IN THE MATTER
of the Resource Management
Act 1991
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
of
a
resource
consent
application by the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Trust Board at Tuhikaramea
Road, Temple View to the
Hamilton City Council
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF
DR ANN ELIZABETH MCEWAN
27 April 2017
1.
INTRODUCTION
Qualifications and experience
1.1
My name is Dr Ann Elizabeth McEwan and I hold a PhD in Art and Architectural History
from the University of Canterbury. My experience and expertise as an architectural historian
and heritage consultant spans 28 years. After a decade as a lecturer at the University of
Waikato, where I taught the history and practice of heritage conservation, I established
Heritage Consultancy Services in 2006. Over the last decade I have undertaken heritage
identification, assessment and policy work for a range of clients, including Auckland
Council, Waikato Regional Council, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, Housing New
Zealand Corporation, North Shore, Wellington, Christchurch, Hamilton and Nelson City
Councils, and Thames-Coromandel and Waikato District Councils.
1.2
I am a member of ICOMOS New Zealand, the Society of Architectural Historians of
Australia
and
New
Zealand,
the
Professional
Historians’
Association
of
New
Zealand/Aotearoa, and DOCOMOMO, an international organisation dedicated to the
th
documentation and conservation of 20 century modern heritage. Since 2010 I have been a
foundation member of Auckland Council’s Heritage Advisory Panel. I was a foundation
member of the Hamilton City Council Heritage Advisory Panel (2014-16) and served as a
Professional Teaching Fellow in the School of Architecture and Planning at the University of
Auckland in 2015-16. I have authored the ‘Heritage Issues’ chapter for the forthcoming
publication Planning Practice in New Zealand. My curriculum vitae is appended to this
statement to provide further information about my qualifications and experience [see
Appendix 1].
1.3
I am a specialist in historic heritage identification and assessment. My PhD dissertation
involved an investigation of the American influence upon New Zealand architecture from
1840 until 1940. During that study I became aware of the early history of the Church of
Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints in New Zealand. My more recent involvement with
DOCOMOMO NZ has increased my knowledge of New Zealand’s post-World War II
architectural history. I have appeared as an expert witness before resource consent and
Environment Court hearings on a number of occasions and have acted as a peer reviewer
for both Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga [previously NZ Historic Places Trust] and
several territorial authorities.
1.4
As an architectural historian I have been trained to research, contextualise and assess
architectural, historic and social values within the built environment. As the principal of
Heritage Consultancy Services I engage the services of specialist historians, planners,
archaeologists, and architects, when necessary, to provide my clients with the best practice
multi-disciplinary heritage research and assessment that they require.
2
Expert Witness Code of Conduct
1.5
I am familiar with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment
Court’s Consolidated Practice Note 2014. This evidence is within my area of expertise and I
believe I have considered all the material facts that might alter or detract from the opinions
that I express herein.
Background
1.6
I have been engaged by the Temple View New Zealand Heritage Society to provide expert
historic heritage advice in regard to their submission in opposition to the resource consent
lodged by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Trust Board. I have provided
heritage advice to the Temple View New Zealand Heritage Society since 2009. I
accompanied Chris Dawson, Adam Wild and Emily Utt on a site visit around the Church
College Campus on 19 April 2013. At that time we entered several buildings on the campus,
including the David O McKay building.
Purpose and scope of my evidence
1.7
The purpose of my evidence is to support submission points made in relation to the
demolition of the David O McKay building as part of the resource consent application.
Within the scope of my evidence I will also address the heritage evidence put forward by
the applicant, the council’s heritage peer review, and the Section 42A report prepared by
Todd Whittaker on behalf of Hamilton City Council. I have not prepared a
1.8
The resource consent lodged by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Trust
Board, seeking to demolish the David O McKay building and undertake other development
on the Comprehensive Development Plan Area 1 site, was accompanied by an Assessment
of Environmental Effects [AEE] that is dated December 2016.
