Please find attached The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Trust Board's 'further submission'. (See page 7, 9, 14, 15 and 16 which are the Trust Boards submissions to oppose Temple View community residents and other stakeholder proposals to prohibit the sale and use of alcohol, tobacco and gambling products on the former CCNZ Campus). All submissions are public information and are located online.

1. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 1
Return your signed further submission to Hamilton City Council by 4:30pm on 2 July 2013.
Further submissions may be:
posted to Hamilton City Council, Private Bag 3010, Hamilton 3240
delivered direct to Hamilton City Council offices at Garden Place, Hamilton
or emailed to districtplan@hcc.govt.nz
Note: online further submissions can also be made at www.hamilton.co.nz/submissions
1. Submitter Details (all fields required)
Full name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board
Contact name if different Chris Dawson
from above:
Organisation or Company (if relevant): Bloxam Burnett & Olliver
Postal address for service
of the submitter: P O Box 9041, Hamilton Post code: 3204
Phone number(s): 07 838 0144 or 0275 333 899
Email: cdawson@bbo.co.nz
Preferred method of contact: Email □ Post
2. Further Submitter Relevance
I am: (select one)
□ A person representing a relevant aspect of the public interest; or
A person who has an interest in the proposal that is greater than the interest the general public has; or
□ The local authority for the relevant area.
3. Public Hearing
I do OR □ I do not wish to attend and speak at the Council hearing in support of my further submission
If others make a similar submission, I will consider presenting a joint case with them at the hearing
Yes □ No
4. Signature of Further Submitter (note a signature is not required if sending your submission by electronic
means, but please type your name below)
Signature of further submitter: ___ _____________Date: 1 July 2013
(or person authorised to sign on behalf of further submitter)
Note: Please turn over to make further submission

2. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 2
The specific part of the
original submission to which
my further submission
relates is: (list one provision
per box)
State whether you
support or oppose
this specific part of
the original
submission
State the reasons for your support or opposition What decision do you seek from Council on this
submission (or part of a submission)
I seek that the whole (or part [describe below]) of the
submission be either:
Allowed / Disallowed
Deborah June Fisher
282.001
□ Support
Oppose
• The proposed requirements listed in the submission
prior to it being included in the District Plan are
unnecessary and duplicate the requirements
contained in the Resource Management Act (RMA).
In particular item 4 suggesting that current structure
plans could be removed from the District Plan is
inappropriate and ultra vires. Any structure plan is
required to confirm to the requirements of the RMA
with respect to the management of adverse effects
on the environment and community consultation.
Disallowed
Deborah June Fisher
282.021
□ Support
Oppose
• Objectives are written in the positive context and set
out the goal or end point to be achieved. It is
inappropriate to mix that approach with the inclusion
of adverse or positive effects. Adverse and positive
effects are better included in Policies that sit
underneath the Objective and demonstrate how it
can be achieved.
Disallowed
Deborah June Fisher
282.022
□ Support
Oppose
• The inclusion of the word “avoid” in the policies is
inappropriate as it presupposes that this is the best
approach to managing the adverse effect. The Act
provides the choice of “avoid, remedy or mitigate”
adverse effects on the environment and it is
inappropriate for the policy to fetter that choice.
Disallowed

3. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 3
Robert W Belbin
291.003
Support
□ Oppose
• It is appropriate and timely to undertake a Structure
Planning exercise for the area of Future Urban land
surrounding Temple View. The most appropriate way
to achieve this is to include a section within Rule 3.0
Structure Plans that refers to Temple View and signals
that such an exercise is planned and will be
undertaken in consultation with the community.
Allow
W J & MR Laverty
313.001
Support
□ Oppose
• It is appropriate and timely to undertake a Structure
Planning exercise for the area of Future Urban land
surrounding Temple View. The most appropriate way
to achieve this is to include a section within Rule 3.0
Structure Plans that refers to Temple View and signals
that such an exercise is planned and will be
undertaken in consultation with the community.
Allow
WR & JM Falconer
360.001
Support
□ Oppose
• It is appropriate and timely to undertake a Structure
Planning exercise for the area of Future Urban land
surrounding Temple View. The most appropriate way
to achieve this is to include a section within Rule 3.0
Structure Plans that refers to Temple View and signals
that such an exercise is planned and will be
undertaken in consultation with the community.
Allow
Wilson David Jolly
1244.001
Support
□ Oppose
• It is appropriate and timely to undertake a Structure
Planning exercise for the area of Future Urban land
surrounding Temple View. The most appropriate way
to achieve this is to include a section within Rule 3.0
Structure Plans that refers to Temple View and signals
that such an exercise is planned and will be
undertaken in consultation with the community.
Allow

4. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 4
Simon Dyke Farms Ltd
1245.001
Support
□ Oppose
• It is appropriate and timely to undertake a Structure
Planning exercise for the area of Future Urban land
surrounding Temple View. The most appropriate way
to achieve this is to include a section within Rule 3.0
Structure Plans that refers to Temple View and signals
that such an exercise is planned and will be
undertaken in consultation with the community.
Allow
Jon Francis & Elizabeth Howie
Jarvis
1245.001
Support
□ Oppose
• It is appropriate and timely to undertake a Structure
Planning exercise for the area of Future Urban land
surrounding Temple View. The most appropriate way
to achieve this is to include a section within Rule 3.0
Structure Plans that refers to Temple View and signals
that such an exercise is planned and will be
undertaken in consultation with the community.
Allow
Rakaipaka Puriri
63.001
□ Support
Oppose
• The matters raised in the submission are incorrect
and do not reflect the true nature of the proposed
changes.
• The closure of the Church College of New Zealand in
2009 provides an opportunity to repurpose the
former school site. This will benefit the Temple View
village and the wider Hamilton City by enabling the
protection of the temple precinct along with
opportunities for additional worship facilities, housing
for the elderly, general housing for a range of family
types and a small area of local purpose shops.
• This will also enable future development that is in
keeping with the Temple View character along with
recognising the heritage aspects of a number of the
existing buildings.
• The repurposing of the former school site will
Disallow

5. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 5
promote the sustainable management of natural and
physical resources' as defined in section 5(2) of the
Act.
Rakaipaka Puriri
63.002
□ Support
Oppose
• The matters raised in the submission are incorrect
and do not reflect the true nature of the proposed
changes.
• The closure of the Church College of New Zealand in
2009 provides an opportunity to repurpose the
former school site. This will benefit the Temple View
village and the wider Hamilton City by enabling the
protection of the temple precinct along with
opportunities for additional worship facilities, housing
for the elderly, general housing for a range of family
types and a small area of local purpose shops.
• This will also enable future development that is in
keeping with the Temple View character along with
recognising the heritage aspects of a number of the
existing buildings.
• The repurposing of the former school site will
promote the sustainable management of natural and
physical resources' as defined in section 5(2) of the
Act.
Disallow
Robert W Belbin
291.006
Support
□ Oppose
• The submission is supported as it provides for the
repurposing of the former school site through the
provisions in 5.1.4.
Allow
Robert W Belbin
291.010
Support
• The submission is supported as it provides for the
repurposing of the former school site through the
provisions in 5.1.4.2.
Allow

6. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 6
□ Oppose
Robert W Belbin
291.012
Support
□ Oppose
• The submission is supported as the proposed 250 m2
maximum gross floor area is too small and most
community facilities will require more space than this.
• A larger gross floor area as a permitted activity is
supported as it can still be accommodated on most
sites (subject to the other development constraints
such as site coverage, setbacks etc) without adverse
environmental effects.
Allow
Robert W Belbin
291.014
Support
□ Oppose
• The submission is supported as the potential for
home based professional services as well as goods
can be accommodated in a Home based business
without adverse environmental effects.
Allow
Robert W Belbin
291.015
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed as activities and structures
developed within the Temple View Heritage Area and
Temple View Character Area should be able to be
considered without notification or the need to obtain
approval from affected persons.
Disallow
Simon Puttick Friar
294.002
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission in relation to the Mixed Use CDP,
Community Facilities CDP and the Temple CDP in
Table 5.4.6b is opposed. A 3 m setback as contained
in the table is more appropriate as it enables a better
and more efficient use of the site and higher densities
of residential development. The site specific setbacks
in relation to curtilage wall and teacher housing area
Disallow

7. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 7
are supported as they reflect the existing character
and a blanket 5 metre setback would not be
appropriate in these situations.
Simon Puttick Friar
294.003
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed in that it will result in a
poor urban design outcome that reduces the
activated frontage and subsequent amenity of the
streetscape.
Disallow
Maari Rose Thompson
739.001
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchase or lease.
Disallow
Chris Thompson
744.001
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchase or lease.
Disallow
Stella Neale Kenyon
745.001
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchase or lease.
Disallow
Max Walker Verran
855.001
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed in that it will not result in
the most efficient use the scarce urban land supply in
the City. Maintaining a minimum density of 600 m2
would not enable high density developments to occur
Disallow

8. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 8
and would result in an inefficient use of land. It
would also mean that the Regional Policy Statement
direction on minimum densities would not be met.
Max Walker Verran
855.004
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed in that it will not enable
the efficient and effective use of land within the
Temple View Zone. The site specific nature of the
notified rules on maximum height provide for the
efficient and appropriate use of the land in the Zone
without adverse effects on surrounding properties.
Disallow
Rakaipaka Puriri
898.001
□ Support
Oppose
• The substance of this submission point is opposed. It
is inappropriate to allow posts on a blog site to be
used as submissions. This is not transparent as no
other submitters are aware of the blog content.
Disallow
College Old Boys
974.001
□ Support
Oppose
• The closure of the Church College of New Zealand in
2009 provides an opportunity to repurpose the
former school site. This will benefit the Temple View
village and the wider Hamilton City by enabling the
protection of the Temple precinct along with
opportunities for additional worship facilities, housing
for the elderly, general housing for a range of family
types and a small area of local purpose shops.
• The Mixed Use CDP and Community Facilities CDP are
appropriate statutory mechanisms to allow
development in each of these areas consistent with
their character, purpose and future use.
• All of the Heritage buildings on campus have been
assessed by Council and ranked in the District Plan
Disallow

9. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 9
according to that assessment. It is inappropriate to
arbitrarily increase the heritage ranking of buildings
without undertaking an assessment to justify such a
change.
• The Church has requested that a Structure Plan
process be undertaken for its land along with other
landholdings surrounding the Temple View village and
this will assess the long term use and purpose of this
land.
College Old Boys
974.003
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchase or lease.
Disallow
Lynette Joyce Williams
1050.016
□ Support
Oppose
• This submission point is opposed. Section 5.1c
appropriately characterises the Special Character
Zone and in particular the Temple View Character
Area. There are a number of Heritage items located
within the Temple View Character Area and these are
listed in the District Plan and require resource
consent should work be required to be carried out on
those buildings.
• The proposed objectives, policies and rules relating to
character are appropriate in that they strike a balance
between maintaining character and enabling the land
to be repurposed.
Disallow
Lynette Joyce Williams
□ Support
• This submission point is opposed. Figure 4-5 provides
an appropriate level of guidance as to the future use
of the former school site when assessed in
Disallow

10. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 10
1050.019
Oppose
combination with the objectives, policies and rules of
the Temple View Zone and other sections of the
Proposed District Plan.
Lynette Joyce Williams
1050.020
□ Support
Oppose
• This submission point is opposed. Figure 4-5 provides
an appropriate level of guidance as to the future use
of the former school site when assessed in
combination with the objectives, policies and rules of
the Temple View Zone and other sections of the
Proposed District Plan.
• It is inappropriate to elevate the Temple View
Character Area to a Heritage Area. The distinctive
character of the Temple View Character Area will be
retained and enhanced by allowing its ongoing use
and development so that it can continue to be play a
valuable role in the future of the Temple View
community.
• The Temple View Character Area is designed to
complement the Temple View Heritage Area (centred
around the Temple) but requires separate and
different provisions as it is to serve a different
function in the community.
Disallow
Lynette Joyce Williams
1050.021
□ Support
Oppose
• This submission point is opposed. The Objectives and
Policies in the Proposed District Plan as notified
provide an appropriate emphasis on the role of
heritage and do not require amendment.
Disallow
Lynette Joyce Williams
1050.022
□ Support
• This submission point is opposed. The provisions of
5.2.6 Temple View Heritage Area are focussed around
maintaining the special character of the Temple and
its surrounding grounds and related buildings.
Disallow

11. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 11
Oppose • The ongoing use of the site is important and the
objectives and policies as notified will enable this to
happen.
Lynette Joyce Williams
1050.023
□ Support
Oppose
• This submission point is opposed. The provisions of
5.2.7 Temple View Character Area objectives and
policies will enable this area to be repurposed and
developed in a manner that maintains its special
character.
• The Church wants to both undertake and facilitate
development on the school site that will benefit the
community and enhance the environment.
• The ongoing use of the site is important and the
objectives and policies as notified will enable this to
happen. The development plan provides a broad
outline of how future uses on the site would be laid
out.
• The repurposing of the former school site will
promote the sustainable management of natural and
physical resources' as defined in section 5(2) of the
Act.
Disallow
Lynette Joyce Williams
1050.025
□ Support
Oppose
• The use of Comprehensive Development Plans in
Chapter 5 is supported as it provides for future
development to be assessed on a site by site basis
and also in relation to its linkages to neighbouring
areas. In this manner the overall site is developed
with an appropriate overview in relation to transport,
utility servicing and urban design.
Disallow
Lynette Joyce Williams
□ Support
• The use of Comprehensive Development Plans in
Chapter 5 is supported as it provides for future
development to be assessed on a site by site basis
Disallow

12. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 12
1050.026
Oppose
and also in relation to its linkages to neighbouring
areas. In this manner the overall site is developed
with an appropriate overview in relation to transport,
utility servicing and urban design.
Hata Puriri (Temple View
Heritage Society)
1098.001
Continued
□ Support
Oppose
• It is inappropriate to elevate the Temple View
Character Area to a Heritage Area. The distinctive
character of the Temple View Character Area will be
retained and enhanced by allowing its ongoing use
and development so that it can continue to be play a
valuable role in the future of the Temple View
community. The Temple View Character Area is
designed to complement the Temple View Heritage
Area (centred around the Temple) but requires
separate and different provisions as it is to serve a
different function in the community.
• It is inappropriate to add Historic Heritage to the
provisions of Appendix 1.5. The management of
Historic Heritage is already addressed under section
19 – Historic Heritage and does not require
duplication.
• Figure 4-5 Temple View Comprehensive Development
Areas & Precincts provides an appropriate level of
guidance as to the future use of the former school
site when assessed in combination with the
objectives, policies and rules of the Temple View Zone
and other sections of the Proposed District Plan.
• Council has no power to dictate to the Church as to
the future use of a specific building such as the David
O McKay. This is a matter for the Church to decide
and the Church will follow the appropriate statutory
processes for any future use or removal of this
Disallow

13. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 13
building.
• This submission point refers to section 7 (h) of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board
Empowering Act 1957. The provisions in section 7
of the Empowering Act are powers given to the
Trust Board by that Act and do not impose any
general or specific obligations. The purpose of
the Empowering Act, as set out in its Long Title
and Preamble, was to enable the Church to use
trust funds for a variety of purposes, including
the maintenance of its buildings. When read in
the context of the whole Act and the rest of
section 7, it is clear that section 7(h) does not
require the Church to do anything in relation to
any particular building. There is no power under
the RMA that would enable the Council to direct
the Trust Board to take any particular action of
that kind.
• The Church has undertaken substantial consultation
with the Temple View Community including two
public open days and many other meetings with
stakeholders, over and above meetings with
individuals. The future purposes for the former
school buildings is a matter for the Church to decide.
• The Church has asked the Council to facilitate a
Structure Plan process for the land surrounding the
Temple View village (including the areas of land
owned by the Church). Depending on the outcome of
this process it may be that some areas are zoned for
Residential use at some stage. This is a matter for the
Structure Plan process to determine.

14. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 14
Continued • The Church supports the retention of the former
campus sports ground as passive open space,
however the future management of these areas has
not been determined. This is a property management
issue and is not a matter for the District Plan to
determine.
• The Church will be applying to the Council to upgrade
Tuhikaramea Road through the Temple View Village
to address a number of road alignment, servicing and
amenity issues. This proposal is more appropriately
addressed via a consent process rather than a District
Plan process.
Helena Maddison
1133.002
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchaser or leasee.
Disallow
Genevieve Van Eden
1134.002
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchaser or leasee.
Disallow
Eileen Phillips
1137.002
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchaser or leasee.
Disallow

15. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 15
Sue Nikora
137.002
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchaser or leasee.
Disallow
Kasmin Joy Nikora
1139.002
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchaser or leasee.
Disallow
Janellen Moana Nikora
1140.002
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchaser or leasee.
Disallow
Sheree Maree Nikora
1141.002
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchaser or leasee.
Disallow
Anthea Ruth Kingi
1142.002
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchaser or leasee.
Disallow

16. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 16
Kasmin Joy Nikora
1139.002
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchaser or leasee.
Disallow
Wallace Reihana
1143.002
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchaser or leasee.
Disallow
Te Rina Ngawaka
1144.002
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchaser or leasee.
Disallow
Lynette Cassidy
1145.002
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchaser or leasee.
Disallow
Christine Makata
1147.002
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed. The control of Sunday
trading and the sale of alcohol, tobacco products,
coffee and tea are not RMA matters that can be
addressed through District Plan provisions. They are
matters between landowner and purchaser or leasee.
Disallow

17. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 17
Niall Baker
1158.019
□ Support
Oppose
• This submission point is opposed. Section 5.1c
appropriately characterises the Special Character
Zone and in particular the Temple View Character
Area. There are a number of Heritage items located
within the Temple View Character Area and these are
listed in the District Plan and require resource
consent should work be required to be carried out on
those buildings.
• The proposed objectives, policies and rules relating to
character are appropriate in that they strike a balance
between maintaining character and enabling the land
to be repurposed.
Disallow

18. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 18
Niall Baker
1158.022
□ Support
Oppose
• This submission point is opposed. Section 5.1.4.1
provides an appropriate description of the character
and purpose of the Temple View Heritage Area and
the location and principles behind the Temple
Comprehensive Development Plan is supported.
• Figure 4-5 provides an appropriate level of guidance
as to the future use of the former school site when
assessed in combination with the objectives, policies
and rules of the Temple View Zone and other sections
of the Proposed District Plan.
Disallow
Niall Baker
1158.023
□ Support
Oppose
• This submission point is opposed. Figure 4-5 provides
an appropriate level of guidance as to the future use
of the former school site when assessed in
combination with the objectives, policies and rules of
the Temple View Zone and other sections of the
Proposed District Plan.
• The Temple View Character Area is designed to
complement the Temple View Heritage Area (centred
around the Temple) but requires separate and
different provisions as it is to serve a different
function in the community.
Disallow

19. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 19
Niall Baker
1158.024
□ Support
Oppose
• This submission point is opposed. The Objectives and
Policies in the Proposed District Plan as notified
provide an appropriate emphasis on the role of
heritage and do not require amendment.
• There are a number of Heritage items located within
the Temple View Character Area and these are listed
in the District Plan and require resource consent
should work be required to be carried out on those
buildings.
• The proposed objectives, policies and rules relating to
character are appropriate in that they strike a balance
between maintaining character and enabling the land
to be repurposed.
Disallow
Niall Baker
1158.025
□ Support
Oppose
• This submission point is opposed. The provisions of
5.2.6 Temple View Heritage Area are focussed around
maintaining the special character of the Temple and
its surrounding grounds and related buildings.
• The ongoing use of the site is important and the
objectives and policies as notified will enable this to
happen.
Disallow
Niall Baker
1158.026
□ Support
Oppose
• This submission point is opposed. The provisions of
5.2.7 Temple View Character Area objectives and
policies will enable this area to be repurposed and
developed in a manner that maintains its special
character.
• The Church wants to both undertake and facilitate
development on the school site that will benefit the
community and enhance the environment.
• The ongoing use of the site is important and the
objectives and policies as notified will enable this to
happen. The development plan provides a broad
Disallow

20. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 20
outline of how future uses on the site would be laid
out.
• The repurposing of the former school site will
promote the sustainable management of natural and
physical resources' as defined in section 5(2) of the
Act.
Niall Baker
1158.028
□ Support
Oppose
• The use of Comprehensive Development Plans in
Chapter 5 is supported as it provides for future
development to be assessed on a site by site basis
and also in relation to its linkages to neighbouring
areas. In this manner the overall site is developed
with an appropriate overview in relation to transport,
utility servicing and urban design.
• The use of CDPs will not prejudice future decision
making but provides a framework within which such
processes can be assessed.
Disallow
Niall Baker
1158.029
□ Support
Oppose
• The use of Comprehensive Development Plans in
Chapter 5 is supported as it provides for future
development to be assessed on a site by site basis
and also in relation to its linkages to neighbouring
areas. In this manner the overall site is developed
with an appropriate overview in relation to transport,
utility servicing and urban design.
• The use of CDPs will not prejudice future decision
making but provides a framework within which such
processes can be assessed.
Disallow

21. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 21
Elizabeth Patricia Witehira
1165.002
□ Support
Oppose
1. The submission point is opposed. The provisions
of 5.1.4.2 Temple View Character Area sets the
scene and provides a background for the future
of the site. This will enable the former school
site to be repurposed and developed in a
manner that maintains its special character. The
Church wants to both undertake and facilitate
development on the school site that will benefit
the community and enhance the environment.
The ongoing use of the site is important and the
objectives and policies as notified will enable this
to happen. The development plan provides a
broad outline of how future uses on the site
would be laid out.
2. The heritage listed buildings that are located
within the former school site will be managed in
accordance with the District Plan provisions on
Heritage Buildings.
3. Any proposal for a Stake Centre or similar
building will need to assess issues of character
and demonstrate the manner in which its scale,
form and design will enhance and maintain this
character. Retain 5.1.4.2 f).
4. The special character of the teacher housing
corridor does not mean that other future uses
for this land that provide a similar spatial
treatment and retain the general character are
not appropriate. Any application to realign
Tuhikaramea Road would require resource
consent.
5. Opposed. The submitter has not provided any
heritage assessment to support the contention

22. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 22
Continued
that the ranking of these buildings should be
increased from B to A. The Church supports the
retention of the Heritage ranked buildings as
notified.
6. Opposed. No heritage assessment has been
provided to support the contention that the
Matthew Cowley building, feature wall and
Mendenhall Library should be ranked as A in
Schedule 8A. The Church supports the retention
of the Heritage ranked buildings as notified.
Pita Witehira
1166.004
□ Support
Oppose
1. The submission point is opposed. The provisions
of 5.1.4.2 Temple View Character Area sets the
scene and provides a background for the future
of the site. This will enable the former school
site to be repurposed and developed in a
manner that maintains its special character. The
Church wants to both undertake and facilitate
development on the school site that will benefit
the community and enhance the environment.
The ongoing use of the site is important and the
objectives and policies as notified will enable this
to happen. The development plan provides a
broad outline of how future uses on the site
would be laid out.
2. The heritage listed buildings that are located
within the former school site will be managed in
accordance with the District Plan provisions on
Heritage Buildings.
3. Any proposal for a Stake Centre or similar
building will need to assess issues of character
and demonstrate the manner in which its scale,

23. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 23
Continued form and design will enhance and maintain this
character. Retain 5.1.4.2 f).
4. The special character of the teacher housing
corridor does not mean that other future uses
for this land that provide a similar spatial
treatment and retain the general character are
not appropriate. Any application to realign
Tuhikaramea Road would require resource
consent.
5. Opposed. The submitter has not provided any
heritage assessment to support the contention
that the ranking of these buildings should be
increased from B to A. The Church supports the
retention of the Heritage ranked buildings as
notified.
6. Opposed. No heritage assessment has been
provided to support the contention that the
Matthew Cowley building, feature wall and
Mendenhall Library should be ranked as A in
Schedule 8A. The Church supports the retention
of the Heritage ranked buildings as notified.
7. This submission point refers to section 7 (h) of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Trust Board Empowering Act 1957. The
provisions in section 7 of the Empowering
Act are powers given to the Trust Board by
that Act and do not impose any general or
specific obligations. The purpose of the
Empowering Act, as set out in its Long Title
and Preamble, was to enable the Church to
use trust funds for a variety of purposes,

24. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 24
Continued
including the maintenance of its
buildings. When read in the context of the
whole Act and the rest of section 7, it is clear
that section 7(h) does not require the Church
to do anything in relation to any particular
building. There is no power under the RMA
that would enable the Council to direct the
Trust Board to take any particular action of
that kind.
The New Zealand Historic
Places Trust
1196.009
Support
□ Oppose
• The submission is supported as the Temple View
Heritage Area provisions are the most appropriate
means of protecting and enhancing the Temple and
its surroundings for the future.
Allow
Generation Zero Waikato
1284.015
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission point is opposed as this introduces
unnecessary duplication into the District Plan. If an
application for new building and development is
Restricted Discretionary then the limits of that
Discretion are already set in Appendix 1 of the
Proposed Plan. If an application is Discretionary then
those provisions will apply as relevant. It is
inappropriate to duplicate the requirements of
Appendix 1 into the Special Character Zones Rule
5.4.10 f).
Disallow
Waikato Registered Master
Builders Association Inc
610.018
Support in part
□ Oppose
• The Church supports the submission point that
requests an amendment to Rule 19.3 i) to make the
demolition of building ranked B a Discretionary
Activity. The notified version of this rule makes the
demolition of both A and B ranked buildings as a Non
Allow in part.

25. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 25
Complying activity which does not recognise the
potential differences between these two rankings in
terms of both heritage values and significance. A
difference in consent status is appropriate to
recognise this difference.
Waikato Registered Master
Builders Association Inc
610.019
Support
□ Oppose
• The Church supports the submission point. In some
situations, the works required to earthquake proof a
building are so substantial that the heritage values
would be lost. Safety risks are also a significant
concern with some heritage buildings that may
require prompt attention. The policy needs to reflect
this.
Allow.
Waitomo Properties Ltd
631.007
Support in part
□ Oppose
• The intent of this submission is supported however
the Church only seeks Discretionary or Restricted
Discretionary status for any structure or Building
ranked B.
Allow
Waitomo Properties Ltd
631.008
Support in part
□ Oppose
• The Church supports the submission point. In some
situations, the works required to earthquake proof a
building are so substantial that the heritage values
would be lost. Safety risks are also a significant
concern with some heritage buildings that may
require prompt attention. The policy needs to reflect
this.
Allow
Roman Catholic Bishop of
Hamilton
704.004
Support
□ Oppose
• The Church supports the submission point. In some
situations, demolition of or effects on historic
heritage may be appropriate, particularly with
earthquake prone buildings and those buildings that
pose a safety hazard. The Objectives and Policies
should be amended to reflect this.
Allow

26. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 26
Roman Catholic Bishop of
Hamilton
704.005
□ Support
Oppose in part
• The Church opposes the submission point in relation
to Rule 19.3 b). Internal alterations to buildings that
have a heritage ranking should be a permitted activity
to allow for refurbishment and reuse. Any controls
on internal alterations (other than Building consent
requirements) would create unnecessary compliance
issues that could discourage building owners from
continuing to utilise and upgrade the building.
Disallow in part
Waikato Regional Council
714.050
□ Support
Oppose in part
• This submission point is opposed only as it relates to
the Church’s submission point requesting
amendments to Policy 19.2.2 b) whereby the loss of
heritage values associated with scheduled items shall
be avoided to the fullest extent practicable.
Disallow in part
Waikato Regional Council
714.053
□ Support
Oppose
• The Church opposes the submission point in relation
to Rule 19.3 b). Internal alterations to buildings that
have a heritage ranking should be a permitted activity
to allow for refurbishment and reuse. Any controls
on internal alterations (other than Building consent
requirements) would create unnecessary compliance
issues that could discourage building owners from
continuing to utilise and upgrade the building.
Disallow
Isobel Anne Bennett
YWCA of Hamilton Inc
879.001
Support
□ Oppose
• The Church supports the submission point that
requests an amendment to Rule 19.3 i) to make the
demolition of building ranked B a Discretionary
Activity. The notified version of this rule makes the
demolition of both A and B ranked buildings as a Non
Complying activity which does not recognise the
potential differences between these two rankings in
terms of both heritage values and significance. A
difference in consent status is appropriate to
recognise this difference.
Allow.

27. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 27
Shona Betty Shaw
Murray V Shaw builders Ltd
884.018
Support in part
□ Oppose
• The Church supports the submission point that
requests an amendment to Rule 19.3 i) to make the
demolition of building ranked B a Discretionary
Activity. The notified version of this rule makes the
demolition of both A and B ranked buildings as a Non
Complying activity which does not recognise the
potential differences between these two rankings in
terms of both heritage values and significance. A
difference in consent status is appropriate to
recognise this difference.
Allow in part
Shona Betty Shaw
Murray V Shaw builders Ltd
884.019
Support
□ Oppose
• The Church supports the submission point. In some
situations, demolition of or effects on historic
heritage may be appropriate, particularly with
earthquake prone buildings and those buildings that
pose a safety hazard. The Objectives and Policies
should be amended to reflect this.
Allow
Skycity Hamilton Ltd
900.003
Support
□ Oppose
• The Church supports the submission point. The
requirement for a Restricted Discretionary activity for
internal alterations for a Heritage Item is inconsistent
with Rule 19.3 b) which states that internal
alterations of heritage ranked buildings are a
Permitted activity. Controls on internal alterations is
inappropriate, particularly when in some cases such
as the New Zealand Temple the interior of the
building has significant spiritual value to church
members.
Allow
Sink or Swim
1009.011
□ Support
Oppose
• The Church opposes the submission insofar as it
requests non-complying activity status for the
demolition of both Category A & B buildings. This is
inappropriate and does not reflect the different
nature of a Category B building and the reduced
Disallow in part

28. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 28
significance of that building. A Discretionary or
Restricted Discretionary status is more appropriate
for a Category B building.
• The Church opposes the submission requiring that
Category B ranked building alterations and additions
must be publicly notified. It is more appropriate that
the requirements of the RMA with respect to
notification be applied than applying notification
requirements through a rule in the District Plan.
Lynette Joyce Williams
1050.006
□ Support
Oppose
• The Church opposes the submission insofar as it seeks
rules to control alterations and additions to the
interior of heritage items. The control of interior
aspects of heritage is inappropriate and unnecessary
and could discourage building owners from
undertaking interior improvements through
additional regulation. In some cases, such as the
Hamilton Temple, the interior of the building is
significant and sacred to church members.
• The Church opposes the submission requiring a single
unitary built heritage feature whereby all scheduled
items would be non complying to demolish. This does
not recognise that different categories of heritage
building have different levels of significance. The
Church supports the proposal to make the demolition
of Category B buildings a Discretionary or Restricted
Discretionary activity.
Disallow in part
Lynette Joyce Williams
1050.010
□ Support
Oppose
• The Church opposes the submission insofar as it seeks
the full support of Policy 19.2.3a. The Church
supports the presumption against the loss of
scheduled heritage values, it contends that in
situations where adaption and re-use are neither
feasible nor practicable, recording and demolition are
Disallow in part

29. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 29
potentially last-resort options in exceptional
circumstances. The wording of policy 19.2.3a should
be amended to reflect this.
Lynette Joyce Williams
1050.013
□ Support
Oppose
• The Church opposes the submission insofar as it seeks
to insert Matters of Discretion and Assessment
Criteria to control alterations and additions to the
interior of heritage items. The control of interior
aspects of heritage is inappropriate and unnecessary
and could discourage building owners from
undertaking interior improvements through
additional regulation.
Disallow.
Barry Harris
Hamilton City Council
1146.056
Support
□ Oppose
• The Church supports the submission point. The
requirement for a Restricted Discretionary activity for
internal alterations for a Heritage Item is inconsistent
with Rule 19.3 b) which states that internal
alterations of heritage ranked buildings are a
Permitted activity. Controls on internal alterations is
inappropriate, particularly when in some cases such
as the New Zealand Temple the interior of the
building has significant spiritual value to church
members.
Allow
Niall Baker
1158.007
□ Support
Oppose
• The Church opposes the submission insofar as it seeks
rules to control alterations and additions to the
interior of heritage items. The control of interior
aspects of heritage is inappropriate and unnecessary
and could discourage building owners from
undertaking interior improvements through
additional regulation. In some cases, such as the
Hamilton Temple, the interior of the building is
significant and sacred to church members.
Disallow

30. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 30
• The Church supports the submission point in relation
to the need to clearly establish the hierarchy of
management for A and B Ranked buildings with
regards to demolition. Different ranked heritage
building have different levels of significance and this
should be reflected in the level of assessment and
consideration required for any work on those
buildings. The Church supports the proposal to make
the demolition of Category B buildings a Discretionary
or Restricted Discretionary activity.
Niall Baker
1158.013
□ Support
Oppose
• The Church opposes the submission insofar as it seeks
to control alterations and additions to the interior of
heritage items. The control of interior aspects of
heritage is inappropriate and unnecessary and could
discourage building owners from undertaking interior
improvements through additional regulation.
Disallow.
Niall Baker
1158.016
□ Support
Oppose
• The Church opposes the submission insofar as it seeks
to insert Matters of Discretion and Assessment
Criteria to control alterations and additions to the
interior of heritage items. The control of interior
aspects of heritage is inappropriate and unnecessary
and could discourage building owners from
undertaking interior improvements through
additional regulation.
Disallow.
Tram Lease Ltd
1163.012
Support
□ Oppose
• The Church supports the submission point that
requests an amendment to Rule 19.3 i) to make the
demolition of building ranked B a Restricted
Discretionary Activity. The notified version of this
rule makes the demolition of both A and B ranked
buildings as a Non Complying activity which does not
Allow

31. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 31
recognise the potential differences between these
two rankings in terms of both heritage values and
significance. A difference in consent status is
appropriate to recognise this difference.
New Zealand Historic Places
Trust
1196.015
□Support
Oppose in part
• The Church opposes the submission point insofar as it
relates to Policy 19.2.2b and contends that it is
appropriate that the policy specify that the loss of
heritage values be avoided to the fullest extent
practicable. This recognises that where adaption and
re-use are neither feasible or practical, then recording
and demolition are last resort options in exceptional
circumstances.
Disallow in part
New Zealand Historic Places
Trust
1196.018
□Support
Oppose in part
• The Church opposes the submission point insofar as it
relates to Rule 19.3 b) and 19.3 i) Activity Status
Table. Rule 19.3 b) sets a Permitted activity status for
the internal alterations of buildings. This is
inappropriate and unnecessary, in particular where a
building such as the Temple (Ranked A) has high
heritage significance but is also of spiritual
significance to Church members. It is inappropriate
for there to be a statutory process associated with
internal alterations to a building that is not open to
the general public.
• Rule 19.3 i) requires a Non complying activity consent
for the demolition of any structure or building ranked
B. The notified version of this rule makes the
demolition of both A and B ranked buildings as a Non
Complying activity which does not recognise the
potential differences between these two rankings in
terms of both heritage values and significance. A
difference in consent status is appropriate to
recognise this difference.
Disallow in part

32. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 32
Generation Zero Waikato
1284.051
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission point is opposed as this introduces
unnecessary duplication into the District Plan. If an
application for work on a Heritage item or building is
Restricted Discretionary then the limits of that
Discretion are already set in Appendix 1 of the
Proposed Plan. If an application is Discretionary then
those provisions will apply as relevant. It is
inappropriate to duplicate the requirements of
Appendix 1 into Section 19 of the Proposed District
Plan.
Disallow
Generation Zero Waikato
1284.052
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission point is opposed as this introduces
unnecessary duplication into the District Plan. If an
application for work on a Heritage item or building is
Restricted Discretionary then the limits of that
Discretion are already set in Appendix 1 of the
Proposed Plan. It is inappropriate to duplicate the
requirements of Appendix 1 into Section 19 of the
Proposed District Plan.
Disallow
Robert W Belbin
291.001
Support
□ Oppose
• It is appropriate and timely to undertake a Structure
Planning exercise for the area of Future Urban land
surrounding Temple View. The most appropriate way
to achieve this is to include a section within Rule 3:
Structure Plans, and Appendix 2: Structure Plans that
refers to Temple View and signals that such an
exercise is planned and will be undertaken in
consultation with the community.
Allow
WJ and MR Laverty
313.002
Support
□ Oppose
• It is appropriate and timely to undertake a Structure
Planning exercise for the area of Future Urban land
surrounding Temple View. The most appropriate way
to achieve this is to include a section within Rule 3:
Structure Plans, and Appendix 2: Structure Plans that
Allow

33. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 33
refers to Temple View and signals that such an
exercise is planned and will be undertaken in
consultation with the community.
WR and JM Falconer
360.003
Support
□ Oppose
• It is appropriate and timely to undertake a Structure
Planning exercise for the area of Future Urban land
surrounding Temple View. The most appropriate way
to achieve this is to include a section within Rule 3:
Structure Plans, and Appendix 2: Structure Plans that
refers to Temple View and signals that such an
exercise is planned and will be undertaken in
consultation with the community.
Allow
Wilson David Jolly
1244.002
Support
□ Oppose
• It is appropriate and timely to undertake a Structure
Planning exercise for the area of Future Urban land
surrounding Temple View. The most appropriate way
to achieve this is to include a section within Rule 3:
Structure Plans, and Appendix 2: Structure Plans that
refers to Temple View and signals that such an
exercise is planned and will be undertaken in
consultation with the community.
Allow
Simon Dyke Farms
1245.002
Support
□ Oppose
• It is appropriate and timely to undertake a Structure
Planning exercise for the area of Future Urban land
surrounding Temple View. The most appropriate way
to achieve this is to include a section within Rule 3:
Structure Plans, and Appendix 2: Structure Plans that
refers to Temple View and signals that such an
exercise is planned and will be undertaken in
consultation with the community.
Allow

34. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 34
Robert W Belbin
291.024 □ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed insofar as it relates to Rule
8-1.1 Rankings of Significance for those buildings
which are located within the former Church College
campus. The Church seeks to retain the Rankings of
Heritage Significance in Schedule 8A as notified
without change apart from those changes sought by
Church submission on the overall Heritage ranking
system.
Disallow
Jodi Belbin
298.005
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed insofar as it relates to Rule
8-1.1 Rankings of Significance for those buildings
which are located within the former Church College
campus. The Church seeks to retain the Rankings of
Heritage Significance in Schedule 8A as notified
without change apart from those changes sought by
Church submission on the overall Heritage ranking
system.
Disallow
Grace McCarthy
302.002
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed insofar as it relates to Rule
8-1.1 Rankings of Significance for those buildings
which are located within the former Church College
campus. The Church seeks to retain the Rankings of
Heritage Significance as notified without change apart
from those changes sought by Church submission on
the overall Heritage ranking system. The submitter
has undertaken no heritage assessment of the
Matthew Cowley Administration Building that would
provide justification for including it in Schedule 8A –
Built Heritage.
Disallow
Pita Witehira
839.001
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed insofar as it relates to Rule
8-1.1 Rankings of Significance for those buildings
which are located within the former Church College
campus. The Church seeks to retain the Rankings of
Heritage Significance in Schedule 8A as notified
Disallow

35. Further Submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Page 35
without change apart from those changes sought by
Church submission on the overall Heritage ranking
system.
Tom Roa
1285.001
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed insofar as it relates to Rule
8-1.1 Rankings of Significance for those buildings
which are located within the former Church College
campus. The Church seeks to retain the Rankings of
Heritage Significance in Schedule 8A as notified
without change apart from those changes sought by
Church submission on the overall Heritage ranking
system.
Disallow
Andrew Bydder
1289.001
□ Support
Oppose
• The submission is opposed insofar as it relates to Rule
8-1.1 Rankings of Significance for those buildings
which are located within the former Church College
campus. The Church seeks to retain the Rankings of
Heritage Significance in Schedule 8A as notified
without change apart from those changes sought by
Church submission on the overall Heritage ranking
system.
Disallow
Note:
• A copy of your further submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after it is served on the local authority. This is your responsibility.
• Please ensure that you fill in all columns of the table for each submission(s) or submission point(s) you are further submitting on. Use additional sheets of this page if required.
• Acknowledgement of further submissions will take place after the further submission period closes in due course.
K:140450 Temple View Developments02 Templeview rezoningProposed District PlanFurther SubmissionsProposed District Plan Further Submission (LDS Church) 1 July version.docx