of the work. Work teams formed strong bonds during their work. Most were married men, and their wives also worked to support the building programme. x Thirty six qualified craftsmen, all church members, and their families arrived from America. They provided construction supervision and training for local church members and were instrumental in making the Labour missionary programme a success. xi Church College, consisting of classrooms, dormitories, gymnasium, auditorium, a library and amenities, was only a part of the construction at the site. Temporary accommodation units and facilities were set up in a camp and an old house was moved down to the site. The camp had its own kai hall and laundry. First a block factory and a joinery factory were established. The cement block (brick) plant was in operation by July 1951, using imported cement. xii The joinery workshop was the first main building constructed and the first bricks for this were laid on 12 August As the project proceeded, permanent houses were built and the Temple View village began to form. The first residence of the village was completed in 1952, and Elder George R. Biesinger and family moved into it before Christmas. This house, known as First House, was a practice training exercise, as a preparation for the subsequent houses built in a strip fronting onto Tuhikaramea Road. The house was built of cement blocks or bricks manufactured on site. These blocks were produced using the Columbia Block Machine ; each mould made eight blocks. Residences were built for the teachers and staff as well as the campus buildings. Dormitories for boys and girls were among the largest buildings on the campus. The camp and later village were supported by the farm; further land had been purchased adjacent to the original piece. Some was peat, some in scrub and some in pasture. A dairy herd was developed and vegetable gardens established to supply the workers, with excess produce being sold. The college opened for classes on 10 February 1958, although the dedication ceremony was not held until a few days after that of the Temple, on 24 April. The intention to build a temple at Hamilton was announced at the Hui Tau (Mormon conference) held 7-12 April The architect Edward O. Anderson inspected the site on 2 June 1955 and his plans were received on 1 September 1955 xiii In early January 1956 the pouring of concrete for the temple foundations and walls began.. xiv The supervisor for the Temple construction was Elder E. Albert Rosenvall under Biesinger. xv By the middle of December 1956 the Temple s steel framework had been completed and nearly half of the concrete poured. The cornerstone was laid on 22 December 1956 during a ceremony attended by nearly 2000 people. Following the custom with LDS temples built elsewhere, the church allowed the public to visit and inspect the Temple prior to its dedication; subsequently it would be closed to all but authorised church members. The Temple was open from 22 March to 15 April 1958 and was dedicated on 20 April xvi Following the opening of the Temple, an intensive building programme was carried out in other parts of New Zealand, with 21 chapels being erected and opened between 1959 and 1962, and a further seven chapels in , plus two mission houses. At Temple View, the college campus continued to grow: the ground-breaking ceremony for G.R. Biesinger Hall was held in 1960 and the large Wendell B. Mendenhall Library was opened on campus on 16 February xvii The village continued to expand and a post office was opened in An information centre was built across the road from the Temple steps and a chapel and genealogical resource centre was built within the village to the west. The LDS construction headquarters remained at Temple View. The Dinsdale Chapel on Tuhikaramea Road was one of the last chapels built (1964) using cement bricks from the block plant. The grounds have been described as notable and were designed and laid out as an integral part of the college plan. The College campus including landscape and buildings is described as a significant cultural landscape. xviii Historical context of the Temple View area The Temple View area was part of the rohe of the Waikato iwi Ngati Mahanga. A pa or village is believed to have existed in the Koromatua area, and another on the hill on which the Temple was built was used also as an urupa for burials. However after the land confiscations of the mid-1860s, some parts of the Tuhikaramea-Koromatua area were allocated as Crown grants to militiamen of the Fourth Waikato Regiment for their service in the Waikato war. By 1866 much of the area was part of the large Rukuhia Estate owned by Auckland 2

175 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H107 speculator-developer James Williamson. Williamson was later in partnership with Alfred Cox and the pair began a major undertaking to drain and develop the extensive swamps as pastoral land. Their estate was broken up by the turn of the century and smaller farms developed. In 1950 when the LDS Church was beginning its building programme, the area was still rural with dairying and sheep farms extending almost to the Frankton School end of Tuhikaramea Road (now Dinsdale). A couple of market gardens also existed. Some of the peat land adjacent to the college and LDS site had been drained and cultivated and was part of the land purchased. xix By 1958 the LDS owned 1582 acres, of which 85 acres were housing or contemplated housing, 10 acres occupied by construction factories, 60 acres by the college campus, 30 acres by the Temple and Bureau of Information, and 20 acres in roads; the remaining 1377 acres were farmland. xx a) Historic Qualities i) Associative Value: The Historic Place has a direct association with or relationship to, a person, group, institution, event or activity that is of historical significance to Hamilton, the Waikato or New Zealand. The G.R. Biesinger Hall is of significance for its associations with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who developed the Temple and college facilities, beginning in The Hall was built to commemorate George R. Biesinger who was general supervisor of the Church building programme in the South Pacific. He came to New Zealand, with his family, in April 1950 to supervise the construction of the Auckland chapel, the college at Tuhikaramea and buildings in Samoa. xxi He remained in New Zealand for ten years. ii) Historic Pattern: The Historic Place is associated with broad patterns of local, regional or national history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes, social or economic trends and activities. The G.R. Biesinger Hall forms part of the comprehensive development of the college campus commencing in The Temple and college are a focus for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints in New Zealand and represent a purpose-built community, the only one of its kind in New Zealand. The construction of the college at this time was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific. Missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints first came to New Zealand in 1854, with more continuous missionary activity commencing in b) Physical/ Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities: i Style/Design/Type: The style of the Historic Place is representative of a significant development period in the city, region and or the nation; The Historic Place is associated with a significant activity, reflected in its design, function or type. The Historic Place has distinctive or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature which may include its design, form, massing, scale, proportions materials, ornamentation, period, craftsmanship, or other design element. The hall is simply designed with a steeply pitched gable roof with projecting ridge. The walls are clad with weatherboards.tthe north wall has large multi-paned windows and the projects at the centre. A gabled side entrance porch features Maori carvings. The style of the building has been described as vernacular and organic, incorporating elements of European gabled hall structures with the form of a wharenui. xxii ii Designer or Builder: The architect, designer, engineer or builder for the Historic Place was a notable practitioner or made a significant contribution to the city, region or nation, and the place enlarges understanding of their work. The GRB Hall was designed and built by Labour Missionaries and other members of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. iii Rarity: The Historic Place or elements of it are unique, uncommon or rare at a local, district or national level, or in relation to particular historic themes. The complex built for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints at Temple View is the only one of the kind in New Zealand. Iv Integrity: The Historic Place has integrity, retaining significant features from its time of construction, or later periods when important modifications or additions were carried out. The College and Temple complex are a significant historic landscape with substantial built integrity. The GRB Hall appears to remain largely intact. c) Context or Group Values i The physical and visual character of the site or setting of the Historic Place is of importance to the value of the place; The grounds have been described as notable and were designed and laid out as an integral part of the college plan. The College campus is described as a significant cultural landscape. The GRB Hall is located near the Labour Missionaries Camp, the Kai Hall, former General Store and medical centre and is significant as a structure that marks the once bustling workers camp. ii The Historic Place is an important visual landmark or feature, iii The Historic Place makes an important contribution to the continuity or character of the street, neighbourhood, area or landscape. iv The Historic Place is part of a group or collection of places which together have a coherence because of such factors as history, age, appearance, style, scale, materials, proximity or use, landscape or setting which, when considered as a whole, amplify the heritage values of the place and group/ landscape or extend its significance, The G.R. Biesinger Hall forms part of the comprehensive development of the college campus commencing in 1950 incorporating a range of buildings and the surrounding designed landscape and farmlands associated with the College. The College campus including landscape and buildings is described as a significant cultural landscape. 3

176 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H107 d) Technological Qualities: The Historic Place is representative of innovative or important methods of construction, contains unusual construction materials, is an early example of the use of a particular construction technique or has potential to contribute information about technological or engineering history. Not considered applicable; the Hall is a timber framed structure with iron roof. e) Archaeological Qualities: i The potential of the Historic Place to define or expand knowledge of earlier human occupation, activities or events through investigation using archaeological methods. ii The potential of the Historic Place to provide evidence to address archaeological research questions. iii The Historic Place is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for its archaeological values, or is recorded by the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Recoding Scheme, or is an archaeological site as defined by the Historic Places Act (Not assessed as part of this evaluation).refer report :Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November f) Cultural Qualities: The Historic Place is important as a focus of cultural sentiment; The Historic Place significantly contributes to community identity or sense of place or provides evidence of cultural or historical continuity, the Historic Place has symbolic or commemorative significance to people who use or have used it, or to the descendants of such people. The interpretative capacity of the Historic Place can potentially increase understanding of past lifestyles or events. The Hall, built in 28 days, is a reflection of the Labour Missionaries building skills, and commitment to the project and commemorates George Biesinger s role as construction supervisor. The importance of the complex at Temple View to the community is evident in the formation of the Temple View Heritage Society formed to campaign for the retention of buildings within the college complex. An envisioning committee including the Church, members of the Temple View Heritage Society, Labour Missionaries Association, Church College Alumni Association and members of the Temple View community and Council have worked together to develop plans for the future of the college campus. xxiii g) Scientific Qualities: Aerial photo 2012, Hamilton City Council. The potential for the Historic Place to contribute information about an historic figure, event, phase or activity. The degree to which the Historic Place may contribute further information and the importance, rarity, quality or representativeness of the data involved. The place may have potential to contribute archaeological information, refer to archaeological report It has potential to contribute to understanding of the history and development of the college campus at Tuhikaramea, Hamilton, developed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 4

177 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H107 Summary of assessed significance and management category The place is scheduled in Category B. It is considered to be of significant heritage value locally and nationally and high or moderate value in relation to the following criteria: a)historic Qualities; High, b) Physical/Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities; Moderate c) Context or Group Values; High, e) Archaeological Qualities;(not assessed) f) Cultural Qualities, high. The G.R. Biesinger Hall forms part of the comprehensive development at Tuhikaramea, Hamilton, by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commencing in The Temple and college are a focus for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints in New Zealand and represent a purpose-built community. It is the only LDS Temple and college in New Zealand. The construction of the college at this time was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific. The G.R. Biesinger Hall was built in 1960 to commemorate George R. Biesinger who was general supervisor of the Church building programme in the South Pacific. It is significant as a structure that marks the once bustling workers camp built to house Labour Missionaries involved in the construction of the complex. Form prepared 2012 Revision Matthews & Matthews Architects Ltd Key Sources for information: xi Waikato Times, July , cited in Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, p.18. xii Cummings p.30; Te Rongo Pai 1958 p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xiii Cummings p.58, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xiv E.g.Cummings 70, 71, 74, 75, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xv Cummings p.58, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xvi Newspaper clipping, Waikato Historical Society scrapbook, Hamilton City Libraries 2 December 1957, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xvii He Mahi Aroha 1963 p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xviii Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, p. 37. xix. Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xx Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. xxi Hunt p.67, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xxii Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory form 107 GRB Hall xxiii Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton, Lynette Williams, Hamilton, 30 June 2009, Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory Forms i Cummings, David W. Mighty Missionary of the Pacific Salt Lake City, Bookcraft, Inc. 1961, p.30; Te Rongo Pai 1; History Growth and Development of the Church College of New Zealand and New Zealand Temple Project, Hamilton, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1958p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton, Lynette Williams,Hamilton,30 June 2009 ii Lynette Williams, Hamilton, 30 June 2009, Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton. iii Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, p. 38. iv Alexy Simmonds, Temple View Heritage proposed for protection under the Hamilton City District Plan, March v Cummings, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple vi Hunt, Brian W. Zion in New Zealand, Church College of New Zealand, Temple View, New Zealand 1977, p.65. This part of Tuhikaramea became known as Temple View, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. vii Cummings, preface, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. viii Hunt p.67, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple ix Cummings p.37, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple x Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. 5

178 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H109 Address: Building/ Site Name: Church College, Temple View Wendell B. Mendenhall Library HISTORIC SUMMARY: The Wendell B. Mendenhall Library forms part of the college campus at Tuhikaramea Road, Hamilton, developed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, beginning in The Library was designed by Latter Day Saints Architectural and Engineering Department, and opened in February On 27 October 1960 architectural drawings showcased the design and the layout of the new library complex. Preliminary architectural plans dated 22 December 1960 showed the interior arrangement which included a porch, foyer, and five classrooms at ground level together with offices and service areas. The library and reading room were located at the upper level together with a conference room, work room and office, and an audio visual room. i In April 1961 formal architectural plans were drawn by the Architectural and Engineering Department, 125 North Main Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. Harold W. Burton was the supervising architect. ii The library and reading room could seat just over one hundred people and a conference room was situated on the north side. iii The Wendell B. Mendenhall Library building was located on the left hand side of Tuhikaramea Road. Before construction commenced the site was assessed and trees selected for retention or clearing and the site was graded to the right levels. Construction began in 1961 and the library was opened on campus on 16 February iv District Plan Reference: H 109, Map 60B Category B Legal Description: Part of Lot 1 DPS Zoning: Registered NZHPT: Temple View Zone No Date of Construction: Designer/ Builder: Current use/building type: Visible materials: Latter Day Saints Architectural and Engineering Department, Utah, America Library Painted concrete bricks, aluminium framed curtain wall The Library is named after Wendell Bird Mendenhall ( ), who was the head of the Church Building Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (LDS) and closely involved in the Labour Missionary programme of the Church in the 1950s. Mendenhall was closely involved in the Polynesian Cultural Centre in Hawaii and was the building supervisor for the Oakland California Temple in the 1960s. He was born in Mapleton, Utah and attended Utah State University and Brigham Young University. He served as a Mormon missionary in New Zealand from 1927 to At the time of his involvement with the Church College in New Zealand, he was serving as President of the San Joaquin Stake in California. Mendenhall recruited labour missionaries to assist with building projects. He was closely involved until the mid 1960s in the acquisition of land and construction of a large number of Chapels and other buildings for the Church. v The Church College complex included classrooms, dormitories, gymnasium, auditorium, a library and amenities. The construction of the college was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific, with the construction of several chapels. Construction of the Temple commenced in 1956 and it was dedicated 20 April For the construction of the complex temporary accommodation units and facilities were set up in a camp which had its own kai hall and laundry. A block factory and a joinery factory were also established. The cement block (brick) plant was in operation by July 1951, using imported cement. vi The joinery workshop was the first main building constructed the first bricks for this being laid on 12 August The ground-breaking ceremony for G.R. Biesinger Hall was held in 1960 and the large Wendell B. Mendenhall Library was opened on campus on 16 February vii Seven of the buildings within the Church College complex have been identified as sufficiently significant, nationally and/or locally, for inclusion in the Hamilton City Council s District Plan schedule of heritage structures. These include: The Hamilton New Zealand Temple of the 1

