30 June 2023
Chris Milne
Susan Sales
Senior Advisor Official Information and Privacy
[FYI request #22647 email]
04 570 6666 / 0800 488 824
[email address]
Our reference: LGOIMA
Dear Chris
Request for Information – Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
(LGOIMA)
We refer to your official information request dated 3 May 2023 for information, from 1 February
2023, about the addition of Bay Street and Beach Street to HA08.
The information you have requested in questions 1 - 3 is enclosed (see Appendix 2). Our
response to question 4 was provided to you on 30 May 2023.
Some parts of this information have been withheld under sections 7(2)(a), 7(2)(f)(i) and 7(2)(g)
of the LGOIMA. More detail on these withholding grounds is provided in Appendix 1 of this
letter. In making the decision to withhold this information, we have determined that the
withholding of that information is not outweighed by other considerations which render it
desirable, in the public interest, to make that information available.
Please note that this response to your information request and your name may be published
on Hutt City Council’s website, on the following link:
www.huttcity.govt.nz/council/contact-
us/make-an-official-information-act-request/proactive-releases
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this response.
Information about how to make a complaint is available at
www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or
freephone 0800 802 602.
Yours sincerely
Susan Sales
Senior Advisor Official Information and Privacy
Encl:-
Appendix 1 – Section 7(2) withholding grounds
Appendix 2 - HA08 attachments
Appendix 1 – Section 7(2) LGOIMA withholding grounds
(2) Subject to
sections 6, 8, and
17, this section applies if, and only if, the withholding of the
information is necessary to—
(a) protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons; or
(b) protect information where the making available of the information—
(i) would disclose a trade secret; or
(ii) would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who
supplied or who is the subject of the information; or
(ba) in the case only of an application for a resource consent, or water conservation order, or a
requirement for a designation or heritage order, under the
Resource Management Act 1991, to
avoid serious offence to tikanga Maori, or to avoid the disclosure of the location of waahi tapu;
or
(c) protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has
been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making
available of the information—
(i) would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the
same source, and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be
supplied; or
(ii) would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest; or
(d) avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health or safety of members of the public; or
(e) avoid prejudice to measures that prevent or mitigate material loss to members of the public;
or
(f) maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through—
(i) the free and frank expression of opinions by or between or to members or officers or
employees of any local authority, or any persons to whom
section 2(5) applies, in the
course of their duty; or
(ii) the protection of such members, officers, employees, and persons from improper
pressure or harassment; or
(g) maintain legal professional privilege; or
(h) enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or
disadvantage, commercial activities; or
(i) enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or
disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations); or
(j) prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.
BEFORE THE INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL
IN THE MATTER OF:
Hutt City Proposed District Plan
Change 56: Enabling Intensification
in Residential and Commercial Areas
SECTION 42A REPORT OF CHESSA STEVENS – HERITAGE ASSESSMENT
Dated 7 March 2023
under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act
Released
1
Submissions for the Extension of the Petone Foreshore Heritage Area
43. The heritage values of the Petone Foreshore Heritage Area can be summarised
as follows:
(a) The area has high historic values as an example of some of the earliest
Act
residential development in Wellington.
(b) The area has high physical values derived from the consistent late 19th
and early 20th century subdivision patterns, and the integrity of its
Meetings
traditionally constructed late 19th and early 20th century timber frame
buildings. There is also high potential for further information about
and
the past of Petone, Lower Hutt and New Zealand to be revealed
through investigation by archaeological methods.
(c) The area has high social values, holding sentimental significance for
Information
the generations of people who have lived there, and being well
recognised by the community as contributing to the shared history and
identity of Petone.
Official
(d) The area has high rarity for its intact late 19th and (predominantly)
early 20th century residential buildings.
(e) The area features good examples of buildings of a particular age and
Government
type, conferring a high level of representativeness.
Local
44. The Desktop Heritage Inventory Review Report issued in April 2021 identified
Nelson Street, Bay Street, Beach Street, Queen Street, Buick Street and Bolton
the Street between Jackson Street and the Esplanade for potential inclusion in a
Petone Foreshore Heritage Area. The boundaries of the proposed area did not
under change in the Draft Heritage Inventory Review Report issued in June 2021.