1.9
Appendix 15 of the AEE is a report prepared by Archifact concerning the heritage values of
the David O McKay building and the impact the proposed works will have on this scheduled
heritage building. A peer review of the heritage report was prepared for Hamilton City
Council by Wendy Turvey of OPUS (17 January 2017). A Supplementary Heritage
Assessment was provided by Adam Wild as a s92 response (14 March 2017). This took the
form of an October 2013 heritage assessment of the LDS Church College for the Trust
Board. As part of the Council’s s42A Report a heritage assessment and the statement of
evidence of Wendy Turvey have been provided. The former is Ms Turvey’s peer review, as
mentioned previously. Mr Wild’s statement of evidence is dated 11 April 2017. In addition to
the S42A planning report prepared by Todd Whittaker, these materials comprise the
documents I have reviewed in preparing my statement of evidence.
3
1.10
In addition to the submissions made by members of the Temple View New Zealand
Heritage Society and others with a longstanding personal, religious and professional
relationship to the Temple View complex, there is a wealth of historic information that has
been tabled both at this hearing and others before it. I have undertaken research about
Church College and the development of Temple View and have also relied upon the
Hamilton City Council’s Heritage Record Inventory Form [H106] and the assessment
provided by Mr Wild in coming to my understanding of the history and heritage values of the
David O McKay building, Church College and the wider context of New Zealand’s only LDS
settlement in New Zealand.
2.
TEMPLE VIEW HISTORIC HERITAGE VALUES AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DAVID O
MCKAY BUILDING
2.1
In my opinion the significant historic heritage values of both the Temple and its environs
and the former CCNZ campus arise out of the following factors: the complex’s place within
th
the international history of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints; its mid-20
century modernist architectural design; the integrated landscaping and planning of the
complex in which the Temple and CCNZ campus are at once unified and individualised; and
the spiritual and cultural importance of these places of Christian worship and education.
2.2
The Church College campus, which includes a number of buildings erected to support what
was essentially a large-scale construction site during the 1950s, predates the Temple and
its story is fundamental to the history of the LDS church in New Zealand. It was the only coeducational boarding school in New Zealand when it opened and its sporting and cultural
history intersects with a number of strands in the history of New Zealand society, including
those of basketball and Maori performing arts. As the only LDS-sponsored secondary
school in New Zealand it attracted pupils from all over the country. The college was a
magnet for church members who moved to Temple View so that their children could be
educated close to their faith, just as church members were drawn to the only LDS Temple in
New Zealand.
2.3
In my opinion the importance of the former CCNZ campus as the location of a number of
buildings, including the Block Plant, Kai Hall, and GR Biesinger Hall, which are associated
with the construction of church buildings at Temple View and a number of other locations is
especially notable. From 1949 until 1958 the grounds on which Church College and the
New Zealand Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints stand today were a
place of community, of religious faith, of work, and of education. The buildings within the
Temple Heritage Area and Church College Character Area have international, national and
regional significance. The protections offered by the Hamilton City Partly Operative District
Plans need to be fully implemented and given due weight in the consideration for resource
consent.
4
3.
HERITAGE REPORTS AND EVIDENCE OF MR ADAM WILD ON BEHALF OF THE LDS
TRUST BOARD
3.1
I agree with Mr Wild in his summary in Appendix 15 to the AEE, wherein he states the
exterior of the David O McKay buildings ‘a strong contributor to the overarching heritage
significance of the place, particularly in relation to historical and architectural values that are
complimented by the brick masonry construction method’ (Appendix 15, p. 3). I am also in
agreement that the effect of demolition will be more than minor (Appendix 15, p. 10).
3.2
However, my chief disagreements with Mr Wild is in his overall approach to the proposed
demolition, which he argues is the expected outcome of church policy and practice
(Appendix 15, p. 3, see also para 3.5). In putting forward this position, Mr Wild does not in
fact provide an objective and independent assessment of the effect demolition will have on
a scheduled heritage item within the Hamilton City District Plan. Rather he is supporting the
Trust Board’s desire to continue to redevelop the former campus of Church College to the
detriment of a consideration of the effect on one the city’s significant historic heritage
resources.