179 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H109 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (H108), G.R. Biesinger Hall (H107), First House (H133), David O MacKay Building (H106), Wendell B Mendenhall Library (H109), Kai Hall (H134), Block Plant (H135). The LDS church in New Zealand Missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came to New Zealand in 1854 and the first branch of the Church was established, among a small number of European migrants. In December 1875 the first large group of missionaries arrived but again the contact was intermittent until October 1878, the beginning of continuous missionary activity and the more rapid spread of Mormonism. In 1879 the headquarters of the Australian [or Australasian] Mission were established in New Zealand and in 1898 the Australasian Mission was divided into two administrative units: Australian and New Zealand. In 1886 the first LDS Native School was established. Further primary schools were established and in 1911 work was begun on building the Maori Agricultural College at Korongata in Hawkes Bay. Development of the college campus at Tuhikaramea near Hamilton In 1947 a new college project was initiated by Elder Matthew Cowley. Cowley had begun work in New Zealand in 1914, working at the Maori Agricultural College, and returning later in 1938 as President of the New Zealand Mission. Cowley proposed to the General Authorities of the Church the need for a college in New Zealand. Approval was given and in September 1948 Cowley was sent to New Zealand again, this time to find a site for the college. He handed the project over to Gordon C. Young after his appointment as president and Young began looking in viii The site selection was hampered by post-world War II restrictions on land sales, but in April 1949 the LDS bought Bert Meldrum s farm at Tuhikaramea near Hamilton. ix The construction of the college was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific, with the construction of several chapels. x George R. Biesinger was general supervisor of the Church building programme in the South Pacific. He came to New Zealand, with his family, in April 1950 to supervise the construction of the Auckland chapel, the college at Tuhikaramea and buildings in Samoa. xi He remained in New Zealand for ten years. The first project of the New Zealand-wide building programme was the construction of a college at Tuhikaramea. The construction of the college began in 1950 with the ground dedication on 17 November. The architect for the college was Edward O. Anderson, who first visited the site in President Wendell B. Mendenhall undertook the initial negotiations, remaining in New Zealand for two months. He returned to the US and recruited experienced craftsmen and sent them to assist with training and supervision of the work force. xii By the end of 1952 there was a force of 60 men organised into crews for different aspects of the work. Work teams formed strong bonds during their work. Most were married men, and their wives also worked to support the building programme. xiii Thirty six qualified craftsmen, all church members, and their families arrived from America. They provided construction supervision and training for local church members and were instrumental in making the Labour missionary programme a success. xiv Church College, consisting of classrooms, dormitories, gymnasium, auditorium, a library and amenities, was only a part of the construction at the site. xv Temporary accommodation units and facilities were set up in a camp and an old house was moved down to the site. The camp had its own kai hall and laundry. First a block factory and a joinery factory were established. The cement block (brick) plant was in operation by July 1951, using imported cement. xvi The joinery workshop was the first main building constructed and the first bricks for this were laid on 12 August As the project proceeded, permanent houses were built and the Temple View village began to form. The first residence of the village was completed in 1952, and Elder George R. Biesinger and family moved into it before Christmas. This house, known as First House, was a practice training exercise, as a preparation for the subsequent houses built in a strip fronting onto Tuhikaramea Road. The blocks used in their construction were made in the first block plant and machine which was replaced in 1956 by the Columbia Block machine. The early concrete bricks/ blocks were rougher than those produced by the later Columbia Block Machine. The eleven houses on the college side of the road, that is east side of Tuhikaramea Road immediately past the college were the first homes constructed in the Church college settlement. Construction of the homes on the other side of the road followed. The houses were used by project administration staff and teachers. Other temporary houses used by Labour Missionaries have since been demolished. xvii Residences were built for the teachers and staff as well as the campus buildings. Dormitories for boys and girls were among the largest buildings on the campus. The camp and later village were supported by the farm; further land had been purchased adjacent to the original piece. Some was peat, some in scrub and some in pasture. A dairy herd was developed and vegetable gardens established to supply the workers, with excess produce being sold. The college opened for classes on 10 February 1958, although the dedication ceremony was not held until a few days after that of the Temple, on 24 April. The intention to build a temple at Hamilton was announced at the Hui Tau (Mormon conference) held 7-12 April The architect Edward O. Anderson inspected the site on 2 June 1955 and his plans were received on 1 September 1955 xviii In early January 1956 the pouring of concrete for the temple foundations and walls began.. xix The supervisor for the Temple construction was Elder E. Albert Rosenvall under Biesinger. xx By the middle of December 1956 the Temple s steel framework had been completed and nearly half of the concrete poured. The cornerstone was laid on 22 December 1956 during a ceremony attended by nearly 2000 people. Following the custom with LDS temples built elsewhere, the church allowed the public to visit and inspect the Temple prior to its dedication; subsequently it would be closed to all but authorised church members. The Temple was open from 22 March to 15 April 1958 and was dedicated on 20 April xxi Following the opening of the Temple, an intensive building programme was carried out in other parts of New Zealand, with 21 chapels being erected and opened between 1959 and 1962, and a further seven chapels in , plus two mission houses. At Temple View, the college campus continued to grow: the ground-breaking ceremony for G.R. Biesinger Hall was held in 1960 and the large Wendell B. Mendenhall Library was 2

180 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H109 opened on campus on 16 February xxii The village continued to expand and a post office was opened in An information centre was built across the road from the Temple steps and a chapel and genealogical resource centre was built within the village to the west. The LDS construction headquarters remained at Temple View. The Dinsdale Chapel on Tuhikaramea Road was one of the last chapels built (1964) using cement bricks from the block plant. The grounds have been described as notable and were designed and laid out as an integral part of the college plan. The College campus including landscape and buildings is described as a significant cultural landscape. xxiii Historical context of the Temple View area The Temple View area was part of the rohe of the Waikato iwi Ngati Mahanga. A pa or village is believed to have existed in the Koromatua area, and another on the hill on which the Temple was built was used also as an urupa for burials. However after the land confiscations of the mid-1860s, some parts of the Tuhikaramea-Koromatua area were allocated as Crown grants to militiamen of the Fourth Waikato Regiment for their service in the Waikato war. By 1866 much of the area was part of the large Rukuhia Estate owned by Auckland speculator-developer James Williamson. Williamson was later in partnership with Alfred Cox and the pair began a major undertaking to drain and develop the extensive swamps as pastoral land. Their estate was broken up by the turn of the century and smaller farms developed. In 1950 when the LDS Church was beginning its building programme, the area was still rural with dairying and sheep farms extending almost to the Frankton School end of Tuhikaramea Road (now Dinsdale). A couple of market gardens also existed. Some of the peat land adjacent to the college and LDS site had been drained and cultivated and was part of the land purchased. xxiv By 1958 the LDS owned 1582 acres, of which 85 acres were housing or contemplated housing, 10 acres occupied by construction factories, 60 acres by the college campus, 30 acres by the Temple and Bureau of Information, and 20 acres in roads; the remaining 1377 acres were farmland. xxv a) Historic Qualities i) Associative Value: The Historic Place has a direct association with or relationship to, a person, group, institution, event or activity that is of historical significance to Hamilton, the Waikato or New Zealand. The Wendell B. Mendenhall Library is of great significance for its associations with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who developed the Temple and college facilities, beginning in The library is named after President Wendell B. Mendenhall who undertook the initial negotiations for construction of the college at Tuhikaramea, and recruited experienced craftsmen to assist with training and supervision of the work force. ii) Historic Pattern: The Historic Place is associated with broad patterns of local, regional or national history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes, social or economic trends and activities. The Wendell B. Mendenhall Library forms part of the comprehensive development of college campus commencing in The Temple and college area focus for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints in New Zealand and represent a purpose built community. It is the only LDS Temple and college in New Zealand. The construction of the college at this time was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific, with the construction of several chapels. Missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came to New Zealand in 1854, with more continuous missionary activity commencing in b) Physical/ Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities: i Style/Design/Type: The style of the Historic Place is representative of a significant development period in the city, region and or the nation; The Historic Place is associated with a significant activity, reflected in its design, function or type. The Historic Place has distinctive or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature which may include its design, form, massing, scale, proportions materials, ornamentation, period, craftsmanship, or other design element. The Wendell B. Mendenhall Library is a good example in Hamilton of International modernism. The design incorporates a double height loggia on the east and west sides. Slender rectangular columns support the projecting flat roof, while curtain wall detailing is set between the expressed structural frame on the building facades. The generously glazed walls are contrasted with the solid planes of the end elevations, divided by a central slot of glazing While the building is of two storeys, the scale of the columns supporting the loggia roof give the building a monumental quality. The building is set back from the road with well maintained lawns and ornamental trees allowing open views towards it. On the south side as the site falls a white painted concrete brick wall visually provides a base to the building with car parking adjacent. Surface mounted metal lettering with the name of the building is located on the north and south elevations. The building is L-shaped in plan with a wing extending towards the east which has similar curtain wall detailing set between structural pilasters. The building is constructed with white painted concrete bricks made at the LDS block plant. ii Designer or Builder: The architect, designer, engineer or builder for the Historic Place was a notable practitioner or made a significant contribution to the city, region or nation, and the place enlarges understanding of their work. The library is significant as an example within the campus of designs prepared by the Architectural and Engineering Department, Salt Lake City, Utah. Harold W. Burton was the supervising architect. iii Rarity: The Historic Place or elements of it are unique, uncommon or rare at a local, district or national level, or in relation to particular historic themes. It is the only LDS Temple and college in New Zealand. Iv Integrity: The Historic Place has integrity, retaining significant features from its time of construction, or later periods when important modifications or additions were carried out. The College and Temple complex are a significant historic landscape with substantial built integrity. 3

181 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H109 c) Context or Group Values i The physical and visual character of the site or setting of the Historic Place is of importance to the value of the place; The grounds have been described as notable and were designed and laid out as an integral part of the college plan. The College campus is described as a significant cultural landscape. ii The Historic Place is an important visual landmark or feature, iii The Historic Place makes an important contribution to the continuity or character of the street, neighbourhood, area or landscape. The library is set within a park-like landscaped setting and located on a prominent corner site at the intersection of Tuhikaramea Road and Mission Way. iv The Historic Place is part of a group or collection of places which together have a coherence because of such factors as history, age, appearance, style, scale, materials, proximity or use, landscape or setting which, when considered as a whole, amplify the heritage values of the place and group/ landscape or extend its significance, The Wendell B. Mendenhall Library forms part of the comprehensive development of college campus commencing in 1950 incorporating a range of buildings and the surrounding designed landscape and farmlands associated with the College. The College campus including landscape and buildings is described as a significant cultural landscape. d) Technological Qualities: The Historic Place is representative of innovative or important methods of construction, contains unusual construction materials, is an early example of the use of a particular construction technique or has potential to contribute information about technological or engineering history. The building is of significance for its technological qualities as an example of a building constructed using concrete bricks made at the LDS block plant. Type three Portland cement was used for the high quality structural work and Type one was used for all other concrete construction. Stair railings were made of aluminium, the interior door frames were built in hardwood and the interior doors were built out of hollow core hardwood. Exterior doors and windows were manufactured out of aluminium. The roofing material was of a felted material with an added aggregate. xxvi e) Archaeological Qualities: i The potential of the Historic Place to define or expand knowledge of earlier human occupation, activities or events through investigation using archaeological methods. ii The potential of the Historic Place to provide evidence to address archaeological research questions. iii The Historic Place is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for its archaeological values, or is recorded by the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Recoding Scheme, or is an archaeological site as defined by the Historic Places Act (Not assessed as part of this evaluation).refer report: Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November Aerial photo 2012, Hamilton City Council. 4