45. Following the June 2021 Draft, HCC requested a review of the Petone
Foreshore Heritage Area due to its size, particularly given the intensification
Released
requirements of the NPS-UD and the treatment of historic heritage as a
qualifying matter.
14
46. This review confirmed that Queen, Buick, and Bolton Streets were the most
intact, and were therefore critical to the heritage values of the proposed
Petone Foreshore Heritage Area; while modern redevelopment at the
northern and southern ends of Nelson Street, at the northern end of Beach
Street, and sporadically along Bay Street had eroded their cohesion and
integrity. The proposed Petone Foreshore Heritage Area was therefore
Act
reduced to Queen, Buick and Bolton Streets.
47. In submission 102.1, Graeme Lyon requests that consideration be given to
Meetings
extending the Petone Foreshore Heritage Area to include Beach and Bay
Streets, but does not provide a detailed explanation as to why. The submission
and
focusses more strongly on the need for appropriate “zoning” to require “in
character development” within the wider foreshore area. My evidence does
not discuss the definition of ‘character’ or the difference between ‘character’
and ‘heritage’. This will be addressed by other experts on behalf of HCC.
Information
48. In submission 44.1, Laura Skilton requests that the Petone Foreshore Heritage
Area be extended to include Bay Street and Beach Street “as a minimum” on
Official
the grounds that they “are not substantially different” to Queen, Buick and
Bolton Streets. In the submission, Laura Skilton has provided an analysis of
Beach and Bay Streets against the criteria of Policy 21 of the RPS.4 In general,
I agree with the statements made in this analysis, particularly as regards
Government
historic themes and associations, architectural and townscape values, age and
representativeness, noting that there has been some dilution of these values
Local
through modern development.
the
49. I have reviewed the extent of the proposed Petone Foreshore Heritage Area,
and I agree that Bay Street (particularly the western side) and Beach Street
under (particularly the south end) have heritage values that are consistent with the
other streets included in the proposed Area, and therefore meet the criteria of
Released
4 Laura Skilton’s submission and analysis refer multiple times to “the report”, “the analysis” and “the summary
document” without specifying which particular report, analysis or summary document are being referred to. I
have not cross checked all of these references in reviewing her Policy 21 analysis as I do not believe it changes
the general nature of the statements made.
15
Act
Meetings
and
Information
Official
Government
Local
the
under
Released
Review Report undertaken in 2021 was necessarily high level. It is possible that
more detailed analysis of the area bounded by the railway line, the river,
Jackson Street, Kensington Ave and Cuba Street may identify other areas with
heritage value.
52. However, I note the Petone 2040 Spatial Plan did not use the criteria of RPS
Act
Policy 21 to assess “Areas of Cohesive and Intact Traditional Housing” and,
therefore it cannot be assumed that these areas would necessarily qualify as
Heritage Areas.
Meetings
53. I also note that the “Areas of Cohesive and Intact Traditional Housing”
and
encompass other proposed Heritage Areas, including the Riddlers Crescent and
Patrick Street Heritage Precincts, and the Hutt Road Railway, Petone State
Flats, and Moera Railway Heritage Areas. Therefore, consideration has already
been given to these areas.
Information
Out of scope
Official
Government
Local
the
under
Released
17
Chessa Stevens
WSP Principal Conservation Architect and National Built Heritage Lead
Act
7 March 2023
Meetings
and
Information
Official
Government
Local
the
under
Released
28
s 7(2)(f)(i)
Act
From: Nathan Geard <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 19 April 2023 10:25 am
Meetings
To: Tim Johnstone <[email address]>; Ceinwen Curtis <[email address]>
Cc: Alison Geddes <[email address]>; Michelle Palmer <[email address]>; Cam
Meads <[email address]>
and
Subject: RE: Heritage housing messaging
Good morning
In response to Tim’s question about residents wanting to make submissions, I have spoken on the phone to
someone in the last couple of weeks who was asking about whether they could make a submission on the process. I
Information
advised them that unfortunately the opportunity to make a submission on this process has passed, but that there
will be opportunity to be involved through the full District Plan Review.