3.3
Mr Wild is entirely speculative when he asserts that earthquake strengthening of the David
O McKay building ‘may well compromise the very fabric that contributes to the building’s
historic heritage values’ (Appendix 15, p. 4, see also pp. 10, 12-13, 15, 16-17). In my view
this position seeks to sow doubts that any adaptive reuse of the building would be
detrimental to its heritage values, to the extent, it seems to be implied, that demolition is
preferable. Given that the council would have oversight of any alterations and / or additions
to the exterior of the building if it was strengthened and refurbished for future use, Mr Wild’s
concerns are misleading and unfounded. Indeed, rule 19.3k of the Hamilton City District
Plan provides that “Earthquake strengthening works to the external façade of any structure
or building ranked B” in the plan is a controlled activity, meaning Council would be obliged
to grant such a resource consent but could impose conditions on that activity. Conversely,
demolition of a B ranked heritage building is a discretionary activity. The supporting
objectives, policies of 19.2.3 therefore encourage actions such as earthquake strengthening
that will facilitate the retention of historic heritage whilst ensuring heritage values are
retained.
3.4
Similarly, Mr Wild is misleading when he argues that the council policies relating to
cumulative effects (HCC DP Policy 19.3.2d) and the encouragement of continued use or
adaptive reuse (Policy 19.2.3g) will be achieved by the documentation of the David O
McKay building and the presentation of its story after it has been demolished (Appendix 15,
p. 11, also p. 18). By seeking to distinguish between physical attributes and historic values
Mr Wild is creating a dichotomy that is at odds with the RMA’s definition of historic heritage
resources as those natural and physical resources that possess a number of qualities,
5
including architectural, cultural and historical. The resource consent hearing process as it
relates to the David O McKay building is concerned with the protection of historic heritage
resources from inappropriate subdivision, development and use (RMA s 6(f)). While it is
certainly the case that intangible values such as association and memory are
acknowledged in the heritage assessment process, ultimately the scheduling and
management of historic heritage resources is wholly concerned with a physical resource
that will be entirely lost if demolition occurs.
3.5
For the members of the Temple View New Zealand Heritage Society and a number of other
submitters there is no distinction to be drawn between the legacy and historic heritage
values of the Temple and college complex. In the story of the labour missionaries, and the
very close historic relationship between the LDS church in New Zealand and Maori, this is
in fact a case study of how tangible and intangible heritage values are indivisible and the
complete destruction of the former will incontrovertibly damage the future meaning of the
latter.
3.6
In his statement of evidence, Mr Wild reiterates that the demolition of the David O McKay
building is in line with the policy and practice of the LDS Trust Board and that adaptive
reuse of the building ‘would likely have a significant adverse effect on the recognised
heritage values associated with the place’ (Wild SoE, para 15). He seems to be asserting a
greater level of certainly about the negative impact adaptive reuse of the building would
have, even though the architectural drawings prepared for the applicant by Walker
Community Architects are only provided as options and do not preclude other design
solutions being developed. On its web site Heritage New Zealand provides examples of the
successful
reuse
of
historic
places
throughout
New
Zealand
(http://www.heritage.org.nz/resources/adaptive-reuse).
3.7
Mr Wild also maintains in his statement of evidence that the heritage values of the David O
McKay building and the wider CCNZ site are intangible and therefore purportedly cannot be
lost (Wild SoE, paras 16, 17). This is directly at odds with the definition of historic heritage
in the RMA and the objectives, policies and rules for historic heritage protection in the
Hamilton City District Plan.
3.8
At paragraph 23 in his evidence, Mr Wild states that the heritage values of the David O
McKay building have diminished since 2012, when it was assessed by Matthews and
Matthews for inclusion as a ‘B’ ranked item in the Proposed District Plan heritage schedule.