182 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H109 f) Cultural Qualities: The Historic Place is important as a focus of cultural sentiment; The Historic Place significantly contributes to community identity or sense of place or provides evidence of cultural or historical continuity, the Historic Place has symbolic or commemorative significance to people who use or have used it, or to the descendants of such people. The interpretative capacity of the Historic Place can potentially increase understanding of past lifestyles or events. The importance of the complex at Temple View to the community is evident in the formation of the Temple View Heritage Society formed to campaign for the retention of buildings within the college complex. An envisioning committee including the Church, members of the Temple View Heritage Society, Labour Missionaries Association, Church College Alumni Association and members of the Temple View community and Council have worked together to develop plans for the future of the college campus. xxvii g) Scientific Qualities: The potential for the Historic Place to contribute information about an historic figure, event, phase or activity. The degree to which the Historic Place may contribute further information and the importance, rarity, quality or representativeness of the data involved. (The place may have potential to contribute archaeological information, refer to archaeological report It has potential to contribute to understanding of the history and development of the college campus at Tuhikaramea, Hamilton, developed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) Summary of assessed significance and management category The place is scheduled in Category B. It is considered to be of significant heritage value locally and regionally and high or moderate value in relation to the following criteria: a)historic Qualities; high, b) Physical/Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities; high, c) Context or Group Values; high, d) Technological Qualities; moderate, e) Archaeological Qualities; not assessed, f) Cultural Qualities, high The Wendell B. Mendenhall Library is significant as a key facility opened in 1964 as part of the Church College. It is named after Wendell B. Mendenhall), who was the head of the Church Building Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (LDS) and closely involved in the Labour Missionary programme of the Church in the 1950s. He undertook the initial negotiations for construction of the college at Tuhikaramea Road, and recruited experienced craftsmen to assist with training and supervision of the work force. The building is significant for its modernist architectural design, and as an example within the College campus of designs prepared by the LDS Architectural and Engineering Department in Utah in the United States and its construction was carried out under the direction of supervising architect Harold W. Burton. The building is of significance as an example of a building constructed using concrete bricks made at the LDS block plant. The importance of the complex at Temple View to the community is evident in the formation of the Temple View Heritage Society formed to campaign for the retention of buildings within the college complex. Form prepared 2012 Revision J Gainsford, Matthews & Matthews Architects Ltd Sources for information: i Architectural drawings including a perspective held at Latter Day Saints archives located at the Church on Tuhikaramea Road, Hamilton. ii Plans archived at Latter Day Saints archives located at the Church on Tuhikaramea Road, Hamilton. Project number 491, plans drawn by K.L.W., A.N., E.B.C., G.D.S., J.L., E.D.F., checked by A.W.A. iii Latter Day Saints archives located at the Church on Tuhikaramea Road, Hamilton. iv Latter Day Saints archives located at the Church on Tuhikaramea Road, Hamilton. v vi Cummings, David W. Mighty Missionary of the Pacific Salt Lake City, Bookcraft, Inc. 1961, p.30; Te Rongo Pai 1; History Growth and Development of the Church College of New Zealand and New Zealand Temple Project, Hamilton, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1958p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton, Lynette Williams, Hamilton, Unpublished manuscript,30 June 2009 vii Lynette Williams, Hamilton, 30 June 2009, Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton. viii Cummings, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple ix Hunt, Brian W. Zion in New Zealand, Church College of New Zealand, Temple View, New Zealand 1977, p.65. This part of Tuhikaramea became known as Temple View, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. x Cummings, preface, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. xi Hunt p.67, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xii Cummings p.37, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xiii Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. xiv Waikato Times, July , cited in Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, p.18. xv See Site plan, Figure 13, from Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November xvi Cummings p.30; Te Rongo Pai 1958 p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xvii Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory form xviii Cummings p.58, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xix E.g.Cummings 70, 71, 74, 75, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xx Cummings p.58, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xxi Newspaper clipping, Waikato Historical Society scrapbook, Hamilton City Libraries 2 December 1957, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xxii He Mahi Aroha 1963 p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xxiii Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, p. 37. xxiv Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. xxv Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. xxvi Latter Day Saints archives located at the Church on Tuhikaramea Road, Hamilton. xxvii 5

183 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H113 Building/ Site Name: Address: Former Morris Stores and Motor Services 116 Grey Street, Hamilton East HISTORIC SUMMARY: The Former Morris Stores and Motor Services Building at 116 Grey Street in Hamilton East which was built for John Morris, with a permit granted in September 1930 John George Morris (c ) began his trade in Hamilton around 1918 at the corner of Dey and Naylor Streets. His sons and grandsons joined the business and a limited liability company was formed in 1932.The Morris family also operated another service station on their property at the corner of Dey and Naylor Streets, which predates the Grey Street service station. Sold by the Morris family in the early 1950s, it remains in operation as the Challenge Station at 101 Naylor Street. i. The building is a good example of an early purpose-designed petrol station, designed in a stripped classical style. Its construction is also associated with a period of increasing car ownership in New Zealand during the 1920s and 1930s. District Plan Reference: H 113, Map 46B, Category B Legal Description: Pt Lot 1 DP and Lot 2 DP Zoning: Business 7 Zone Registered NZHPT: No Date of Construction: 1930 The first two motor cars imported into New Zealand were in Wellington in 1898 after the McLean Motor Car Act 1898 legalised the operation of motor vehicles. Cars were not imported to Auckland for another two years. They were very expensive in the early 1900s so the market was initially limited. Car owners had to register their vehicles with a nation-wide register from 1925 and by 1929 there were more than 150,000 motor vehicles on New Zealand s roads. Cars became more affordable, and their increasing numbers reflected the country s prosperity in the 1920s. The number of annual registrations decreased during the 1930s depression, but were on the rise again by ii In Hamilton a major programme of roading improvements was undertaken in the early 1920s, when a loan of $ 250,000 was taken out by the Council for the reforming and sealing of streets and footpaths. In 1924 a concrete road between Frankton and Hamilton was opened. iii Designer/ Builder: Current use/building type: Visible materials: Builder: Street & Street Ltd Commercial Service Station Plastered concrete block, Marseilles tiled roof with finials at either end. Service Stations as a specialised building type developed in response to increased car ownership from around the late 1920s and early1930s. Until the mid-1920s petrol was typically sold in 4-gallon (18-litre) tins or larger drums by businesses such as blacksmiths, carriers, grocers, and stock and station agents. Some of these businesses also offered repair services for the sometimes unreliable early cars. A Garage Proprietors Association was formed In 1917.In the 1920s large petrol companies established bulk distribution networks and the first petrol pumps, known as bowsers, were installed in 1926, with petrol drawn from underground tanks. The number of petrol stations expanded rapidly, with motorists offered a choice of brands. Petrol companies began to contract petrol stations to sell only their brand from around the early 1950s. Vehicle repairs and servicing became less common as part of the service offered by petrol stations by the late 20 th century. iv Other examples of petrol stations in Hamilton built at a similar time include the former Triangle Service Station ( H78) built in 1930 for George John Giddings on a triangular site at the apex of Waterloo Street and Colombo Street, close to the railway lines, in Frankton. 1

184 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H113 The original plan for Hamilton East was prepared by the Government Surveyor in 1864 setting out a grid pattern of streets, squares and regularly shaped allotments. v. In 1920 the site at the corner of Grey Street and Naylor Street was owned by Caroline Hayes, as part of just over half an acre and contained Lots 1, 2 and 3 on deposited plan on Grey Street, Hamilton East. The land she owned stretched from Grey Street to the rear of the property she and William Hayes owned on the corner of Naylor and Firth Streets; including sections 295 and 296.She transferred Lot 2 to her husband William Hayes on 12 April William Hayes sold Lot 2 to Robin William Hayes. Robin Hayes sold Lot 2 to Morris Stores and Morris Motors Limited on 7 March On 18 April 1990 ownership was transferred to George Arthur and Ernest Robert Morris both company directors and Stephen Arthur Morris a mechanic as tenants in common. a) Historic Qualities i) Associative Value: The Historic Place has a direct association with or relationship to, a person, group, institution, event or activity that is of historical significance to Hamilton, the Waikato or New Zealand. The building is of local significance for its associations with Morris Stores and Motor Company, a family motor servicing business established in Hamilton by John George Morris in c ii) Historic Pattern: The Historic Place is associated with broad patterns of local, regional or national history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes, social or economic trends and activities. The former Morris Stores and Motor Services Building is considered to be of local significance for its association with the motor transport, increasing car ownership in the 1920s and 30s and the development of purpose designed service stations associated with the growth of fuel companies distribution networks. Its construction in 1930 also provides evidence of the ongoing development in Hamilton East in the early decades of the 20 th century. b) Physical/ Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities: i Style/Design/Type: The style of the Historic Place is representative of a significant development period in the city, region and or the nation; The Historic Place is associated with a significant activity, reflected in its design, function or type. The Historic Place has distinctive or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature which may include its design, form, massing, scale, proportions materials, ornamentation, period, craftsmanship, or other design element. The building is significant for its architectural design in Moderne style; with its streamlined aesthetic, the style was often applied to buildings associated with transport and communications. It was generally not until the late 1930s that architects in New Zealand began to adopt modernist styles that reflected the enormous changes in direction that had occurred earlier in Europe. More typically there was still a tendency to plan in a traditional manner, with an external appearance that looked Modern, or to use subtle Art Deco detailing or stripped-back Classical forms and detail. Articles on Modernism were published in periodicals including the NZIA Journal throughout the 1930s, debating the difference between the Modern and the Moderne. Architects employed a number of styles during this period, though the use of formal planning, symmetry and order often remained an underlying characteristic, with flattened detail and a more streamlined appearance. vi The streamlined form of the Morris Stores and Motor Services building reflected its function as a service station. It has a simple geometric plan form for the repair bay with a curved wall and facetted steel and glass windows to the reception area, facing the forecourt. It has concrete or cement rendered exterior walls. Incised lettering to the parapet, in a typeface consistent with the style of the building, indicates the garage facing Grey Street, with the main name of the business above the corner entrance facing the forecourt. Behind the garage parapet a hipped Marseilles tiled roof with ceramic finials to the hip junctions is visible. The forecourt canopy is a later structure, not forming part of the significant fabric of the building. 2

185 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H113 Significant features of the building include the building as outlined in red on the following aerial photo including the roof, exterior walls including lettering mouldings, horizontal parapet and projecting cornice above openings, exterior openings, doors, windows including the faceted windows, steel gates, and views to and from the elevations facing the street. Items not of significance include the existing forecourt canopy, workshop building, north concrete block wall, gates and fences etc, gas enclosure and aluminium glazing. vii occurred progressively resulting in a range of building styles. The former Morris Stores and Motor Services Building, built in 1930,contributes to the diversity of building types and styles remaining in Hamilton East. ii Designer or Builder: The architect, designer, engineer or builder for the Historic Place was a notable practitioner or made a significant contribution to the city, region or nation, and the place enlarges understanding of their work. The designer of the building is not known. The builder was Street & Street Ltd iii Rarity: The Historic Place or elements of it are unique, uncommon or rare at a local, district or national level, or in relation to particular historic themes. Not applicable Iv Integrity: The Historic Place has integrity, retaining significant features from its time of construction, or later periods when important modifications or additions were carried out. Later additions include the forecourt canopy and workshop to the rear of the original garage. The building retains significant features from its time of construction including the 1930 garage and service station building with curved parapet facing the forecourt. c) Context or Group Values i The physical and visual character of the site or setting of the Historic Place is of importance to the value of the place; The building remains as originally sited and retains its original relationship to the corner forecourt. ii The Historic Place is an important visual landmark or feature, The building is a distinctive feature at the corner of Grey Street and Naylor Street iii The Historic Place makes an important contribution to the continuity or character of the street, neighbourhood, area or landscape. The building has made a distinctive contribution to the character of the area since It is located within the Hamilton East Residential Character area, Hamilton s earliest suburb. It contributes to the distinctive historic character of the area which retains its historic urban form and historic buildings of varied type, in a range of styles and from different periods, together with street and private landscaping. iv The Historic Place is part of a group or collection of places which together have a coherence because of such factors as history, age, appearance, style, scale, materials, proximity or use, landscape or setting which, when considered as a whole, amplify the heritage values of the place and group/ landscape or extend its significance, Hamilton East has been recognised in the Hamilton City District Plan for its established residential character. The original plan for the area prepared by the Government Surveyor in 1864 laid out the pattern of streets, squares and regularly-shaped allotments. The neighbourhood has retained this regular configuration of allotments. Development in this area 2010 Aerial Photo d) Technological Qualities: The Historic Place is representative of innovative or important methods of construction, contains unusual construction materials, is an early example of the use of a particular construction technique or has potential to contribute information about technological or engineering history (Not considered applicable, the building demonstrates typical construction and materials for the period). 3