Cheers
Official
Nathan
Nathan Geard
Government
Policy Planning Manager
Hutt City Council, 30 Laings Road, Hutt Central, Lower Hutt, Lower Hutt 5010
Local
P: s7(2)(a)
M: W: www.huttcity.govt.nz
the
under
From: Tim Johnstone <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 19 April 2023 9:55 AM
To: Ceinwen Curtis
Released <[email address]>
Cc: Nathan Geard <[email address]>; Alison Geddes <[email address]>; Michelle
Palmer <[email address]>; Cam Meads <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Heritage housing messaging
I don’t think we have any requests from the residents to make a submission to the process – Nathan is that correct?
1
Here some background points:
The article relates to District Plan Change 56 which is the Council’s response to the national direction
requiring Council to change its planning rules to enable higher and denser development in some parts of our
city.
This was a fully notified plan change meaning that anyone could make a submission. The plan change was notified
on 18 August 2022 until 20 September 2022. A total of 275 submissions were received.
Council provided all of the submissions received on its website, along with a summary of the decisions requested
in the submissions.
Act
There was then another submission period from 10 November to 24 November when people could make a further
submission in support or opposition to any of the decisions requested in the original submissions. 25 further
submissions were received.
Meetings
In relation to Bay Street and Beach Street in Petone – an original submission was received requesting the
inclusion of additional heritage areas in the plan change including these streets. No further submissions
and
were received in response to this original submission.
Council’s expert heritage advisor reviewed the submission and evidence and recommended extending the
heritage area to Beach and Bay Streets. Council’s reporting officer has agreed with this recommendation.
The plan change is now being considered by an independent hearing panel. The hearing is currently taking place
Information
until the 28th April. The decisions from the hearing panel are due by August 2023.
The panel can recommend to Council to either accept or reject the submission point seeking the expansion
of the Heritage Area.
Official
When the panel has made its recommendation on the submission, Council is then required to decide
whether to accept or reject that recommendation.
The final decision on whether to extend the heritage area to and Bay Street and Beach Street has not yet
been made.
Government
This plan change has followed the statutory process set out in the Resource Management (Enabling Housing
Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021.
Local
the
Tim Johnstone Head of Planning
Hutt City Council, 30 Laings
under Road, Lower Hutt 5040
M: s7(2)(a)
W: www.huttcity.govt.nz
Released
From: Ceinwen Curtis <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 April 2023 11:34 am
To: Tim Johnstone <[email address]>
Subject: Fwd: Heritage housing messaging
3
Kia ora Tim,
Ceinwen Curtis here from the comms team – I’m media advisor.
I’m looking for some key messages on the issue of heritage housing regarding the article below.
We may be asked to respond to media queries on this.
Are you able to help with this?
Act
Ngā mihi,
Ceinwen
'Hutt City Council adds two new heritage streets without consultation' | Voxy.co.nz
Meetings
and
The Hutt City Council has added over 80 new houses to the proposed heritage area on the Petone Foreshore without consulting
residents, which the Hutt Voluntary Heritage Group (VHG) says could breach the Local Government Act.
The extension was made in response to a request from a few individual submitters to include Bay Street, King Street, Richmond
Information
Street, and Nelson Street in the Petone Foreshore Heritage area - one of 10 proposed heritage areas in the Hutt to mitigate the
Government’s intensification law.
The Council Officer responded by recommending the Petone Foreshore heritage area be extended to include over 80 houses in
Official
Beach Street and Bay Street.
The shocking discovery was made by the VHG while analysing the 176-page Council Officers Report. VHG Convenor Phil Barry
says the extension is unacceptable as they were not part of the original proposal, and therefore homeowners have not been
adequately consulted.
Government
"An additional 82 homeowners are now impacted by the new heritage area rules, many of which are likely not aware of the
Local
consequences for their property."
the
"Residents on Bay and Beach Street won’t have an opportunity to have their say as submissions have already closed. This could
breach the Council’s responsibilities under the Local Government Act."
under
The Consultation Principles of the Local Government Act guide consultation processes to ensure communities receive information,
engagement opportunities, and the ability to express their opinions.
Barry says this has not been done.
Released
"Sneaking in over 80 more households into an already underway process goes against every principle set out for consultations in
the Local Government Act.
"Mayor Campbell Barry and his Councillors should be ashamed and start asking questions of the Council’s planning team right
now."
4
"The Council should walk back the extension and apologise."
