ISTHMUS SECTION
REPORT FOR A NON-COMPLYING ACTIVITY RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION UNDER
THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 AT 25 & 27 ALTHAM AVENUE 26 & 28
ROSSMAY TERRACE, KINGSLAND, AUCKLAND 1024
1.
To:
Duty Commissioner
From:
Mark Weingarth
Senior Planner, Regulatory Planning
Reference:
R/LUC/2010/4041
THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY DETAILS
Site Address:
25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace,
Kingsland, Auckland 1024
Applicant's Name:
Kelly McEwan
Address for Service
Kelly McEwan
21 Harcourt Street
Grey Lynn
Auckland 1021
Legal Description:
LOT 99 DP 18503 CT NA427/85, LOT 100 DP18503 CT
NA429/59, LOT 63 DP19002 CT NA443/106 and LOT 64
DP19002 CT NA482/117.
Site Area:
2152m²
Operative District Plan:
Auckland City Operative District Plan 1999 – Isthmus
Section
Zoning:
Business 4
Plan Modifications:
None
Designations/limitations:
Flood Plain Type A
Locality plan:
Refer to attached map
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 1
Subject sites
2.
THE PROPOSAL, SITE AND LOCALITY DESCRIPTION
2.1
Proposal
The applicant seeks to establish four residential dwellings on Business 4 zoned land. Each
dwelling will be located on a site that has a separate certificate of title, however for the
purpose of this application ‘the site’ will encompass all four sites 25-27 Altham Ave, 26 & 28
Rossmay Terrace. Each dwelling will be provided with separate vehicular access, on site car
parking and will be complemented with appropriate landscaping. Two of the sites front
Rossmay Terrace and two front Altham Avenue. The sites are all relatively flat with a gentle
rise towards the northwest. It is proposed that the dwellings will be relocated houses. There
is currently one relocateable building on the site which is to be removed. Currently the site is
predominantly covered in asphalt and most of the site is impermeable. The site is currently
vacant. Although the site is zoned Business 4, the applicant has stated that the dwellings will
be designed in accordance with the Residential 6a development controls, (coverage’s,
setbacks and landscaping, building in relation to boundary) to replicate the character of the
adjoining residential sites.
Originally consent was sought for five residential properties, however one of the separate
titles that make up this site (LOT 101 DP 18503) is to remain vacant to be used for
commercial use. As such this report will only assess the proposed 4 residential dwellings.
2.2
Site and locality description
The site is currently vacant, apart from one portacom located on the northern side of the site.
The site is almost 100% paved impermeable apart from a 6m wide landscaped strip along
the eastern boundary which directly adjoins residential properties to the east. The site is
complexly fenced around the perimeter, with wire mesh fences and timber fences along the
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 2
two road boundaries and solid fencing along the eastern (residential) boundary. These
residential properties contain detached, single storey residential dwellings, located to the
front of the site. Sites to the west and opposite the subject site on Rossmay Terrace and
Altham Avenue are zoned Business 4 and are generally occupied by light
industrial/warehousing activities. The exception is the property at 25-27 and 29 Rossmay
Terrace which is occupied by a three storey residential apartment containing 36 residential
units. This was notified in early 1997 and the resource consent was granted for this
development in May1997.
The residential dwellings to the east are generally older in style, and further to the south is a
pocket of Residential 1 zoned land. The railway runs in an east west direction to the north of
Rossmay Terrace with the Morningside railway station located approximately 350m to the
north west of the subject site with the Morningside shops directly north of the subject site.
Eden park is situated on Sandringham Road, approximately 250m to the east of the subject
site. A pocket of open space zoned land is situated 140m to the north of the site, accessed
off Western Springs Road. The immediate area clearly contains a mixture of different land
uses. There is a large amount of mature vegetation in the residential area to the east and
along the street berm.
3.
REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION
A resource consent pursuant to the provisions of the Auckland City Operative District Plan
1999 – Isthmus Section is required for the following reasons:
Operative Auckland City District Plan 1999 – Isthmus section
•
The applicant seeks consent to construct four new residential units. Under Rule 8.7.1 of
the Operative District Plan 1999 – Isthmus Section, this is not provided for as permitted,
controlled, restricted discretionary or discretionary activity and therefore pursuant to
clause 4.2.1.4 of the District Plan a non complying activity is reqired.
Overall, the application is considered to be a non-complying activity.
4.
NOTIFICATION ASSESSMENT (SECTIONS 95A TO 95E)
4.1
Statutory matters
Section 95A gives a council discretion to decide whether to publicly notify an application or
not. However, an application must be publicly notified if:
(a)
the activity will have, or is likely to have, adverse effects on the environment that are
more than minor;
(b)
the applicant requests public notification of the application; or
(c)
a rule or national environment standard requires public notification.
Section 95A(3) provides that an application must not be publicly notified if a rule or national
environmental standard precludes public notification and the applicant has not requested
public notification.
Despite the above, a council also has discretion to publicly notify an application if it decides
there are special circumstances in relation to the application.
Section 95B provides that if an application is not publicly notified, a council must decide if
there are any affected persons (or affected order holders) in relation to the activity. Limited
notification of the application must be given to affected persons unless a rule or national
environmental standard precludes limited notification.