186 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H113 e) Archaeological Qualities: i The potential of the Historic Place to define or expand knowledge of earlier human occupation, activities or events through investigation using archaeological methods. ii The potential of the Historic Place to provide evidence to address archaeological research questions. iii The Historic Place is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for its archaeological values, or is recorded by the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Recoding Scheme, or is an archaeological site as defined by the Historic Places Act (Not assessed as part of this evaluation). f) Cultural Qualities: The Historic Place is important as a focus of cultural sentiment; The Historic Place significantly contributes to community identity or sense of place or provides evidence of cultural or historical continuity, the Historic Place has symbolic or commemorative significance to people who use or have used it, or to the descendants of such people. The interpretative capacity of the Historic Place can potentially increase understanding of past lifestyles or events. East which retains historic residential development as well as other types of buildings from the late 19 th and early 20 th century. Form prepared Surveyor/ Researcher: J Gainsford, I Bowman Form updated 2012: Matthews and Matthews Architects Ltd. Revision Sources for information: Hamilton City Council Hamilton City Library Land and Information New Zealand Valuation New Zealand now Quotable Value, Valuation No: 4120/32100 The former Morris Stores and Motor Services building contributes to the distinctive sense of place in Hamilton East which retains historic residential development as well as other types of buildings from the late 19 th and early 20 th century. The survival of the 1930 service station building contributes to the established character of the area. g) Scientific Qualities: The potential for the Historic Place to contribute information about an historic figure, event, phase or activity. The degree to which the Historic Place may contribute further information and the importance, rarity, quality or representativeness of the data involved. ((The place has potential to add to an understanding of Hamilton s history through the provision of interpretive information.) Summary of assessed significance and management category The place is scheduled in Category B. It is considered to be of significant heritage value locally and high or moderate value in relation to the following criteria: a)historic Qualities; moderate b) Physical/Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities; moderate, c) Context or Group Values; moderate, f) Cultural Qualities, moderate The former Morris Stores and Motor Services Building is significant for its associations with Morris Stores and Motor Company, a family motor servicing business established in Hamilton by John George Morris in c Built in 1930 the building is significant for its architectural design in Moderne style. The building contributes to the distinctive sense of place in Hamilton 4

187 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H113 i Heritage Inventory Form 113, HBC Permit No. 2433, 4 September 1930,Statement of Evidence, Dr Ann McEwan, Submission in relation to Variation 20. ii iii P.J. Gibbons, Astride the River, A History of Hamilton, Christchurch, 1977, pp iv viewed January v LINZ, SA SO 201c, 1864 survey plan for Hamilton East. vi P Shaw, NZ Architecture from Polynesian Beginnings to 1990, 1991 p118. vii Items identified as part of submissions in relation to Variation 20, Managing Change and Character in Hamilton East, 2010 Items identified as part of submissions in relation to Variation 20, Managing Change and Character in Hamilton East,

188 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H133 Address: 467 Tuhikaramea Road, Church College, Temple View Building/ Site Name: First House / George Biesinger House HISTORIC SUMMARY First House was the first of a group of eleven houses on the east side of Tuhikaramea Road that were the first permanent homes constructed in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints college settlement. Construction of homes on the other side of the road followed. First House was built of cement blocks or bricks manufactured on site and was completed in 1952 and became the residence of project supervisor George Biesinger and his family. George R Biesinger came to New Zealand in April 1950 as project supervisor for the Auckland chapel. He was then given the assignment of supervision of the construction of the Church college. Biesinger had been a former New Zealand missionary and was experienced in the construction field. He was a very able project supervisor and was well loved by the project workers (Labour Missionaries). In January 1955 LDS President McKay assigned George Biesinger the added responsibility of the development of the farm and acquisition of the temple site. i The Church College complex included classrooms, dormitories, gymnasium, auditorium, a library and amenities. The construction of the college was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific, with the construction of several chapels. Construction of the Temple commenced in 1956 and it was dedicated 20 April For the construction of the complex temporary accommodation units and facilities were set up in a camp which had its own kai hall and laundry. A block factory and a joinery factory were also established. The cement block (brick) plant was in operation by July 1951, using imported cement. ii The joinery workshop was the first main building constructed the first bricks for this being laid on 12 August The ground-breaking ceremony for G.R. Biesinger Hall was held in 1960 and the large Wendell B. Mendenhall Library was opened on campus on 16 February iii District Plan Reference: H107, Map 60B Category B Legal Description: Part of Lot 1 DPS Seven of the buildings within the Church College complex have been identified as sufficiently significant, nationally and/or locally, for inclusion in the Hamilton City Council s District Plan schedule of heritage structures. These include: The Hamilton New Zealand Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (H108), G.R. Biesinger Hall (H107), First House (H133), David O MacKay Building (H106), Wendell B Mendenhall Library (H109), Kai Hall (H134), Block Plant (H135). Zone: Temple View Zone The LDS church in New Zealand Registered NZHPT: No Date of Construction: 1952 Designer/ Builder: Current use/building type: Visible materials: Labour Missionaries and other members of the Church of the Latter Day Saints House Painted cement bricks, weatherboards to gable end, aluminium joinery, Decramastic roof tiles. Missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came to New Zealand in 1854 and the first branch of the Church was established, among a small number of European migrants. In December 1875 the first large group of missionaries arrived but again the contact was intermittent until October 1878, the beginning of continuous missionary activity and the more rapid spread of Mormonism. In 1879 the headquarters of the Australian [or Australasian] Mission were established in New Zealand and in 1898 the Australasian Mission was divided into two administrative units: Australian and New Zealand. In 1886 the first LDS Native School was established. Further primary schools were established and in 1911 work was begun on building the Maori Agricultural College at Korongata in Hawkes Bay. 1

189 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H133 Development of the college campus at Tuhikaramea near Hamilton In 1947 a new college project was initiated by Elder Matthew Cowley. Cowley had begun work in New Zealand in 1914, working at the Maori Agricultural College, and returning later in 1938 as President of the New Zealand Mission. Cowley proposed to the General Authorities of the Church the need for a college in New Zealand. Approval was given and in September 1948 Cowley was sent to New Zealand again, this time to find a site for the college. He handed the project over to Gordon C. Young after his appointment as president and Young began looking in iv The site selection was hampered by post-world War II restrictions on land sales, but in April 1949 the LDS bought Bert Meldrum s farm at Tuhikaramea near Hamilton. v The construction of the college was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific, with the construction of several chapels. vi George R. Biesinger was general supervisor of the Church building programme in the South Pacific. He came to New Zealand, with his family, in April 1950 to supervise the construction of the Auckland chapel, the college at Tuhikaramea and buildings in Samoa. vii He remained in New Zealand for ten years. The first project of the New Zealand-wide building programme was the construction of a college at Tuhikaramea. The construction of the college began in 1950 with the ground dedication on 17 November. The architect for the college was Edward O. Anderson, who first visited the site in President Wendell B. Mendenhall undertook the initial negotiations, remaining in New Zealand for two months. He returned to the US and recruited experienced craftsmen and sent them to assist with training and supervision of the work force. viii By the end of 1952 there was a force of 60 men organised into crews for different aspects of the work. Work teams formed strong bonds during their work. Most were married men, and their wives also worked to support the building programme. ix Thirty six qualified craftsmen, all church members, and their families arrived from America. They provided construction supervision and training for local church members and were instrumental in making the Labour missionary programme a success. x Church College, consisting of classrooms, dormitories, gymnasium, auditorium, a library and amenities, was only a part of the construction at the site. xi Temporary accommodation units and facilities were set up in a camp and an old house was moved down to the site. The camp had its own kai hall and laundry. First a block factory and a joinery factory were established. The cement block (brick) plant was in operation by July 1951, using imported cement. xii The joinery workshop was the first main building constructed and the first bricks for this were laid on 12 August As the project proceeded, permanent houses were built and the Temple View village began to form. The first residence of the village was completed in 1952, and Elder George R. Biesinger and family moved into it before Christmas. This house, known as First House, was a practice training exercise, as a preparation for the subsequent houses built in a strip fronting on to Tuhikaramea Road. The first house (located at 467 Tuhikaramea Road, the first house on the left after the Church College Library) was followed by the construction of ten more cement brick/ block houses. The blocks used in their construction were made in the first block plant and machine which was replaced in 1956 by the Columbia Block machine. The early concrete bricks/ blocks were rougher than those produced by the later Columbia Block Machine. The eleven houses on the college side of the road, that is east side of Tuhikaramea Road immediately past the college were the first homes constructed in the Church college settlement. Construction of the homes on the other side of the road followed. The houses were used by project administration staff and teachers. Other temporary houses used by Labour Missionaries have since been demolished. xiii Residences were built for the teachers and staff as well as the campus buildings. Dormitories for boys and girls were among the largest buildings on the campus. The camp and later village were supported by the farm; further land had been purchased adjacent to the original piece. Some was peat, some in scrub and some in pasture. A dairy herd was developed and vegetable gardens established to supply the workers, with excess produce being sold. The college opened for classes on 10 February 1958, although the dedication ceremony was not held until a few days after that of the Temple, on 24 April. The intention to build a temple at Hamilton was announced at the Hui Tau (Mormon conference) held 7-12 April The architect Edward O. Anderson inspected the site on 2 June 1955 and his plans were received on 1 September 1955 xiv In early January 1956 the pouring of concrete for the temple foundations and walls began.. xv The supervisor for the Temple construction was Elder E. Albert Rosenvall under Biesinger. xvi By the middle of December 1956 the Temple s steel framework had been completed and nearly half of the concrete poured. The cornerstone was laid on 22 December 1956 during a ceremony attended by nearly 2000 people. Following the custom with LDS temples built elsewhere, the church allowed the public to visit and inspect the Temple prior to its dedication; subsequently it would be closed to all but authorised church members. The Temple was open from 22 March to 15 April 1958 and was dedicated on 20 April xvii Following the opening of the Temple, an intensive building programme was carried out in other parts of New Zealand, with 21 chapels being erected and opened between 1959 and 1962, and a further seven chapels in , plus two mission houses. At Temple View, the college campus continued to grow: the ground-breaking ceremony for G.R. Biesinger Hall was held in 1960 and the large Wendell B. Mendenhall Library was opened on campus on 16 February xviii The village continued to expand and a post office was opened in An information centre was built across the road from the Temple steps and a chapel and genealogical resource centre was built within the village to the west. The LDS construction headquarters remained at Temple View. The Dinsdale Chapel on Tuhikaramea Road was one of the last chapels built (1964) using cement bricks from the block plant. The grounds have been described as notable and were designed and laid out as an integral part of the college plan. The College campus including landscape and buildings is described as a significant cultural landscape. xix Historical context of the Temple View area The Temple View area was part of the rohe of the Waikato iwi Ngati Mahanga. A pa or village is believed to have existed in the Koromatua area, and another on the hill on which the 2

190 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H133 Temple was built was used also as an urupa for burials. However after the land confiscations of the mid-1860s, some parts of the Tuhikaramea-Koromatua area were allocated as Crown grants to militiamen of the Fourth Waikato Regiment for their service in the Waikato war. By 1866 much of the area was part of the large Rukuhia Estate owned by Auckland speculator-developer James Williamson. Williamson was later in partnership with Alfred Cox and the pair began a major undertaking to drain and develop the extensive swamps as pastoral land. Their estate was broken up by the turn of the century and smaller farms developed. In 1950 when the LDS Church was beginning its building programme, the area was still rural with dairying and sheep farms extending almost to the Frankton School end of Tuhikaramea Road (now Dinsdale). A couple of market gardens also existed. Some of the peat land adjacent to the college and LDS site had been drained and cultivated and was part of the land purchased. xx By 1958 the LDS owned 1582 acres, of which 85 acres were housing or contemplated housing, 10 acres occupied by construction factories, 60 acres by the college campus, 30 acres by the Temple and Bureau of Information, and 20 acres in roads; the remaining 1377 acres were farmland. xxi a) Historic Qualities i) Associative Value: The Historic Place has a direct association with or relationship to, a person, group, institution, event or activity that is of historical significance to Hamilton, the Waikato or New Zealand. First House is of significance for its associations with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who developed the Temple, village and college facilities, beginning in This, the first residence of the village, was completed in 1952, and is significant for its associations with Elder George R. Biesinger and his family, who moved into it at the end of George R. Biesinger who was general supervisor of the Church building programme in the South Pacific. He came to New Zealand, with his family, in April 1950 to supervise the construction of the Auckland chapel, the college at Tuhikaramea and buildings in Samoa. He remained in New Zealand for ten years. xxii ii) Historic Pattern: The Historic Place is associated with broad patterns of local, regional or national history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes, social or economic trends and activities. First House forms part of the comprehensive development of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints college campus commencing in The Temple and college are a focus for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints in New Zealand and represent a purpose-built community, the only one of its kind in New Zealand. The construction of the college at this time was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific. Missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints first came to New Zealand in 1854, with more continuous missionary activity commencing in b) Physical/ Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities: i Style/Design/Type: The style of the Historic Place is representative of a significant development period in the city, region and or the nation; The Historic Place is associated with a significant activity, reflected in its design, function or type. The Historic Place has distinctive or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature which may include its design, form, massing, scale, proportions materials, ornamentation, period, craftsmanship, or other design element. First House has been described as American Ranch Style and is the style of house is said to be very similar to houses built at the Edwards Air Force Base, in America. xxiii Ranch style is a domestic architectural style originating in the United States and was popular in the post World War II boom. The style is characterised by a long, low profile, reasonably low-pitched gabled roof forms, generous eaves overhangs, generous window openings and minimal decoration. The style embodied an informal domestic lifestyle and was adapted and used in other countries including New Zealand for post WWII housing. First House has a simple gabled form and is constructed using cement bricks in stretcher bond pattern up to eaves height, with weatherboard cladding above this height to the gable ends. The house has generous windows, some with low sill heights. The roof is clad with Decramastic roof tiles. ii Designer or Builder: The architect, designer, engineer or builder for the Historic Place was a notable practitioner or made a significant contribution to the city, region or nation, and the place enlarges understanding of their work. The house was constructed by Labour Missionaries and used as a training excercise for the construction of subsequent dwellings in the village. iii Rarity: The Historic Place or elements of it are unique, uncommon or rare at a local, district or national level, or in relation to particular historic themes. (The complex built for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints at Temple View is the only one of the kind in New Zealand.) Iv Integrity: The Historic Place has integrity, retaining significant features from its time of construction, or later periods when important modifications or additions were carried out. First House appears to remain largely intact. c) Context or Group Values i The physical and visual character of the site or setting of the Historic Place is of importance to the value of the place; The grounds have been described as notable and were designed and laid out as an integral part of the college plan. The College campus is described as a significant cultural landscape. ii The Historic Place is an important visual landmark or feature, (not considered applicable) iii The Historic Place makes an important contribution to the continuity or character of the street, neighbourhood, area or landscape. 3