"At the absolute least, the Council should invite homeowners to submit at the hearings taking place this month, which are currently
only accessible to previous submitters - those included in the heritage areas from the beginning."
The Council Officer has discretion to add and remove individual properties from the proposed heritage areas in response to
submissions, but Barry says the addition of two whole streets is extraordinary and requires new consultation.
"82 families are probably still under the impression that they have escaped the Council’s intensification controls."
Act
"It’s simply not acceptable that these people would find out their house is subject to strict new heritage rules, without ever being
given a chance to say something about it."
Meetings
"When the consultation principles are ignored like they are here, the trust between council and community is eroded."
and
Barry says the Hutt City Council wants to avoid consultation because it knows the heritage areas would not stand up to scrutiny,
and it’s hastily trying to limit the effects of Government-sanctioned intensification.
"The inclusion of Bay and Beach Street is consistent with the Council’s crusade against intensification in the area.
Information
"The Council Officer’s acceptance of these areas, based on the belief that the ‘practical effect of the Petone Foreshore Heritage
Area is to limit building height and density to existing levels,’ is just pretext for the council’s anti-intensification agenda.
Official
"The Council’s actions throughout the entire process demonstrate that it does not care in the slightest about preserving any
supposed heritage value of Petone homes.
"This strategy of forcing residents into heritage areas so the Council can display some semblance of control over housing density
exhibits a complete disregard for the community it serves."
Government
Ceinwen Curtis
Media Advisor
Local
Hutt City Council
s7(2)(a)
the
[email address]
under
Released
5
Out of Scope
Act
Meetings
and
Information
Official
Government
Local
the
under
From: Ceinwen Curtis
Sent: Monday, 24 April 2023 11:11 AM
To: Alison Geddes < [email address] > ; Tim Johnstone < [email address]
> ; Cam Meads < [email address] > ; Caryn Ellis < [email address] > ; Jarred
Griffiths < [email address] >
Released
Cc: Michelle Palmer < [email address] > ; Frances Gregory <
[email address] >
Subject: FYI: Media query on Voluntary Heritage Group
Kiaora tatou katoa,
For your awareness, the statement below will go to Stuff reporter s7(2)(a)
shortly in response to this
question:
s7(2)(a)
query:
Why are the extended heritage areas in Plan Change 56 needed?
Were the houses, as Phil Barry claims, just added in to avoid implementing the NPS-UD more broadly?
If not, why did the heritage assessment in 2022 (after the NPS-UD came out) recommend so many more
homes for inclusion than previous assessments?
HCC’s response:
The proposal to add properties in Beach Street and Bay Street to the proposed
Act
Petone Foreshore Heritage Area is in response to submissions received during the
first notification process from 18 August 2022 until 20 September 2022. A total of 275
submissions were received.
Council’s independent qualified heritage expert reviewed these streets and found
them to have heritage values consistent with the other streets in the heritage area.
Meetings
The proposed heritage areas in Plan Change 56 are not proposed for protection on
and
the grounds of ‘character’. They are proposed for protection because they have
been assessed to have historic heritage values that meet the strict requirements of
the tests of the RMA and the Regional Policy Statement.
They are not an attempt to avoid implementing the NPS-UD, but an integral part of
implementing the NPS-UD, which directs councils to provide for intensification in a
Information
way that also delivers on other issues of national significance identified by the RMA,
such as preserving historic heritage and protecting people and property from natural
hazards.
Official
Council provided al submissions received on its website, along with a summary of the
decisions requested in the submissions.
Fol owing the first submission period there was a subsequent period for further
submissions from 10 - 24 November. Twenty-five submissions were received during
this period.
Government
This plan change is fol ow
Local
ing the Intensification Streamlined Planning Process which
is a statutory process set by the Resource Management Act. This process
prevents people
the
from making submissions at the hearing if they did not make an
original or further submission.
The proposed new heritage areas in Plan Change 56 account for less than one
under
percent of the residential properties in Lower Hutt.