Mr Wild further challenges the heritage significance of the David O McKay building by
stating that a loss of contextual values has arisen due to the ‘removal of all but the first of
the original Teacher Houses within the CCNZ campus, the Boys and Girls Dormitories, the
Medical Centre, the Engineering Shop, and houses on the western side of Tuhikaramea
Road’ (Wild SoE, para 26). While I dispute Mr Wild’s underlying contention that the David O
McKay building has lost heritage value because of the closure of Church College, I do think
6
that his evidence makes a strong statement about the cumulative effects on heritage values
due to the redevelopment of Temple View. Despite his statement at para 26, Mr Wild then
goes on at para 37 to argue that the demolition of the David O McKay would be a singular,
rather than cumulative, adverse effect.
3.9
In his response to submission 23 by the Temple View New Zealand Heritage Society, Mr
Wild (para 65) reiterates his implied positon that the David O McKay does not have
significant heritage value in and of itself, but rather that its heritage significance arises from
its wider context. While it is difficult to follow the logic of this position, it does provide
another example of Mr Wild’s narrow focus on the David O McKay in the context of the
intangible heritage values of the former CCNZ site rather than assessing the David O
McKay building as a significant physical historic heritage resource of in the context of
Hamilton’s heritage resources.
3.10
Responding to the s42A report and the peer review undertaken by Ms Wendy Turvey for
Opus, Mr Wild again advances his position that the David O McKay building has
experienced a loss of heritage value since 2012. Nevertheless the building is a ‘B’ ranking
scheduled item within the district plan and the objectives, policies and rules contained within
the plan still apply. In my opinion Mr Wild is trying to undermine the scheduled status of the
David O McKay building but his ‘as found’ approach, while relevant to the assessment of
heritage items for scheduling on a district plan is not accepted best practice in matters of
resource consent applications. Rather best practice is to accept that a scheduled building
has been through a robust process of assessment and that an application will be
considered on that basis. Or to put it another way, the ‘as found’ status of the David O
McKay building in 2017 is as a significant scheduled historic heritage resource.
4.
PEER REVIEW AND STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE BY MS WENDY TURVEY ON
BEHALF OF HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL
4.1
I concur with Ms Turvey in her characterisation that ‘it is evident from the Archifact Heritage
Assessment the history of the site is significant not only for Latter-Day Saints (LDS) Church
members but also forms an important part of the LDS history in New Zealand as well as for
the history of settlement in and around Hamilton. There is no doubt that the building and the
site (including the Temple View Church College site and the broader Temple View) have
significant heritage values that are beyond dispute’ (peer review, p. 2).
4.2
Furthermore I am fully in agreement with Ms Turvey’s analysis at 3.1 in the peer review,
wherein she states that the David O McKay building [emphasis added] has been scheduled
as a significant heritage item and that this status is beyond the point of challenge (peer
review p. 4). I also believe Ms Turvey’s statement that ‘the loss of the David O McKay
building does contribute to an ongoing and cumulative loss of heritage fabric’ is accurate
7
(peer review p. 5), as is her comment that the loss of fabric ‘has a permanent and
irreversible effect on heritage values and recording is a last resort’ (peer review p. 6).
4.3
Ms Turvey notes that demolition would be contrary to the principles of the ICOMOS New
Zealand Charter and at odds with the advice Heritage New Zealand provides on sustainable
management practices for historic heritage resources (peer review p. 8). [I would also note
here that Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga has also provided specific comment to
these proceedings advocating that the David O McKay building be retained.] My association
with the Temple View New Zealand Heritage Society since 2009 allows me to state that the
David O McKay is held in very high regard in relation to other listed buildings on the CCNZ
campus (see peer review p. 8).