191 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H133 First House was part of a group of eleven houses on the east side of Tukikaramea Road that were the first homes constructed in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints college settlement. iv The Historic Place is part of a group or collection of places which together have a coherence because of such factors as history, age, appearance, style, scale, materials, proximity or use, landscape or setting which, when considered as a whole, amplify the heritage values of the place and group/ landscape or extend its significance, First House forms part of the comprehensive development of the college campus commencing in 1950 incorporating a range of buildings and the surrounding designed landscape and farmlands associated with the College. d) Technological Qualities: The Historic Place is representative of innovative or important methods of construction, contains unusual construction materials, is an early example of the use of a particular construction technique or has potential to contribute information about technological or engineering history. First House is significant for its technological values for its use of cement bricks made at the block plant on site and because it was used as training for the construction of subsequent dwellings. e) Archaeological Qualities: i The potential of the Historic Place to define or expand knowledge of earlier human occupation, activities or events through investigation using archaeological methods. ii The potential of the Historic Place to provide evidence to address archaeological research questions. iii The Historic Place is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for its archaeological values, or is recorded by the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Recoding Scheme, or is an archaeological site as defined by the Historic Places Act (Not assessed as part of this evaluation).refer report : Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November f) Cultural Qualities: The Historic Place is important as a focus of cultural sentiment; The Historic Place significantly contributes to community identity or sense of place or provides evidence of cultural or historical continuity, the Historic Place has symbolic or commemorative significance to people who use or have used it, or to the descendants of such people. The interpretative capacity of the Historic Place can potentially increase understanding of past lifestyles or events. The importance of the complex at Temple View to the community is evident in the formation of the Temple View Heritage Society formed to campaign for the retention of buildings within the college complex. An envisioning committee including the Church, members of the Temple View Heritage Society, Labour Missionaries Association, Church College Alumni Association and members of the Temple View community and Council have worked together to develop plans for the future of the college campus. xxiv g) Scientific Qualities: Aerial photo 2012, Hamilton City Council The potential for the Historic Place to contribute information about an historic figure, event, phase or activity. The degree to which the Historic Place may contribute further information and the importance, rarity, quality or representativeness of the data involved. (The place may have potential to contribute archaeological information, refer to archaeological report It has potential to contribute to understanding of the history and development of the college campus at Tuhikaramea, Hamilton, developed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) 4

192 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H133 Summary of assessed significance and management category The place is scheduled in Category B. The First House / Biesinger House has value locally as a significant residence at Temple View and high or moderate value in relation to the following criteria: a)historic Qualities; moderate, b) Physical/Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities; moderate, c) Context or Group Values; high, e) Archaeological Qualities; not assessed f) Cultural Qualities, moderate First House is significant as the first dwelling built to house supervisors and workers involved in the construction of the complex and as the dwelling used as a training exercise, in preparation for the subsequent houses built fronting on to Tuhikaramea Road. It was used by project supervisor George Biesinger and his family. First House is significant as part of the comprehensive development at Tuhikaramea, Hamilton, by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commencing in The Temple and college are a focus for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints in New Zealand and represent a purpose-built community. It is the only LDS Temple and college complex in New Zealand. The construction of the college at this time was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific. The importance of the complex at Temple View to the community is evident in the formation of the Temple View Heritage Society set up to campaign for the retention of buildings within the college complex. x Waikato Times, July , cited in Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, p.18. xi See Site plan from Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November xii Cummings p.30; Te Rongo Pai 1958 p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xiii Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory form xiv Cummings p.58, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xv E.g.Cummings 70, 71, 74, 75, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xvi Cummings p.58, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xvii Newspaper clipping, Waikato Historical Society scrapbook, Hamilton City Libraries 2 December 1957, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xviii He Mahi Aroha 1963 p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xix Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, p. 37. xx. Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xxi Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. xxii Hunt p.67, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xxiii Personal comment made by V Parker, recorded Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, p.24. xxiv Form prepared 2012 Revision Matthews & Matthews Architects Ltd Key Sources for information: Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton, Lynette Williams, Hamilton, 30 June 2009, Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory Forms i Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory form 2004 ii Cummings, David W. Mighty Missionary of the Pacific Salt Lake City, Bookcraft, Inc. 1961, p.30; Te Rongo Pai 1; History Growth and Development of the Church College of New Zealand and New Zealand Temple Project, Hamilton, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1958p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton, Lynette Williams,Hamilton,30 June 2009 iii Lynette Williams, Hamilton, 30 June 2009,Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton. iv Cummings, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple v Hunt, Brian W. Zion in New Zealand, Church College of New Zealand, Temple View, New Zealand 1977, p.65. This part of Tuhikaramea became known as Temple View, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. vi Cummings, preface, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. vii Hunt p.67, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple viii Cummings p.37, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple ix Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. 5

193 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H134 Address: Building/ Site Name: Church College, Temple View Kai Hall HISTORIC SUMMARY The Kai Hall forms part of the complex of buildings erected for the development of the college campus at Tuhikaramea, Hamilton, developed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, beginning in Construction of the Kai hall commenced on 4 January 1954 and the building was finished for use by the first priesthood meeting on 28 March 1954, attended by one hundred and thirty people. After its construction, the Kai Hall grounds were planted with lawns as well as shrubs and flowers. Sister Phil Aspinall tended the landscape. Later in 1954 one end of the Kai Hall was partitioned off and made more comfortable for use as a temporary chapel (Church of Jesus Christ of LDS 1958). The Kai Hall was constructed at a cost of 6000 from the Hui Tau funds and was to be maintained by the college workers and used as a recreation hall by them. i An adjacent plaque notes that the Kai Hall was used by the Labour Missionaries for conferences, dances, concerts, meetings, weddings, funerals and other gatherings. It was the main hall for the Labour Missionaries. (The GRB Hall nearby was not constructed until 1960.) The commemorative plaque on the large stone in front of the Kai Hall was unveiled in April 2000 for the fiftieth anniversary of the Labour Missionary Building Programme. ii The Kai Hall is still in use and serves as a whare kai for the wharenui (GRB building) and is also used as a community hall. It is located on the edge of the Church College campus; left after the Church College library, and down the hill, near the tennis courts. District Plan Reference: H 134, Map 60B, Category B Legal Description: Part of Lot 1 DPS Zoning: Temple View Zone Registered NZHPT: No Date of Construction: January March 1954 Designer/ Builder: Supervisor Crawford and Labour Missionaries Current use/building type: Kai Hall Visible materials: Timber cladding, aluminium joinery, corrugated iron The Church College complex included classrooms, dormitories, gymnasium, auditorium, a library and amenities. The construction of the college was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific, with the construction of several chapels. Construction of the Temple commenced in 1956 and it was dedicated 20 April For the construction of the complex temporary accommodation units and facilities were set up in a camp which had its own kai hall and laundry. A block factory and a joinery factory were also established. The cement block (brick) plant was in operation by July 1951, using imported cement. iii The joinery workshop was the first main building constructed the first bricks for this being laid on 12 August The ground-breaking ceremony for G.R. Biesinger Hall was held in 1960 and the large Wendell B. Mendenhall Library was opened on campus on 16 February iv Seven of the buildings within the Church College complex have been identified as sufficiently significant, nationally and/or locally, for inclusion in the Hamilton City Council s District Plan schedule of heritage structures. These include: The Hamilton New Zealand Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (H108), G.R. Biesinger Hall (H107), First House (H133), David O MacKay Building (H106), Wendell B Mendenhall Library (H109), Kai Hall (H134), Block Plant (H135). The LDS church in New Zealand Missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came to New Zealand in 1854 and the first branch of the Church was established, among a small number of European migrants. In December 1875 the first large group of missionaries arrived but again the contact 1

194 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H134 was intermittent until October 1878, the beginning of continuous missionary activity and the more rapid spread of Mormonism. In 1879 the headquarters of the Australian [or Australasian] Mission were established in New Zealand and in 1898 the Australasian Mission was divided into two administrative units: Australian and New Zealand. In 1886 the first LDS Native School was established. Further primary schools were established and in 1911 work was begun on building the Maori Agricultural College at Korongata in Hawkes Bay. Development of the college campus at Tuhikaramea near Hamilton In 1947 a new college project was initiated by Elder Matthew Cowley. Cowley had begun work in New Zealand in 1914, working at the Maori Agricultural College, and returning later in 1938 as President of the New Zealand Mission. Cowley proposed to the General Authorities of the Church the need for a college in New Zealand. Approval was given and in September 1948 Cowley was sent to New Zealand again, this time to find a site for the college. He handed the project over to Gordon C. Young after his appointment as president and Young began looking in v The site selection was hampered by post-world War II restrictions on land sales, but in April 1949 the LDS bought Bert Meldrum s farm at Tuhikaramea near Hamilton. vi The construction of the college was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific, with the construction of several chapels. vii George R. Biesinger was general supervisor of the Church building programme in the South Pacific. He came to New Zealand, with his family, in April 1950 to supervise the construction of the Auckland chapel, the college at Tuhikaramea and buildings in Samoa. viii He remained in New Zealand for ten years. The first project of the New Zealand-wide building programme was the construction of a college at Tuhikaramea. The construction of the college began in 1950 with the ground dedication on 17 November. The architect for the college was Edward O. Anderson, who first visited the site in President Wendell B. Mendenhall undertook the initial negotiations, remaining in New Zealand for two months. He returned to the US and recruited experienced craftsmen and sent them to assist with training and supervision of the work force. ix By the end of 1952 there was a force of 60 men organised into crews for different aspects of the work. Work teams formed strong bonds during their work. Most were married men, and their wives also worked to support the building programme. x Thirty six qualified craftsmen, all church members, and their families arrived from America. They provided construction supervision and training for local church members and were instrumental in making the Labour missionary programme a success. xi Church College, consisting of classrooms, dormitories, gymnasium, auditorium, a library and amenities, was only a part of the construction at the site. xii Temporary accommodation units and facilities were set up in a camp and an old house was moved down to the site. The camp had its own kai hall and laundry. First a block factory and a joinery factory were established. The cement block (brick) plant was in operation by July 1951, using imported cement. xiii The joinery workshop was the first main building constructed and the first bricks for this were laid on 12 August As the project proceeded, permanent houses were built and the Temple View village began to form. The first residence of the village was completed in 1952, and Elder George R. Biesinger and family moved into it before Christmas. This house, known as First House, was a practice training exercise, as a preparation for the subsequent houses built in a strip fronting onto Tuhikaramea Road. The blocks used in their construction were made in the first block plant and machine which was replaced in 1956 by the Columbia Block machine. The early concrete bricks/ blocks were rougher than those produced by the later Columbia Block Machine. The eleven houses on the college side of the road, that is east side of Tuhikaramea Road immediately past the college were the first homes constructed in the Church college settlement. Construction of the homes on the other side of the road followed. The houses were used by project administration staff and teachers. Other temporary houses used by Labour Missionaries have since been demolished. xiv Residences were built for the teachers and staff as well as the campus buildings. Dormitories for boys and girls were among the largest buildings on the campus. The camp and later village were supported by the farm; further land had been purchased adjacent to the original piece. Some was peat, some in scrub and some in pasture. A dairy herd was developed and vegetable gardens established to supply the workers, with excess produce being sold. The college opened for classes on 10 February 1958, although the dedication ceremony was not held until 24 April 1958, a few days after the dedication of the Temple. The intention to build a temple at Hamilton was announced at the Hui Tau (Mormon conference) held 7-12 April The architect Edward O. Anderson inspected the site on 2 June 1955 and his plans were received on 1 September 1955 xv In early January 1956 the pouring of concrete for the temple foundations and walls began.. xvi The supervisor for the Temple construction was Elder E. Albert Rosenvall under Biesinger. xvii By the middle of December 1956 the Temple s steel framework had been completed and nearly half of the concrete poured. The cornerstone was laid on 22 December 1956 during a ceremony attended by nearly 2000 people. Following the custom with LDS temples built elsewhere, the church allowed the public to visit and inspect the Temple prior to its dedication; subsequently it would be closed to all but authorised church members. The Temple was open from 22 March to 15 April 1958 and was dedicated on 20 April xviii Following the opening of the Temple, an intensive building programme was carried out in other parts of New Zealand, with 21 chapels being erected and opened between 1959 and 1962, and a further seven chapels in , plus two mission houses. At Temple View, the college campus continued to grow: the ground-breaking ceremony for G.R. Biesinger Hall was held in 1960 and the large Wendell B. Mendenhall Library was opened on campus on 16 February xix The village continued to expand and a post office was opened in An information centre was built across the road from the Temple steps and a chapel and genealogical resource centre was built within the village to the west. The LDS construction headquarters remained at Temple View. The Dinsdale Chapel on Tuhikaramea Road was one of the last chapels built (1964) using cement bricks from the block plant. 2