ENDS
Released
Ngā mihi,
Ceinwen Curtis
Media Advisor
Hutt City Council
s7(2)(a)
[email address]
Out of Scope
Act
Meetings
and
From: Tim Johnstone
Sent: Saturday, 22 April 2023 3:23 pm
To: Ceinwen Curtis < [email address]> ; Cam Meads < [email address]> ;
Alison Geddes < [email address]> ; Caryn Ellis < [email address]>
Information
Cc: Michelle Palmer < [email address]> ; Frances Gregory <
[email address]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Media query on Voluntary Heritage Group
Official
Hi Ceinwen
Here’s a few additional points:
Council has been reviewing its heritage inventory as part of the ongoing full review of the district
plan, begun in 2019. This is the most complete, city-wide assessment of historic heritage since the
current district plan was prepared in the 1990s. There has been a lot of change in central
Government
government and regional council policy direction about heritage assessment since then, which
Council is now required to give effect to.
Local
The proposed new heritage areas in Plan Change 56 account for less than 1% of the residential
properties in Lower Hutt. They are proposed for protection for their significance to the region and
the
country.
They are not an attempt to avoid implementing the NPS-UD, but an integral part of implementing
the NPS-UD, w
under hich directs councils to provide for intensification in a way that also delivers on other
issues of national significance identified by the RMA, such as preserving historic heritage and
protecting people and property from natural hazards.
Following the original submissions stage, and in response to specific submissions received on
Beach Street and Bay Street, Council’s independent qualified heritage expert reviewed these
Released
streets and found them to have heritage values that are consistent with the other streets in the
proposed Petone Foreshore Heritage Area.
• It is also noted in response to the reporters comment on Wellington’s character areas that the
proposed heritage areas in Plan Change 56 are not proposed for protection on the grounds of
“character”. They are proposed for protection because they have been assessed to have historic
heritage values that meet the strict requirements of the tests of the RMA and the Regional Policy
Statement.
Below is my initial suggest response and background comments for ease of reference.
This is part of the Proposed District Plan Change 56 process, which fol ows the
Intensification Streamlined Planning Process set by the Resource Management Act.
Decisions on the proposed plan change wil be made later this year.
The plan change is now being considered by an independent hearing panel. The hearing is
currently taking place until the 28 th April. The decisions from the hearing panel are due by
August 2023.
Hutt City Council is unable to comment further until the panel has decided whether to
Act
recommend the expansion of the Heritage Area .
BACKGROUND NOTES:
Meetings
• This relates to District Plan Change 56 which is the Council’s response to the national direction
requiring Council to change its planning rules to enable higher and denser development in some
and
parts of our city.
• This was a fully notified plan change meaning that anyone could make a submission. The plan change
was notified on 18 August 2022 until 20 September 2022. A total of 275 submissions were received.
Information
• Council provided al of the submissions received on its website, along with a summary of the decisions
requested in the submissions.
Official
• There was then another submission period from 10 November to 24 November when people could
make a further submission in support or opposition to any of the decisions requested in the original
submissions. 25 further submissions were received.
• In relation to Bay Street and Beach Street in Petone – an original submission was received requesting
the inclusion of additional heritage areas in the plan change including these streets. No further
Government
submissions were received in response to this original submission.
• Council’s expert heritage advis
Local or reviewed the submission and evidence and recommended extending
the heritage area to Beach and Bay Streets. Council’s reporting officer has agreed with this
recommendation.
the
• The plan change is now being considered by an independent hearing panel. The hearing is currently
under
taking place until the 28 th April. The decisions from the hearing panel are due by August 2023.
• The panel can recommend to Council to either accept or reject the submission point seeking the
expansion of the Heritage Area.
Released
• When the panel has made its recommendation on the submission, Council is then required to
decide whether to accept or reject that recommendation.
• The final decision on whether to extend the heritage area to and Bay Street and Beach Street has
not yet been made.
• This plan change has followed the statutory process set out in the Resource Management (Enabling
Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021.
Tim Johnstone
Head of Planning
Hutt City Council, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt 5040
M:s7(2)(a)
W: www.huttcity.govt.nz
Act
Out of Scope
Meetings
and
Information
Official
Government
Local
the
under
Released
From:
Michelle Palmer <[email address]>
To:
__CLT <[email address]>
CC:
Ceinwen Curtis <[email address]>;
Frances Gregory
<[email address]>
Subject:
FW: Heritage housing messaging
Date:
18.04.2023 22:45:04 (+02:00)
Kia ora CLT
Forwarding the key points as FYI.