4.4
I am fully in agreement with Ms Turvey that the Archifact report downplays the significance
of the cultural, social, physical and aesthetic qualities of the David O McKay building, in
preference for a narrow focus on contextual values (see also Turvey SoE para 20). I also
agree that a future recreation use would be ideal, given that this use would be fully aligned
with the heritage qualities of the David O McKay building. As Ms Turvey states, demolition
will be ‘irreversible’ and thus have adverse effects on heritage values (peer review p. 9). In
my view those adverse effects will relate to the David O McKay building, the former CCNZ
campus, the Temple View Heritage Precinct and the suburb of Temple View, as well as to
the city as a whole.
4.5
Ms Turvey has concluded that the David O McKay building has ‘high heritage value’ and its
demolition will have ‘permanent and irreversible effects’ for which ‘there is no mitigation’
(paras 34, 36 & 38). I share her view on this matter.
5.
S42A REPORT BY MR TODD WHITTAKER
5.1
For the record, I wish to note that it seems odd, not to say remiss, that the s42A report to
make no mention of the Hamilton City Council’s Built Heritage Inventory Record Form
[H106] for the David O McKay building, which is after all the basis of its scheduling on the
district plan. This record provides a historic summary of the building and sets out how it
meets the various heritage criteria for scheduling on the plan. While there is no question
that Archifact has provided a fulsome assessment of the building (s 42A report p. 17), the
baseline document for these proceedings should be the council’s own heritage record. One
of the key aspects raised in the council’s heritage record is the significance of the building
for its association with David O McKay.
5.2
Whereas Mr Wild defers to the overarching heritage values of the CCNZ, it is clear from the
council heritage record that the building not only has its own intrinsic significance but that its
heritage value is based in part on an individual who is an international figure in the history
and development of the LDS church. McKay (1873-1970) was the ninth president of the
8
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and served in that role from 1951 until his
death. President McKay oversaw the development of the church’s missionary programme,
travelled extensively, and facilitated the construction of the first LDS temples outside of the
USA and Canada. Construction of the David O McKay building, as part of the building
programme of Church College, commenced in 1955. When McKay visited New Zealand to
dedicate the New Zealand Temple in the autumn of 1958, the building named after him
hosted his welcome. Also in attendance when the temple and college were officially
dedicated was Prime Minster Walter Nash. As with many other church buildings at Temple
View, the David O McKay was constructed by labour missionaries using concrete blocks
that were manufactured on site.
5.3
Mr Whittaker proposes that the potential loss of the David O McKay building is ‘an issue of
primary concern to the Temple View community and to LDS Church members’ (s42A report
para 68, see also para 71c). While that might be one reading of the submissions made to
the notified resource consent, it would be as well to acknowledge public interest in the
future of Church College campus that has been captured in media reports over the last
decade and the wider community support for heritage conservation that has been shown in
recent years. The preparation of the Hamilton Heritage Plan (March 2016) and the
establishment of a Heritage Incentive Fund (2016-17 year) provide evidence of community
support for council action in response to the loss of heritage buildings and areas in the city
over the last decade or more. While the number of submissions to this consent application
is not great, I do not think a tally of submissions alone justifies Mr Whittaker’s inference that
‘there is not a strong connection between the DOM building and the public ‘psyche’ at large’
(s42A report, para 68).
5.4
Mr Whittaker appears to agree with Mr Wild’s position that, supposedly, alternative uses are
likely to undermine heritage values (s42A report para 84). As stated at paragraph 3.3, if an
adaptive reuse proposal was to be put forward for a scheduled building it would be up to
council to assess that proposal and implement its objectives, policies and rules in order to
mitigate the loss of heritage values as much as possible. Only demolition can unreservedly
be described as leading to serious conflict with heritage values and I believe it is unhelpful
for the council to pursue this line of argument as part of a careful assessment of effects.
5.5
Mr Whittaker states that ‘the Trust Board has provided a credible assessment of alternative
use options including detailed costings and a market return on investment assessment for
three principal use options being recreation, commercial and residential’ (s42A report, para
88a). Without the benefit of a peer review of this assessment, however, I am unclear as to
how Mr Whittaker could form a view as to the credibility of the applicant’s financial analysis.