195 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H134 The grounds have been described as notable and were designed and laid out as an integral part of the college plan. The College campus including landscape and buildings is described as a significant cultural landscape. xx Historical context of the Temple View area The Temple View area was part of the rohe of the Waikato iwi Ngati Mahanga. A pa or village is believed to have existed in the Koromatua area, and another on the hill on which the Temple was built was used also as an urupa for burials. However after the land confiscations of the mid-1860s, some parts of the Tuhikaramea-Koromatua area were allocated as Crown grants to militiamen of the Fourth Waikato Regiment for their service in the Waikato war. By 1866 much of the area was part of the large Rukuhia Estate owned by Auckland speculator-developer James Williamson. Williamson was later in partnership with Alfred Cox and the pair began a major undertaking to drain and develop the extensive swamps as pastoral land. Their estate was broken up by the turn of the century and smaller farms developed. In 1950 when the LDS Church was beginning its building programme, the area was still rural with dairying and sheep farms extending almost to the Frankton School end of Tuhikaramea Road (now Dinsdale). A couple of market gardens also existed. Some of the peat land adjacent to the college and LDS site had been drained and cultivated and was part of the land purchased. xxi By 1958 the LDS owned 1582 acres, of which 85 acres were housing or contemplated housing, 10 acres occupied by construction factories, 60 acres by the college campus, 30 acres by the Temple and Bureau of Information, and 20 acres in roads; the remaining 1377 acres were farmland. xxii a) Historic Qualities i) Associative Value: The Historic Place has a direct association with or relationship to, a person, group, institution, event or activity that is of historical significance to Hamilton, the Waikato or New Zealand. The Kai hall is significant for its associations with the Labour missionary settlement at Temple View, and was the main space used for social gatherings by the community on site. ii) Historic Pattern: The Historic Place is associated with broad patterns of local, regional or national history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes, social or economic trends and activities. The Kai hall forms part of the comprehensive development of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints college campus commencing in The Temple and college are a focus for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints in New Zealand and represent a purpose-built community, the only one of its kind in New Zealand. The construction of the college at this time was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific. Missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints first came to New Zealand in 1854, with more continuous missionary activity commencing in b) Physical/ Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities: i Style/Design/Type: The style of the Historic Place is representative of a significant development period in the city, region and or the nation; The Historic Place is associated with a significant activity, reflected in its design, function or type. The Historic Place has distinctive or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature which may include its design, form, massing, scale, proportions materials, ornamentation, period, craftsmanship, or other design element. The Kai hall is simply designed with a shallow pitched gable roof, with lean-to and is similar to many utilitarian hall buildings constructed around New Zealand at a similar time for use as community halls. On the north side two flat roofed entrance porches extend, with Maori carvings flanking the entries. The hall is clad with vertical timber cladding and has aluminium windows and a corrugated iron roof. ii Designer or Builder: The architect, designer, engineer or builder for the Historic Place was a notable practitioner or made a significant contribution to the city, region or nation, and the place enlarges understanding of their work. The Block Plant was constructed by Labour Missionaries under the direction of supervisor Crawford. iii Rarity: The Historic Place or elements of it are unique, uncommon or rare at a local, district or national level, or in relation to particular historic themes. (Not uncommon as an example of a community or kai hall) Iv Integrity: The Historic Place has integrity, retaining significant features from its time of construction, or later periods when important modifications or additions were carried out. The Kai Hall appears to remain largely intact. c) Context or Group Values i The physical and visual character of the site or setting of the Historic Place is of importance to the value of the place; The College grounds have been described as notable and were designed and laid out as an integral part of the college plan. The College campus is described as a significant cultural landscape. xxiii ii The Historic Place is an important visual landmark or feature, (not considered applicable) iii The Historic Place makes an important contribution to the continuity or character of the street, neighbourhood, area or landscape. iv The Historic Place is part of a group or collection of places which together have a coherence because of such factors as history, age, appearance, style, scale, materials, proximity or use, landscape or setting which, when considered as a whole, amplify the heritage values of the place and group/ landscape or extend its significance, 3

196 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H134 The Kai hall forms part of the comprehensive development of the college campus commencing in 1950 incorporating a range of buildings and the surrounding designed landscape and farmlands associated with the College campus. d) Technological Qualities: The Historic Place is representative of innovative or important methods of construction, contains unusual construction materials, is an early example of the use of a particular construction technique or has potential to contribute information about technological or engineering history. Not considered applicable, demonstrates typical materials and construction for the time of its construction. e) Archaeological Qualities: i The potential of the Historic Place to define or expand knowledge of earlier human occupation, activities or events through investigation using archaeological methods. ii The potential of the Historic Place to provide evidence to address archaeological research questions. iii The Historic Place is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for its archaeological values, or is recorded by the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Recoding Scheme, or is an archaeological site as defined by the Historic Places Act (Not assessed as part of this evaluation).refer report: Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November f) Cultural Qualities: The Historic Place is important as a focus of cultural sentiment; The Historic Place significantly contributes to community identity or sense of place or provides evidence of cultural or historical continuity, the Historic Place has symbolic or commemorative significance to people who use or have used it, or to the descendants of such people. The interpretative capacity of the Historic Place can potentially increase understanding of past lifestyles or events. The Kai Hall is of significance as the main workers hall associated with Labour missionaries, many of whom settled in Hamilton. The commemorative plaque on the large stone in front of the Kai Hall was unveiled in April 2000 for the fiftieth anniversary of the Labour Missionary Building Programme. The importance of the complex at Temple View to the community is evident in the formation of the Temple View Heritage Society formed to campaign for the retention of buildings within the college complex. An envisioning committee including the Church, members of the Temple View Heritage Society, Labour Missionaries Association, Church College Alumni Association and members of the Temple View community and Council have worked together to develop plans for the future of the college campus. xxiv g) Scientific Qualities: Aerial photo 2012, Hamilton City Council. The potential for the Historic Place to contribute information about an historic figure, event, phase or activity. The degree to which the Historic Place may contribute further information and the importance, rarity, quality or representativeness of the data involved.- (The place may have potential to contribute archaeological information, refer to archaeological report It has potential to contribute to understanding of the history and development of the 4

197 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H134 college campus at Tuhikaramea, Hamilton, developed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) Summary of assessed significance and management category The place is scheduled in Category B. The Block Plant has significance locally as the hall used by Labour Missionaries and the local community. It has high or moderate value in relation to the following criteria: a)historic Qualities; moderate, b) Physical/Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities; moderate, c) Context or Group Values; high, e) Archaeological Qualities; not assessed f) Cultural Qualities, moderate The Kai Hall is of significance as the main workers hall associated with Labour missionaries, many of whom settled in Hamilton. It was used as a meeting place for priesthood meetings and as a temporary chapel, as well as a hall for dances, conferences, weddings, funerals, meetings and other social activities. It is significant as part of the College campus complex associated with the daily life of the workers at the settlement. Form prepared 2011.Matthews & Matthews Architects Ltd, Revision Key Sources for information: ix Cummings p.37, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple x Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. xi Waikato Times, July , cited in Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, p.18. xii See Site plan, Figure 13, from Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November xiii Cummings p.30; Te Rongo Pai 1958 p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xiv Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory form xv Cummings p.58, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xvi E.g.Cummings 70, 71, 74, 75, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xvii Cummings p.58, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xviii Newspaper clipping, Waikato Historical Society scrapbook, Hamilton City Libraries 2 December 1957, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xix He Mahi Aroha 1963 p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xx Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, p. 37. xxi Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. xxii Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. xxiii Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004 xxiv Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton, Lynette Williams, Hamilton, 30 June 2009, Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory Form H134, i Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory form ii Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory form iii Cummings, David W. Mighty Missionary of the Pacific Salt Lake City, Bookcraft, Inc. 1961, p.30; Te Rongo Pai 1; History Growth and Development of the Church College of New Zealand and New Zealand Temple Project, Hamilton, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1958p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton, Lynette Williams,Hamilton,30 June 2009 iv Lynette Williams, Hamilton, 30 June 2009,Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton. v Cummings, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple vi Hunt, Brian W. Zion in New Zealand, Church College of New Zealand, Temple View, New Zealand 1977, p.65. This part of Tuhikaramea became known as Temple View, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. vii Cummings, preface, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. viii Hunt p.67, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple 5

198 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H135 Address: Building/ Site Name: Church College, Temple View Block Plant HISTORIC SUMMARY: The Block Plant was built by Perry Brown and his crew in 1955 or early They constructed a building and assembled the new machine which replaced the first 1951 block plant machine. The new machine was referred to as the Columbia block machine and was shipped from the State of Washington. The building consisted of a central plant where the Columbia Block machine was installed, a block curing area, a cement storage shed, generator room, plumbing shop, and paint storage area. In March 1956 the first blocks, which are brick sized, came off the new Columbia Block machine. The new machine provided the option of different block sizes and shapes through the use of different moulds. About 4000 blocks could be produced a day. As of December 1957 the Columbia Block Machine had made nearly 900,000 blocks, not counting half blocks or special blocks i (Rongo Pai 1958:173). The Columbia Block Machine produced the blocks used in the Temple, Information centre, McKay building, Headmaster s Home, Temple President s home, missionaries homes, machine shop, timber treatment plant, covered walks at the college, as well as the Dinsdale Chapel. More then 250,000 blocks were shipped to the Pacific Islands. The old Columbia Block plant is now used as the rugby changing rooms. District Plan Reference: H 135, Map 60B, Category B Legal Description: Part of Lot 1 DPS Zone: Temple View Zone Registered NZHPT: No Date of Construction: The Church College complex included classrooms, dormitories, gymnasium, auditorium, a library and amenities. The construction of the college was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific, with the construction of several chapels. Construction of the Temple commenced in 1956 and it was dedicated 20 April For the construction of the complex temporary accommodation units and facilities were set up in a camp which had its own kai hall and laundry. A block factory and a joinery factory were also established. The cement block (brick) plant was in operation by July 1951, using imported cement. ii The joinery workshop was the first main building constructed the first bricks for this being laid on 12 August The ground-breaking ceremony for G.R. Biesinger Hall was held in 1960 and the large Wendell B. Mendenhall Library was opened on campus on 16 February iii Seven of the buildings within the Church College complex have been identified as sufficiently significant, nationally and/or locally, for inclusion in the Hamilton City Council s District Plan schedule of heritage structures. These include: The Hamilton New Zealand Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (H108), G.R. Biesinger Hall (H107), First House (H133), David O MacKay Building (H106), Wendell B Mendenhall Library (H109), Kai Hall (H134), Block Plant (H135). Designer/ Builder: Current use/building type: Visible materials: Labour Missionaries, Church of the Latter Day Saints changing rooms Cement bricks The LDS church in New Zealand Missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came to New Zealand in 1854 and the first branch of the Church was established, among a small number of European migrants. In December 1875 the first large group of missionaries arrived but again the contact was intermittent until October 1878, the beginning of continuous missionary activity and the more rapid spread of Mormonism. In 1879 the headquarters of the Australian [or Australasian] Mission were established in New Zealand and in 1898 the Australasian Mission was divided into two administrative units: Australian and New Zealand. In 1886 the first LDS Native School was established. Further 1