Act
Additional to the below, planning team have advised that the opportunity to make a submission on this
process has passed, but that there will be opportunity to be involved through the full District Plan Review.
Nga mihi
Michelle
Meetings
From: Alison Geddes <[email address]>
and
Sent: Wednesday, 19 April 2023 9:46 am
To: Ceinwen Curtis <[email address]>; Tim Johnstone <[email address]>
Cc: Nathan Geard <[email address]>; Michelle Palmer <[email address]>;
Cam Meads <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Heritage housing messaging
Information
CLT would probably benefit f for knowing this background too.
From: Ceinwen Curtis <[email address]> Official
Sent: Wednesday, 19 April 2023 9:41 am
To: Tim Johnstone <[email address]>
Cc: Nathan Geard <[email address]>; Alison Geddes <[email address]>;
Michelle Palmer <[email address]>; Cam Meads <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Heritage housing messaging
Hi Tim,
Government
That’s right, yes.
Local
The request is for some messaging if a media query pops up.
the
Are we able to respond to the requests the residents are making to be able to submit to the process?
Looping in Cam Meads here who will need this information.
under
Noho ora mai,
Ceinwen
Released
Out of scope
Act
Meetings
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this e-mail message may be legally privileged or confidential. The information is intended
and
only for the recipient named in the e-mail message. If the reader of this e-mail message is not the intended recipient, you are notified
that any use, copying or distr bution of this e-mail message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify
the sender immediately. Thank you.
From: Elected Members Requests <[email address]>
Information
Sent: 26 April 2023 14:00
To: __Mayor & Councillors <__Mayor&[email address]>; Belinda Moss
<[email address]>; Mike Fisher <[email address]>; Te Awa Puketapu
<[email address]>
Official
Cc: __CLT <[email address]>
Subject: Media coverage relating to extension of proposed Petone Foreshore Heritage Area
Kia ora koutou
Please see below from Tim Johnstone, Head of Planning, regarding recent media coverage relating to the
Government
extension of proposed Petone Foreshore Heritage Area to include Beach Street and Bay Street in Petone
as part of District Plan Change 56.
Local
Background
There has been some recent media coverage on this:
the
https://news.fuseworksmedia.com/78bc95df-1b3f-4e75-80ae-0df84082478f
under
This story is being driven by the Voluntary Heritage Group who are opposed to Council listing private
residential properties as heritage areas without homeowner consent.
We have also been contacted by a reporter from Stuff and are expecting some more coverage, so we want
to provide Councillors with all of the facts.
Released
Process
This relates to District Plan Change 56 which is Council’s response to the national direction requiring
Council to change its planning rules to enable higher and denser development in some parts of the city.
This plan change is following the Intensification Streamlined Planning Process which is a statutory process
set by the Resource Management Act.
This was a ful y notified plan change meaning that anyone could make a submission. The plan change was
notified on 18 August 2022 until 20 September 2022. A total of 275 submissions were received.
Council provided all of the submissions received on its website, along with a summary of the decisions
requested in the submissions.
There was then another submission period from 10 November to 24 November when people could make a
further submission in support or opposition to any of the decisions requested in the original submissions. 25
further submissions were received.
The plan change is now being considered by an independent hearing panel. The hearing is taking place until
the 28th April.
The Voluntary Heritage Group made a submission on the plan change and last week they presented
their submission at the hearing to the independent panel.
Beach Street and Bay Street
Act
These streets were not originally included within the proposed Petone Foreshore Heritage Area when
the plan change was notified.
Two submissions were received requesting the inclusion of these Streets within the heritage area. No
further submissions were received on this.
Meetings
In response to these submissions, Council’s independent qualified heritage expert reviewed the streets
and found them to have heritage values consistent with the other streets in the proposed Petone
Foreshore Heritage Area.
and
The heritage expert therefore recommended extending the heritage area to include Beach Street and Bay
Street, and Council’s reporting officer agreed with this recommendation.
This will be considered by the independent hearing panel, along with other submissions such as that
from the Voluntary Heritage Group.
Response to specific points raised by the Voluntary Heritage Group Information
Response to concerns raised by the Voluntary Heritage Group in relation to lack of consultation:
It is correct that the residents in Beach Street and Bay Street have not been directly contacted in
relation to this matter. This is an outcome of this plan change process.
