Skip to main content.

6 Heritage findings

The following cases were reviewed that included references to the subject of heritage in an urban context:

  • Canterbury Regional Council v Waimakariri District Council [2002] NZRMA 208

  • Christchurch Civic Trust v Christchurch City Council (C82/05)

  • Howick Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc v Manukau City Council (A167/04)

  • Intercontinental Hotel and Others v Wellington Regional Council and Waterfront Investments Ltd (W15/08)

  • Pick v Far North District Council (A64/06)

  • The Warehouse Ltd and Foodstuffs (South Island) v Dunedin City Council (C101/01).

Some cases also referenced other urban subjects and, accordingly, may or may not be referred to under those subjects. Each case is summarised in Appendix 1.

6.1 Greater weight to historic heritage?

In 2003, one of the amendments made to the RMA elevated historic heritage to a matter of national importance (section 6).

There is no direct evidence that this change in status is filtering through in the case law in terms of ‘raising the bar’, or giving more weight to heritage matters than would otherwise be the case.

It appears that the weight placed on heritage matters is greater now than it was prior to the 2003 RMA amendment. This perceived increase could be a result of many factors, for example, effective advocacy by organisations such as the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, improved policy support, changing economic times or changing cycles of development. There is no doubt, however, that with the 2003 RMA amendment councils now need to give full and proper consideration to historic heritage management through any district plan review process.

6.2 Heritage values recognition

It is apparent from case law that the Court will now give full weight to heritage values even if those values are not specifically protected by a district plan. To be able to give weight to the heritage values, however, the Court has to be presented with sufficient evidence that these values exist.

In Intercontinental Hotel and Others v Wellington Regional Council and Waterfront Investments Ltd, the Court observed that recent district plan changes identified several heritage areas, but the context for the subject site was not included as one of those areas.

The Court determined that even though the subject area was not recognised as a heritage area in the district plan when others around it were, this did not rule out the heritage value of the place.

Similarly, where there are objectives and policies pertaining to the maintenance and enhancement of the special character of an area, the Court has found that a proposal significantly outside of the height and bulk allowed by the rules would be contrary to the district plan and not outweighed by other positive effects, such as traffic efficiency (Howick Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc v Manukau City Council).

Recognition by the Court that heritage values exist even where they are not recognised by a precinct or area does not diminish the soundness of this technique. Heritage precincts or areas remain a useful way to highlight the existence of heritage values that apply to a collection of places in close relationship to one another.

6.3 Heritage policy and methods

The Court has also observed that, where heritage values exist and this is reflected in policy, recognition should be backed up by methods in the district plan (Pick v Far North District Council). This is a best practice point for all district plan making. It further illustrates to councils embarking on district plan reviews that policy references to heritage are no longer sufficient or appropriate on their own, if not matched with methods of equal weight to the values and status of historic heritage that now exist under the RMA.

6.4 Heritage value identification and management

The use of identification techniques, such as precincts or heritage areas, is now well established in planning practice and commonly applied in urban areas. The case law suggests, however, that care is required with delineating the extent of precinct boundaries (Christchurch Civic Trust v Christchurch City Council). The Court found against the approach where a precinct was proposed over an area that contained not only heritage places but a large number of non-heritage places as well. The suggestion is that a precinct approach should be pursued only where heritage values are strong and relatively consistent through an area. The Court also noted that district plan provisions need to keep step with the true character of an area (The Warehouse Ltd and Foodstuffs (South Island) v Dunedin City Council).

The type of rules or policies applied to a precinct will influence community acceptability of such a regulatory provision. Where restrictive rules are used to manage the developmental effects of non-heritage buildings in an identified precinct area, the tests applied to that provision can be expected to be rigorous. Refinements on the precinct approach are also likely as district plans come up for review.

One such example is the recent (and so as yet untested in the Court) work of Wellington City Council on its Central Area Heritage Areas (recently promulgated by District Plan Change 48). In this example, the heritage areas identify the key heritage as well as non-heritage buildings. The rules enable the redevelopment of non-heritage buildings with certain guidelines that seek to manage any adverse effects on the heritage values of the whole heritage area.

6.5 Heritage and archaeology

The Court has recognised mitigation of heritage effects on archaeological values, through preservation areas, protocols and support of Māori, as being sufficient to allow it to approve development. The Court has also suggested that if archaeological values are important they should be reflected at district plan level (Canterbury Regional Council v Waimakariri District Council). This would assist in bridging any potential disconnection between the role of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and councils in managing archaeological heritage.

 

[ Index