199 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H135 primary schools were established and in 1911 work was begun on building the Maori Agricultural College at Korongata in Hawkes Bay. Development of the college campus at Tuhikaramea near Hamilton In 1947 a new college project was initiated by Elder Matthew Cowley. Cowley had begun work in New Zealand in 1914, working at the Maori Agricultural College, and returning later in 1938 as President of the New Zealand Mission. Cowley proposed to the General Authorities of the Church the need for a college in New Zealand. Approval was given and in September 1948 Cowley was sent to New Zealand again, this time to find a site for the college. He handed the project over to Gordon C. Young after his appointment as president and Young began looking in iv The site selection was hampered by post-world War II restrictions on land sales, but in April 1949 the LDS bought Bert Meldrum s farm at Tuhikaramea near Hamilton. v The construction of the college was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific, with the construction of several chapels. vi George R. Biesinger was general supervisor of the Church building programme in the South Pacific. He came to New Zealand, with his family, in April 1950 to supervise the construction of the Auckland chapel, the college at Tuhikaramea and buildings in Samoa. vii He remained in New Zealand for ten years. The first project of the New Zealand-wide building programme was the construction of a college at Tuhikaramea. The construction of the college began in 1950 with the ground dedication on 17 November. The architect for the college was Edward O. Anderson, who first visited the site in President Wendell B. Mendenhall undertook the initial negotiations, remaining in New Zealand for two months. He returned to the US and recruited experienced craftsmen and sent them to assist with training and supervision of the work force. viii By the end of 1952 there was a force of 60 men organised into crews for different aspects of the work. Work teams formed strong bonds during their work. Most were married men, and their wives also worked to support the building programme. ix Thirty six qualified craftsmen, all church members, and their families arrived from America. They provided construction supervision and training for local church members and were instrumental in making the Labour missionary programme a success. x Church College, consisting of classrooms, dormitories, gymnasium, auditorium, a library and amenities, was only a part of the construction at the site. xi Temporary accommodation units and facilities were set up in a camp and an old house was moved down to the site. The camp had its own kai hall and laundry. First a block factory and a joinery factory were established. The cement block (brick) plant was in operation by July 1951, using imported cement. xii The joinery workshop was the first main building constructed and the first bricks for this were laid on 12 August As the project proceeded, permanent houses were built and the Temple View village began to form. The first residence of the village was completed in 1952, and Elder George R. Biesinger and family moved into it before Christmas. This house, known as First House, was a practice training exercise, as a preparation for the subsequent houses built in a strip fronting onto Tuhikaramea Road. The blocks used in their construction were made in the first block plant and machine which was replaced in 1956 by the Columbia Block machine. The early concrete bricks/ blocks were rougher than those produced by the later Columbia Block Machine. The eleven houses on the college side of the road, that is east side of Tuhikaramea Road immediately past the college were the first homes constructed in the Church college settlement. Construction of the homes on the other side of the road followed. The houses were used by project administration staff and teachers. Other temporary houses used by Labour Missionaries have since been demolished. xiii Residences were built for the teachers and staff as well as the campus buildings. Dormitories for boys and girls were among the largest buildings on the campus. The camp and later village were supported by the farm; further land had been purchased adjacent to the original piece. Some was peat, some in scrub and some in pasture. A dairy herd was developed and vegetable gardens established to supply the workers, with excess produce being sold. The college opened for classes on 10 February 1958, although the dedication ceremony was not held until a few days after that of the Temple, on 24 April. The intention to build a temple at Hamilton was announced at the Hui Tau (Mormon conference) held 7-12 April The architect Edward O. Anderson inspected the site on 2 June 1955 and his plans were received on 1 September 1955 xiv In early January 1956 the pouring of concrete for the temple foundations and walls began.. xv The supervisor for the Temple construction was Elder E. Albert Rosenvall under Biesinger. xvi By the middle of December 1956 the Temple s steel framework had been completed and nearly half of the concrete poured. The cornerstone was laid on 22 December 1956 during a ceremony attended by nearly 2000 people. Following the custom with LDS temples built elsewhere, the church allowed the public to visit and inspect the Temple prior to its dedication; subsequently it would be closed to all but authorised church members. The Temple was open from 22 March to 15 April 1958 and was dedicated on 20 April xvii Following the opening of the Temple, an intensive building programme was carried out in other parts of New Zealand, with 21 chapels being erected and opened between 1959 and 1962, and a further seven chapels in , plus two mission houses. At Temple View, the college campus continued to grow: the ground-breaking ceremony for G.R. Biesinger Hall was held in 1960 and the large Wendell B. Mendenhall Library was opened on campus on 16 February xviii The village continued to expand and a post office was opened in An information centre was built across the road from the Temple steps and a chapel and genealogical resource centre was built within the village to the west. The LDS construction headquarters remained at Temple View. The Dinsdale Chapel on Tuhikaramea Road was one of the last chapels built (1964) using cement bricks from the block plant. The grounds have been described as notable and were designed and laid out as an integral part of the college plan. The College campus including landscape and buildings is described as a significant cultural landscape. xix 2

200 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H135 Historical context of the Temple View area The Temple View area was part of the rohe of the Waikato iwi Ngati Mahanga. A pa or village is believed to have existed in the Koromatua area, and another on the hill on which the Temple was built was used also as an urupa for burials. However after the land confiscations of the mid-1860s, some parts of the Tuhikaramea-Koromatua area were allocated as Crown grants to militiamen of the Fourth Waikato Regiment for their service in the Waikato war. By 1866 much of the area was part of the large Rukuhia Estate owned by Auckland speculator-developer James Williamson. Williamson was later in partnership with Alfred Cox and the pair began a major undertaking to drain and develop the extensive swamps as pastoral land. Their estate was broken up by the turn of the century and smaller farms developed. In 1950 when the LDS Church was beginning its building programme, the area was still rural with dairying and sheep farms extending almost to the Frankton School end of Tuhikaramea Road (now Dinsdale). A couple of market gardens also existed. Some of the peat land adjacent to the college and LDS site had been drained and cultivated and was part of the land purchased. xx b) Physical/ Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities: i Style/Design/Type: The style of the Historic Place is representative of a significant development period in the city, region and or the nation; The Historic Place is associated with a significant activity, reflected in its design, function or type. The Historic Place has distinctive or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature which may include its design, form, massing, scale, proportions materials, ornamentation, period, craftsmanship, or other design element. By 1958 the LDS owned 1582 acres, of which 85 acres were housing or contemplated housing, 10 acres occupied by construction factories, 60 acres by the college campus, 30 acres by the Temple and Bureau of Information, and 20 acres in roads; the remaining 1377 acres were farmland. xxi a) Historic Qualities i) Associative Value: The Historic Place has a direct association with or relationship to, a person, group, institution, event or activity that is of historical significance to Hamilton, the Waikato or New Zealand. The block plant was constructed and used by the LDS Labouring Missionaries to construct other buildings at Temple View including the timber treatment plant) college buildings, houses and dormitories, the New Zealand Temple, and the Dinsdale Chapel as well as landscape features such as walls. ii) Historic Pattern: The Historic Place is associated with broad patterns of local, regional or national history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes, social or economic trends and activities. The block plant forms part of the comprehensive development of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints college campus commencing in The Temple and college are a focus for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints in New Zealand and represent a purpose-built community, the only one of its kind in New Zealand. The construction of the college at this time was part of a programme of expansion within New Zealand and the Pacific. Missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints first came to New Zealand in 1854, with more continuous missionary activity commencing in The block plant is a utilitarian structure with a two-storey central component with skillion roof, where the Columbia Block Machine was located. To the side was a low-pitched gable roof an open walled block curing area. The building itself is made from cement block / brick wall cladding, in stretcher bond pattern. ii Designer or Builder: The architect, designer, engineer or builder for the Historic Place was a notable practitioner or made a significant contribution to the city, region or nation, and the place enlarges understanding of their work. The Block Plant was constructed by Labour Missionaries. iii Rarity: The Historic Place or elements of it are unique, uncommon or rare at a local, district or national level, or in relation to particular historic themes. (Purpose built to house the cement brick making machinery, the Block Plant is a unique structure within the Temple View complex, associated with the manufacture of materials for construction of buildings at the college campus and elsewhere. Iv Integrity: The Historic Place has integrity, retaining significant features from its time of construction, or later periods when important modifications or additions were carried out. The Block Plant appears to remain largely intact. 3

201 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H135 c) Context or Group Values i The physical and visual character of the site or setting of the Historic Place is of importance to the value of the place; The grounds have been described as notable and were designed and laid out as an integral part of the college plan. The College campus is described as a significant cultural landscape. ii The Historic Place is an important visual landmark or feature, (Not considered applicable.) iii The Historic Place makes an important contribution to the continuity or character of the street, neighbourhood, area or landscape. iv The Historic Place is part of a group or collection of places which together have a coherence because of such factors as history, age, appearance, style, scale, materials, proximity or use, landscape or setting which, when considered as a whole, amplify the heritage values of the place and group/ landscape or extend its significance, The Block Plant forms part of the comprehensive development of the college campus commencing in 1950 incorporating a range of buildings and the surrounding designed landscape and farmlands associated with the College campus. d) Technological Qualities: The Historic Place is representative of innovative or important methods of construction, contains unusual construction materials, is an early example of the use of a particular construction technique or has potential to contribute information about technological or engineering history. The Block Plant structure is of technological value as it was purpose designed to house the cement brick machine, a type of technology that was not common in New Zealand and drying areas for the bricks/ blocks produced. e) Archaeological Qualities: i The potential of the Historic Place to define or expand knowledge of earlier human occupation, activities or events through investigation using archaeological methods. ii The potential of the Historic Place to provide evidence to address archaeological research questions. iii The Historic Place is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for its archaeological values, or is recorded by the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Recoding Scheme, or is an archaeological site as defined by the Historic Places Act (Not assessed as part of this evaluation). Refer report : Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November Aerial photo 2012, Hamilton City Council. 4

202 HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL BUILT HERITAGE INVENTORY RECORD FORM H135 f) Cultural Qualities: The Historic Place is important as a focus of cultural sentiment; The Historic Place significantly contributes to community identity or sense of place or provides evidence of cultural or historical continuity, the Historic Place has symbolic or commemorative significance to people who use or have used it, or to the descendants of such people. The interpretative capacity of the Historic Place can potentially increase understanding of past lifestyles or events. The importance of the complex at Temple View to the community is evident in the formation of the Temple View Heritage Society formed to campaign for the retention of buildings within the college complex. An envisioning committee including the Church, members of the Temple View Heritage Society, Labour Missionaries Association, Church College Alumni Association and members of the Temple View community and Council have worked together to develop plans for the future of the college campus. xxii g) Scientific Qualities: The potential for the Historic Place to contribute information about an historic figure, event, phase or activity. The degree to which the Historic Place may contribute further information and the importance, rarity, quality or representativeness of the data involved. ((The place may have potential to contribute archaeological information, refer to archaeological report It has potential to contribute to understanding of the history and development of the college campus at Tuhikaramea, Hamilton, developed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It may have potential to contribute further understanding about the production of concrete bricks.) Summary of assessed significance and management category The place is scheduled in Category B. The Block Plant has significance locally as a source of cement blocks for Dinsdale Chapel and buildings at Temple View and Church College and as a site from which blocks were shipped to other LDS projects in the pacific. It has high or moderate value in relation to the following criteria: a)historic Qualities; moderate, b) Physical/Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities; moderate, c) Context or Group Values; high, e) Archaeological Qualities; (not assessed) f) Cultural Qualities, moderate Form prepared Revision Compiled Matthews & Matthews Architects Ltd Key Sources for information: Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton, Lynette Williams, Hamilton, 30 June 2009, Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory Forms i Te Rongo Pai 1; History Growth and Development of the Church College of New Zealand and New Zealand Temple Project, Hamilton, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1958 p:173. ii Cummings, David W. Mighty Missionary of the Pacific Salt Lake City, Bookcraft, Inc. 1961, p.30; Te Rongo Pai 1; History Growth and Development of the Church College of New Zealand and New Zealand Temple Project, Hamilton, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1958p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton, Lynette Williams,Hamilton,30 June 2009 iii Lynette Williams, Hamilton, 30 June 2009,Historical Overview of the LDS Temple, Hamilton. iv Cummings, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple v Hunt, Brian W. Zion in New Zealand, Church College of New Zealand, Temple View, New Zealand 1977, p.65. This part of Tuhikaramea became known as Temple View, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. vi Cummings, preface, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. vii Hunt p.67, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple viii Cummings p.37, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple ix Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. x Waikato Times, July , cited in Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, p.18. xi See Site plan, figure 13 from Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November xii Cummings p.30; Te Rongo Pai 1958 p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xiii Hamilton City Council Heritage Inventory form xiv Cummings p.58, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xv E.g.Cummings 70, 71, 74, 75, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xvi Cummings p.58, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xvii Newspaper clipping, Waikato Historical Society scrapbook, Hamilton City Libraries 2 December 1957, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xviii He Mahi Aroha 1963 p.10, cited in Historical Overview of the LDS Temple xix Archaeology and European History in the Temple View Area, report prepared by Alexy Simmons, October November 2004, p. 37. xx Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. xxi Historical Overview of the LDS Temple. xxii 5

203 MATTHEWS & MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS LTD Level 1 63 Pitt St, P.O. Box , Symonds Street, Auckland. phone fax info@mmarchitects.co.nz web 30 September 2013 Mark Roberts Hamilton City Council Private Bag 3010 Hamilton 3240 RE: SUBMISSIONS TO PROPOSED HAMILTON DISTRICT PLAN (HERITAGE PLACES) Dear Mark, Set out below are comments on specific matters, related to the issues identified and submissions sent with your dated 13 September The issues highlighted include: 1. The change in ranking of the Central Post Office in Victoria Street from B to A, with the Lenscrete dome, ranked A. 2. Submission that the Hamilton Municipal Pools be scheduled in category A 3. Large numbers of submissions seeking change in the demolition activity status for heritage buildings from non-complying to a Discretionary Activity, or for a change in the Activity status for B ranked buildings to be a discretionary activity. 4. Removal of the B ranking for the Z Energy petrol section at 116 Grey Street, Hamilton East. Comments 1. Change in ranking to A for the former Hamilton Post Office As part of the review of scheduled historic places, additional historic research was carried out together with inspection from accessible areas and assessment against heritage criteria included in the proposed Hamilton District Plan. The appropriate category of scheduling places was reviewed based on the research and assessment undertaken. The former Post Office at 346 Victoria Street was recommended for inclusion in Category A due to its assessed significance against the heritage criteria, as summarised on the new heritage inventory record form H 39. The additional research and assessment reinforces an understanding of the significance of the Post Office. The place is considered to be of highly significant heritage value locally and regionally and has high significance in relation to the following criteria: a)historic Qualities; High, b) Physical/Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities; High, c) Context or Group Values; High, d) Technological Qualities; moderate, e) Archaeological Qualities;(not assessed) f) Cultural Qualities, High. The former Hamilton Post Office is of great significance as the fourth purpose-built post office in Hamilton, opened in Post office buildings such as this one were part of a major building and public works programme undertaken by the first Labour Government. Its construction reflected the growing needs of Hamilton, which was developing rapidly during the 1920s and 1930s. It is an important example of the work of architects Edgecumbe and White of Hamilton who designed a number of other significant public buildings in the Waikato, as well as well-known local building firm run by W.B. Young. It is one of a group of important public and commercial buildings clustered around Garden Place in Hamilton. An outstanding feature of the Hamilton Post Office was the dome.