Council is correctly following the Intensification Streamlined Planni
Official ng Process which is a statutory process
set by the Resource Management Act. This process prevents people from making submissions at the
hearing if they did not make an original or further submission.
Response to concerns raised by the Voluntary Heritage Group that the addition of these streets to the
heritage area is an attempt to avoid implementing the intensification required under the National Policy
Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD):
Government
The addition of these streets to the heritage area is not an attempt to avoid implementing the NPS-UD,
but is in fact an integral part of implementing the NPS-UD, which directs councils to provide for
intensification in a way that also delivers on other issues of national significance identified by the RMA,
Local
such as preserving historic heritage and protecting people and property from natural hazards.
The proposed new heritage areas in Plan Change 56 account for less than 1% of the residential
the
properties in Lower Hutt.
Next steps
under
The final decision on whether to extend the heritage area to and Bay Street and Beach Street is yet to
been made.
The decisions from the hearing panel are due by August 2023.
The panel can recommend to Council to either accept or reject the submission point seeking the
expansion of the heritage area.
When th
Released e panel has made its recommendation on the submission, Council is then required to decide
whether to accept or reject that recommendation.
If it rejects the recommendation then the matter is referred to the Minister for the Environment, who
has the final decision-making power in respect of panel recommendations that have been rejected by
Council.
Ngā mihi
Hamish Bell
Elected Member Support Coordinator
Hutt City Council, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt 5010
M: s7(2)(a)
W: www.huttcity.govt.nz
Act
Meetings
and
Information
Official
Government
Local
the
under
Released
From:
Tim Johnstone <[email address]>
To:
Hamish Bell <[email address]>
CC:
Alison Geddes <[email address]>
Subject:
Memo to be circulated to Councillors - Beach Street and Bay Street
Date:
24.04.2023 03:56:06 (+02:00)
Attachments:
Briefing for Councillors on Beach Street and Bay Street media coverage.docx (3
pages)
Hi Hamish
Can this please be circulated to elected members and copied to CLT.
Act
Alison has cleared the content of the memo.
Tim Johnstone
Meetings
Head of Planning
Hutt City Council, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt 5040
and
M: s7(2)(a)
W: www.huttcity.govt.nz
Information
Official
Government
Local
the
under
Released
MEMORANDUM
To:
All Councillors
Copy:
Corporate Leadership Team
From:
Tim Johnstone, Head of Planning
Act
Date:
24 April 2023
SUBJECT:
MEDIA COVERAGE RELATING TO EXTENSION OF PROPOSED PETONE
Meetings
FORESHORE HERITAGE AREA TO INCLUDE BEACH STREET AND BAY
and
STREET IN PETONE AS PART OF DISTRICT PLAN CHANGE 56
Background
There has been some recent media coverage on this:
Information
https://news.fuseworksmedia.com/78bc95df-1b3f-4e75-80ae-0df84082478f
This story is being driven by the Voluntary Heritage Group who are opposed to Council
Official
listing private residential properties as heritage areas without homeowner consent.
We have also been contacted by a reporter from Stuff and are expecting some more
coverage, so we want to provide Council ors with al of the facts.
Government
Process
Local
• This relates to District Plan Change 56 which is Council’s response to the national
direction requiring Council to change its planning rules to enable higher and denser
the
development in some parts of the city.
• This plan chan
under ge is
following the Intensification Streamlined Planning Process which is a
statutory process
set by the Resource Management Act.
• This was a ful y notified plan change meaning that anyone could make a submission. The
plan change was notified on 18 August 2022 until 20 September 2022. A total of 275
Released
submissions were received.
• Council provided al of the submissions received on its website, along with a summary of the
decisions requested in the submissions.
Page 1 of 3
• There was then another submission period from 10 November to 24 November when people
could make
a further submission in support or opposition to any of the decisions requested
in the original submissions. 25 further submissions were received.
• The plan change is now being considered by an independent hearing panel. The hearing is
taking place until the 28 h April.
• The Voluntary Heritage Group made a submission on the plan change and last week
Act
they presented their submission at the hearing to the independent panel.