As financial feasibility is typically at the heart of applications to demolish heritage buildings,
I am concerned that council has not independently reviewed the very documents that will
likely decide the fate of the David O McKay building. By contrast the peer review of the
9
heritage and engineering assessments indicates that council has seen fit to commission
independent analyses of two key issues pertinent to the status of the David O McKay
building.
5.6
At paragraph 90 of the s42A report Mr Whittaker admits that the council has not assessed
the heritage values of the Matthew Cowley building. Although not currently a scheduled
building in the district plan, the administration building’s historic association with Church
College, Elder Cowley (1897-1953) and the development of Temple View, as well as its
design and construction, make it a strong candidate for heritage listing. A YouTube video
posted
by
the
Church
History
Centre
at
Temple
View
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfEGvPABHWc) shows Elder Cowley presenting a
Navajo blanket to Princess Te Puea at Turangawaewae Marae in 1939, providing further
evidence of the church’s place within regional history and its special relationship with
Waikato Tainui Maori.
5.7
In my view council had an obligation to carry out a heritage assessment of the Matthew
Cowley building as part of its s42A reporting, given its statutory responsibilities under the
RMA and RPS and because absence from a district plan heritage schedule does not prove
the absence of significant heritage values that deserve protection under the Act. The
Hamilton Heritage Plan (http://www.hamilton.govt.nz) sets out the goal of identification of
heritage resources in the city and the ‘update of heritage inventory lists within the District
Plan by 2018’ (HHP p. 10). This constitutes an acknowledgement that the current schedule
is not definitive or fixed and it might therefore be expected that items such as the Matthew
Cowley building would be assessed when they are brought to council’s attention.
Furthermore it is my understanding that the Commissioner could seek further information
about the heritage significance of the Matthew Cowley building from the applicant under
s41C(3) of the RMA. This would help provide all relevant information on the actual and
potential effects of this application.
5.8
The issue of cumulative effects on the site of the former Church College campus appears to
have been downplayed and deferred once again (s42A paras 92 & 180; see also Appendix
15, p. 11). Inadequate consideration has been given to the effect the loss of the David O
McKay building will have on the other scheduled and covenanted heritage items at the
former campus. In regard to the cumulative adverse effects on any building or structure
listed in Schedule 8A (Policy 19.2.3d) Mr Whittaker is silent. it would also appear that Mr
Whittaker takes the view that the scale of redevelopment at Temple View is such that
retaining the character of the site is impossible.
6.
CONCLUSION
6.1
The David O McKay is a significant historic heritage resource and its demolition will create
an irreversible and significant adverse effect, one which cannot be adequately mitigated by
10
the production of a photographic record or a site interpretation and commemoration
structure.
6.2
The most appropriate reuse scenario for the building from a heritage perspective is as a
recreational centre. The revival of the building to provide for the leisure and recreational
needs of the Temple View community appears to have received support in principle from
several parties to this application, including the applicant’s architect, the applicant’s heritage
consultant, and the council’s heritage expert.
6.3
The recreational use option also has the lowest projected budget of the three options
explored by the applicant (Appendix 13). I would note however that council has not
undertaken a peer review of the financial and economic analysis provided by the applicant
and I am therefore concerned that there is insufficient information before the commissioner
to determine the appropriateness of the demolition of the David O McKay building
(appendices 13 and 14).
6.4
From a heritage perspective, I consider that the demolition of the David O McKay will have
a significant and irreversible adverse effects that cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
In my opinion the demolition of this building will be contrary to the objectives and policies of
the Hamilton City District Plan and that this aspect of the application should therefore be
declined.
Dr Ann McEwan (PhD Canty)
Heritage Consultancy Services
27 April 2017
11
‘Mormon Temple complex, Temple View, outside Hamilton, with Pirongia on skyline’, 26 April 1963. Whites
Aviation Collection, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, WA-60076-F.
12