General issues: 11.1 Other sites should have been Questioning whether other sites should have been No change considered for the the included does not diminish the justification for applying Study; (MRRA selection of sites for inclusion (or the HO to the recommended sites. The Study provides Section 2 & deletion after initial the strategic basis for applying the HO to recommended Attachment 1) investigation) is not sufficiently sites. A brief summary of sites that were considered in justified. the but not recommended for further assessment, Study, is provided at Section 3.0. The longer rationale for sites Some precinct-level protection of deemed not to merit further assessment was provided to areas in Gisborne & New Council in the report on Part One of the study process Gisborne should have been but not in the adopted Final Report. included in the Study and introduced by the amendment. In Gisborne and New Gisborne, the expert assessment concluded that there were individual sites that merited protection but no precincts that were sufficiently intact and representative enough to warrant precinct-level protection. 11.2 The recommendations in the Study The townships in the Study were prioritised for heritage No change required see specific – may have been influenced by the assessment precisely because more development activity is recommendations below for individual sites. (MRRA 3.1) potential’ of particular occurring in them than in other townships or localities in the ‘development sites. Shire. There is potential for any site in the Study to be the subject of development applications. The Guidelines section in each citation is intended to provide guidance to property owners and statutory planners if development is considered in the future so that key heritage values can be retained. 11.3 Inconsistencies with the findings of Previous studies, which were written when previous criteria No change required. earlier studies. applied, were reviewed by the consultant as important (MRRA 3.2) references. Their assessments of specific places needed to be tested against current criteria for state and local significance.
General issues: 11.1 (MRRA Section 2 & Attachment 1) Other sites should have been considered for the Study; the selection of sites for inclusion (or deletion after initial investigation) is not sufficiently justified. Some precinct-level protection of areas in Gisborne & New Gisborne should have been included in the Study and introduced by the amendment. Questioning whether other sites should have been included does not diminish the justification for applying the HO to the recommended sites. The Study provides the strategic basis for applying the HO to recommended sites. A brief summary of sites that were considered in the Study, but not recommended for further assessment, is provided at Section 3.0. The longer rationale for sites deemed not to merit further assessment was provided to Council in the report on Part One of the study process but not in the adopted Final Report. In Gisborne and New Gisborne, the expert assessment concluded that there were individual sites that merited protection but no precincts that were sufficiently intact and representative enough to warrant precinct-level protection. No change 11.2 (MRRA 3.1) The recommendations in the Study may have been influenced by the ‘development potential’ of particular sites. The townships in the Study were prioritised for heritage assessment precisely because more development activity is occurring in them than in other townships or localities in the Shire. There is potential for any site in the Study to be the subject of development applications. The Guidelines section in each citation is intended to provide guidance to property owners and statutory planners if development is considered in the future so that key heritage values can be retained. No change required – see specific recommendations below for individual sites. 11.3 (MRRA 3.2) Inconsistencies with the findings of earlier studies. Previous studies, which were written when previous criteria applied, were reviewed by the consultant as important references. Their assessments of specific places needed to be tested against current criteria for state and local significance. No change required.
10.-summary-of-submissions-with-council-officer-response-and-recommended-changes-as-attached-to-council-report-25-07-2018.docx