Beach Street and Bay Street
Meetings
• These streets were not original y included within the proposed Petone Foreshore
Heritage Area when the plan change was notified.
and
• Two submissions were received requesting the inclusion of these Streets within the
heritage area. No further submissions were received on this.
• In response to these submissions, Council’s independent qualified heritage expert
Information
reviewed the streets and found them to have heritage values consistent with the other
streets in the proposed Petone Foreshore Heritage Area.
Official
• The heritage expert therefore recommended extending the heritage area to include
Beach Street and Bay Street, and Council’s reporting officer agreed with this
recommendation.
• This wil be considered by the independent hearing panel, along with other submissions
such as that from the Voluntary Heritage Group
Government .
Response to specific points raised by the Voluntary Heritage Group
Local
Response to concerns raised by the Voluntary Heritage Group in relation to lack of
the
consultation:
under
• It is correct that the residents in Beach Street and Bay Street have not been directly
contacted in relation to this matter. This is an outcome of this plan change process.
• Council is correctly
following the Intensification Streamlined Planning Process which is a
Released
statutory process
set by the Resource Management Act. This process prevents people
from making submissions at the hearing if they did not make an original or further
submission.
Page 2 of 3
Response to concerns raised by the Voluntary Heritage Group that the addition of these
streets to the heritage area is an attempt to avoid implementing the intensification
required under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD):
• The addition of these streets to the heritage area is not an attempt to avoid
implementing the NPS-UD, but is in fact an integral part of implementing the NPS-UD,
which directs councils to provide for intensification in a way that also delivers on other
issues of national significance identified by the RMA, such as preserving historic
Act
heritage and protecting people and property from natural hazards.
• The proposed new heritage areas in Plan Change 56 account for less than 1% of the
residential properties in Lower Hutt.
Meetings
Next steps
and
• The final decision on whether to extend the heritage area to and Bay Street and Beach
Street is yet to been made.
• The decisions from the hearing panel are due by August 2023.
Information
•
The panel can recommend to Council to either accept or reject the submission point
seeking the expansion of the heritage area. Official
• When the panel has made its recommendation on the submission, Council is then
required to decide whether to accept or reject that recommendation.
• If it rejects the recommendation then the matter is referred to the Minister for the
Environment, who has the final decision-maki
Government ng power in respect of panel
recommendations that have been rejected by Council.
Local
the
Tim Johnstone
under
Head of Planning
Released
Page 3 of 3
From:
Nathan Geard <[email address]>
To:
Emily Campbell <[email address]>
Subject:
Date:
09.03.2023 22:55:13 (+01:00)
I've had a look in the heritage files and it doesn't look like Beach and Bay Street were sent letters in the
April 2021 mail-out (I'll confirm this with Stephen next time he is in the office as he helped with that
mail-out). I think we should deal with them separately, as the message we need to give them is quite
different.
Act
Meetings
and
Information
Official
Government
Local
the
under
Released
Hutt City Council
District Plan Change 56: Enabling Intensification in Residential and Commercial
Areas
Brief for Heritage Evidence to Respond to Submissions
Evidence for the PC56 hearing to cover the following matters:
Act
(a) Introduction, covering qualifications, experience and role in plan change including preparation of
technical advice and information which has informed Plan Change 56
(b) Provide heritage evidence responding to the fol owing submission points, by either reconsidering
the original assessment or explaining the reasoning for the decision
Meetings
Out of scope
and
Information
Official
44.1
Laura Skilton
Extend the Petone Foreshore
The process for identifying
Heritage Precinct to include Bay
heritage areas and how this
Street and Beach Street as a
relates to the submitter’s
minimum, and consider t
Government he area proposed additions.
covered in Figure 2.1.5 of the
Petone 2040 Spatial Plan.
(Figure 2.1.5 is attached as a
Local
separate file).
Out of scope
the
under
102.1 Graeme Lyon
Confirm … the Petone Foreshore
The relevance of Queen, Beach,
Heritage Area, perhaps extending it and Bay Streets to the heritage
to Queen, Beach, and Bay Streets.
area
Out of scope
Released
Act
Meetings
and
Information
Official
Government
Local
the
under
Released
Figure 2.1.5: Heritage Assets
P2040: Petone Spatial Plan McIndoe Urban Ltd June 2017
19
Document Outline