204 MATTHEWS & MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS LTD Level 1 63 Pitt St, P.O. Box , Symonds Street, Auckland. phone fax info@mmarchitects.co.nz web Original architectural drawings describe it as a Lenscrete dome and show that it was cleverly constructed of sixteen hundred and sixty glass lenses, set within a steel reinforced concrete shell with perimeter ring beams. The process undertaken enabled not only a careful review of each place based on additional research information, but also a comprehensive understanding of all the scheduled places in Hamilton, relative to each other. As a major public building in Hamilton, the former Post Office at 346 Victoria Street, although built at a different time and much more substantial, is similar in its function and the important role that it played in the social, commercial and economic life of city to the earlier Post Office at 132 Victoria Street. This earlier Post Office was built in two stages in 1901 and 1916, and is appropriately scheduled in category A. While some changes have been made to the exterior of the former Post Office at 346 Victoria Street, particularly to the ground level of the Victoria Street façade, comparison with the original drawings shows that the façade retains its architectural character and does still retain original detail at ground level including the original granite detail around the main entrance. Elements such as canopies over the ground level and balconies added at first floor level are potentially reversible. In our view the Former Post Office should be included in category A, based on the research, review and assessment against heritage criteria carried out for Hamilton City Council in Submission that the Hamilton Municipal Pools be scheduled in category A A submission on behalf of the Hamilton East Community Trust by Lois Livingston dated 19 February 2013 (Submission No. 47), notes in relation to Schedule 8 A Built Heritage Structures, buildings and associated sites: The Hamilton East Community Trust is concerned that the Hamilton Municipal Pools have not been given a heritage designation. The decision sought was: The Hamilton Municipal Pools receive a heritage designation of A in the District Plan. Comments: The Hamilton Municipal Baths at 26 Victoria St, Pt Allotment 445A Town of Hamilton West, are included in the schedule of Heritage Places in the Operative Hamilton District Plan, in Category C, item no. H 88. As part of the review of heritage places in the district plan undertaken in , the existing five categories which included A+, A, B, C and D, were reviewed with a view to rationalising the numbers of categories from five to two. The simplification of categories from five to two or three was requested by Hamilton City Council as part of the review of existing scheduled places. As a result of the review, two categories, A and B, were proposed, consistent with objectives and policies in the Waikato Regional Policy Statement and best practice guidelines such as those prepared by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. As part of the review of scheduled items historic research was carried out and a physical inspection made of the pool complex, to enable assessment against the new fuller set of heritage criteria to be included in the district plan. The historic summary and assessment against heritage criteria for the Hamilton Municipal Pools is recorded onto the new heritage inventory form H 88. The Hamilton Municipal Pools were assessed as being significant, particularly in relation to their historic qualities. Modifications made over time, including demolition of the main entrance building which faced Victoria Street, have affected the intactness of the place, eroding the values associated with its physical qualities. Based on the research, analysis and assessment against heritage criteria, the Hamilton Municipal Baths have been assessed as a Category B heritage place; assessed as being of high or moderate value in relation one or more of the heritage criteria and are considered to be of value locally or regionally. It should also be noted that a conservation plan has been prepared by Matthews & Matthews Architects Ltd for Hamilton City Council in 2013, subsequent to preparation of the heritage inventory

205 MATTHEWS & MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS LTD Level 1 63 Pitt St, P.O. Box , Symonds Street, Auckland. phone fax info@mmarchitects.co.nz web form and assessment. Further detailed research undertaken for that report confirms the significant degree of change that has occurred to the complex over time. The Municipal baths complex comprises a variety of utilitarian structures including pools, built structures and fencing. The original 1912 Edwardian classically derived architectural character of the main entrance building was lost with the demolition of the building in the 1980s. In our view the Hamilton Municipal Pools should be included in category B based on the research, review and assessment against heritage criteria carried out for Hamilton City Council in This is also supported by further research and assessment carried for preparation of a conservation plan in Activity status re demolition A number of submissions object to the identification of historic heritage in different categories, with no differentiation in terms on activity status for demolition which is a non-complying activity in the Proposed Hamilton District Plan for both category A and B buildings or structures. As noted, as part of the review of heritage places in the district plan undertaken in , the existing five categories which included A+, A, B, C and D, were reviewed with a view to rationalising the numbers of categories from five to two in the Proposed Hamilton District Plan. The simplification of categories from five to two or three was requested by Hamilton City Council as part of the review of existing scheduled places. As a result of the review, two categories, A and B, were proposed, consistent with objectives and policies in the Waikato Regional Policy Statement (RPS 2010) and best practice guidelines such as those prepared by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Section 10 of the Waikato RPS sets out the criteria for the assessment of historic and cultural heritage. Section b) notes Waikato Regional Council will advocate for appropriate recognition and consideration of specialist assessment and other resources including the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Guidance Series. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust Sustainable Management of Historic Heritage Guide No. 3: District Plans includes guidance on the use of a simple two-tier ranking system for district plan schedules. NZHPT considers that the heritage schedule in a district plan can be divided into two categories that reflect the categories used under the Historic Places Act This practice would enable places of special or outstanding value to have greater recognition and protection and also enable appropriate protection for other heritage items. (Page 13, Sustainable Management of Historic Heritage Guide No. 3: District Plans). In our proposal to review the existing schedule, dated 25 May 2011, a preliminary simplification of the schedule from 5 to 2 categories was proposed based on combining categories as set out below, with the appropriate category for each place to be confirmed following further research, inspection analysis and assessment against the new fuller set of heritage criteria to be included in the district plan. Our proposal for undertaking a review of scheduled places noted: Simplification of existing 5 categories into the proposed 3 or 2 categories in the following manner: Places currently scheduled in Category A+ Buildings and Structures of Outstanding Heritage Value and in Category A Buildings and Structures of Highly Significant Heritage Value would be combined in draft into proposed Category A- Historic Places of Highly Significant Value. Places currently scheduled in category B Buildings and Structures of Significant Heritage Value and category C Buildings and Structures Recognised Heritage Value would be combined in draft into proposed Category B Places of Significant Heritage Value. Places currently scheduled in category D Buildings and Structures of Heritage Value would be either be removed or put into proposed Category B- Places of Significant Heritage Value.

206 MATTHEWS & MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS LTD Level 1 63 Pitt St, P.O. Box , Symonds Street, Auckland. phone fax info@mmarchitects.co.nz web Research, analysis and assessment using the new heritage criteria in the Hamilton District Plan would be undertaken to review the scheduling of historic heritage places and the appropriate category for scheduling. Note: Under the existing district plan rules there is a greater degree of control for places scheduled A and A+ compared to those in categories B and C. There is no difference in control between places scheduled in category A or A+. There is no difference in terms of control between categories B and C. A small group of 7 places are identified in category D, for identification but with no heritage controls applying. Simplification into 2 categories would not change the effect of the existing district plan rules as they apply to scheduled heritage buildings. Simplification into 2 categories would not change the effect of draft Chapter 14, where rules proposed for categories B and C are the same. Versions of Draft Heritage sections of the Proposed Hamilton District Plan provided to us at the time this work was undertaken had a difference in the activity status for demolition relative to the categories of Scheduling where demolition of a place in category A was non-complying and where demolition of a place in Category B was Discretionary. We were not involved in discussions or review of the changed activity status. Some District Plans such as the Operative Hamilton District Plan, include a different activity status for the demolition of category A and B scheduled places, however this is not always the case and some recent district plan reviews indicate a move towards a non-complying activity status for all scheduled historic heritage buildings and structures. For example: Auckland District Plan (Operative) Central Area: Section Total or substantial demolition of a Category A item is a prohibited activity and no application for resource consent will be considered for such an activity. Section Council will consider a restricted discretionary activity for the demolition of all or part of a Category B item. Notified Auckland Unitary Plan Under the notified Auckland Unitary Plan, total demolition of both category A and B places is non-complying. Partial demolition or destruction of Category A place is noncomplying. Partial demolition or destruction of a category B place is discretionary. Wellington District Plan- Chapter 21: Demolition or relocation of any listed heritage building or object will require restricted discretionary resource consent. The Wellington District Plan has only one category in its schedule. Rotorua Proposed District Plan The schedule in the Proposed Rotorua District Plan notes that places are divided into two categories. The relocation or demolition of any heritage structure in Appendix 1 is a non-complying activity. The explanation contained within the Proposed Hamilton District Plan section 19, Objectives notes: The District Plan matches levels of protection with the classification of the item so the City s most significant items are protected. This seems to suggest that there would be some variation in the activity status of activities related to Category A and B places.

207 MATTHEWS & MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS LTD Level 1 63 Pitt St, P.O. Box , Symonds Street, Auckland. phone fax info@mmarchitects.co.nz web The rules set out in the activity status table do include variation in relation to alterations and additions, accessory or new buildings within a scheduled site. However, demolition of both categories is now non-complying in the Proposed Hamilton District Plan. It is assumed this reflects changes made to the Resource Management Act, which was amended in 2003 to make the recognition and provision for the protection of historic heritage a matter of national importance. Section 6 (f) of the RMA specifically identifies the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development as a matter of national importance. Subsequent district plan reviews reflect this change. The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement in Section 10 highlights that: Under the Resource Management Act, the protection of historic and cultural heritage from inappropriate use, subdivision and development is a matter of national importance. The Proposed Hamilton District Plan (13 November 2012) sets out in section 19.1 Purpose: a) Historic heritage is a natural or physical resource and is defined in the Act. This chapter addresses historic structures and their immediate surroundings, and sites of archaeological or cultural significance. b) The purpose of this chapter is to identify those individual buildings, structures, places and sites that are significant, and therefore warrant recognition and protection. These items are listed in Volume 2, Appendix 8: i. Schedule 8A: Built Heritage (buildings, structures and associated sites). ii. Schedule 8B: Group 1 Archaeological and Cultural Sites. Objective in the Proposed Hamilton District Plan (13 November 2012) states: Significant buildings, structures, sites and items that define the City s historic heritage are identified and protected. Objective notes: The heritage values of significant buildings, structures and their immediate surroundings are protected. The explanation under this objective notes: The demolition of historic places can result in the loss of associated heritage values. The aim of the District Plan is to minimise the loss of any historic buildings and structures within Volume 2, Appendix 8, Schedule 8A. Demolition of highly significant historic buildings and structures will be considered only in exceptional circumstances. Comment : The potential demolition of scheduled historic places does not really achieve their protection and is therefore not consistent with the objectives for historic heritage in the Proposed Hamilton District Plan or Waikato Regional Policy Statement. It is assumed this change to activity status, making demolition of both Category A and B scheduled buildings and structures non-complying, reflects changes made to the Resource Management Act, which was amended in 2003 to make the recognition and provision for the protection of historic heritage a matter of national importance. 3.2 Activity status re demolition in relation to risks associated with earthquake prone buildings A number of examples of submissions forwarded, including those by Waikato Registered Master Builders Association, Murray V Shaw Builders Ltd, and Waitomo Properties Ltd, seek that the demolition of scheduled structures or buildings in Category A or B be a discretionary activity rather than non-complying where their earthquake prone status may mean they pose a significant risk to safety and demolition may be the only viable option. The Building Act 2004 provides a legal framework to protect building occupants and the public from harm in the event of an earthquake. It: provides for Building Code performance requirements that new buildings must be built to

208 MATTHEWS & MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS LTD Level 1 63 Pitt St, P.O. Box , Symonds Street, Auckland. phone fax info@mmarchitects.co.nz web provides a threshold to define whether an existing building is earthquake-prone provides local authorities with duties and powers to inspect existing buildings to determine whether they are earthquake-prone and dangerous provides local authorities with powers to prevent earthquake-prone and dangerous buildings being occupied and to require owners to strengthen or demolish them, or for the local authority to directly undertake strengthening or demolition work requires local authorities to develop policies in consultation with their communities on how they will exercise these duties and powers. Hamilton City Council s Earthquake Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary buildings policy notes in section 3.2: In the Proposed Hamilton District Plan, Objective is: The heritage values of significant buildings, structures and their immediate surroundings are protected. The explanation under this objective notes: The demolition of historic places can result in the loss of associated heritage values. The aim of the District Plan is to minimise the loss of any historic buildings and structures within Volume 2, Appendix 8, Schedule 8A. Demolition of highly significant historic buildings and structures will be considered only in exceptional circumstances. Comment : Council s policy is to work pro-actively with building owners in relation to earthquake prone buildings. Detailed assessments are required. The requirement for potential upgrading of any scheduled historic buildings would be investigated and reviewed on a case by case basis, based on Council s Earthquake Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary buildings policy and to meet the requirements of the Building Act. It is assumed that options for any strengthening would be carefully investigated and discussed and as noted in the explanation in the Proposed Hamilton District Plan under Objective demolition of highly significant historic buildings and structures would only be considered in exceptional circumstances. 4. Petrol Station at 116 Grey Street, Hamilton The submission relates to an inconsistency between the proposed Business 7 ( Neighbourhood Commercial) zoning which would appear to make a service station( drive-through servicesautomotive fuel retailing only) a non-complying activity, while at the same scheduling the service station, which remains in use for this original purpose in category B. The submission notes that the restricted discretionary status that applies to alterations and additions to the scheduled building and to signage is only reasonable if the same activity status applies to the function, which is part of its history.