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 3
4.2
Sections 95A and 95D – Public Notification
In determining whether to publicly notify an application, section 95D specifies a council must
decide whether an activity will have, or is likely to have, adverse effects on the environment
that are more than minor. In making this decision, a council:
-
must disregard any effects on persons who own or occupy:
• the land in, on or over which the activity will occur; or
• any land adjacent to that land;
-
may disregard an adverse effect of the activity if a rule or national environmental
standard permits an activity with that effect (ie. council may consider the “permitted
baseline”);
-
must disregard an adverse effect of the activity that does not relate to a matter for
which a rule or national environmental standard reserves control or restricts discretion;
-
must disregard trade competition and the effects of trade competition;
-
must disregard any effect on a person who has given written approval to the
application.
Land excluded from the assessment
In this case, I consider that adjacent land includes the following properties because these
sites are adjoining the subject site, directly across the road or are close by such that they
are considered to form part of the context of the subject site. The effects on these owners
and occupiers have been disregarded.
Address
25-27, 24, 30 Rossmay Terrace
23, 28, 32, 29, 30 Altham Avenue
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 4
Not included as part of this assessment – to remain a commercial activity
Adjacent site
Approval given
Permitted Baseline
In this case there is no permitted baseline as all permitted and controlled activities on
Business 4 zoned land, within 30m of a residential zone require consent.
Existing Environment
A resource consent was granted on the site in 2008. This allowed the site to be used as a
construction storage yard, storing materials and equipment used for constructions jobs.
Persons who have given their written approval
In this case, written approval has been given by the following persons:
Owner / Occupier
Address
David
Sharpe
Brenna Waghorn
26 Altham Avenue
BVB
Limited
23 Altham Avenue
Holdings
Dave and Lesley
30 Rossmay Terrace
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 5
Giddens
Hard Rock Limited
29 Altham Avenue
Written notice of the withdrawal of the approval has been received from any of the above
persons.
Assessment of effects
Having regard to the above and after an analysis of the application, including any proposed
mitigation measures and specialist reports, the adverse effects of the activity on the
environment are identified and discussed below.
Effects on Future Land-Uses
The loss of land used for business purposes in this case is considered to have negligible
adverse effects on the local environment. In particular, the site has been vacant for a
number of years (aerial photos 1997, 2002 – refer Appendix 1 for photos). The 2006 aerial
photo on Council’s GIS shows that the site was being used as a storage yard which
according to Council records was not lawfully established. This was subject to a number of
complaints from adjacent residential properties. This activity was legalised in 2008 by a
resource consent however, this storage yard has since ceased operation. Once again the
site is unused and remains vacant. This is an indication that the site may not be suitable for
sustainable business activity. As the land has generally been vacant for a long period of
time, I am of the opinion that the loss of business activities from this site will have less than
minor adverse effect on the environment. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal will not
change the underlying zone of the land even though the actual land uses may change as a
result of this proposal. It should be noted that one of the five lots will remain in commercial
use. As such, neighbouring business development, which accords with the controls of the
plan, will not be affected by the proposal as this can be built as of right and the site could be
developed for business activities in the future. Permitted activities in the Business 4 zone
include care centres, community welfare facilities, educational facilities, garden centres,
hospitals, offices, places of assembly, tourist complexes, restaurants and retail activities, a
number of which could operate out of a residential dwelling on the site if the owner of the
land required the site for this purpose. It is not uncommon for change of use to occur on
sites throughout the Isthmus, where the site is zoned for a different purpose. This frequently
occurs on residentially zoned land, where residential sites gain consent for business
activities which are not permitted by the Plan in that zone.
Effects on Character & Visual Amenity of the Surrounding Environment
The resultant development will have a considerably lower height, mass, scale and bulk in
comparison to what the District Plan allows in the Business 4 zone. The dwellings to be
located on the site have been designed to comply with the adjacent residential zone
development controls rather than those of the Business 4 zone and therefore the proposal
retains a spacious feel common with residential development in the vicinity of the site. The
nature and design of the proposal will be similar to what is seen within the adjacent
residential sites to the east and southeast of the subject site and therefore will not be out of
place in the area.
A residential use of the site is likely to result in the site being occupied for longer periods of
the day and at other times to that normally associated with a commercial activity. In
particular, dwellings tend to be utilised more in the evenings and weekends. Given the small
scale nature of the proposal, being four dwellings, as this site is in transition between
business and residential character, and given the context of the local area already
containing a high percentage of residential activities I do not consider that the use of this site
will cause any adverse effects on the character of the local area.
The residential dwellings will be setback approximately 5.9m from the road boundary which
is almost double the required setback within the Business 4 zone. The existing site is
currently covered with asphalt and is approximately 86% impermeable coverage. As part of
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 6
the proposal, this impermeable area will be scraped off and permeable surfaces will be
reinstated in the site. The only impermeable surfaces currently proposed will be the
driveway and paths to the front of each dwelling. The applicant has suggested that planting
along the front boundary of Altham Avenue can be secured by way of condition should
resource consent be granted. I generally support this approach and consider that the
proposal incorporates adequate provisions for landscaping in order to ensure that the
resultant development is appropriate in the context of the residential environment to the
north, east and south east, thereby having less than minor visual effects on the street.
Stormwater, Drainage & Runoff Effects Stormwater
The site is currently fully drained by the existing public and private drainage. This drainage
will be maintained or relocated clear of the new structures as required. Stormwater will be
discharged to existing soak-holes on site. A fifth soak-hole will be provided for the western
most dwelling accessed off Altham Avenue. It should be noted that there will be a substantial
decrease in the provision of impermeable surfaces on site as a result of this proposal. As
such, the effects of stormwater and runoff will be less than that already associated with the
existing environment. Council Development Engineer, Mr Wayne Teagle has assessed the
proposal in terms of stormwater and runoff and confirms that the use of soakholes is
adequate to confine runoff effects to the subject site
Wastewater and Water Supply
Metrowater has confirmed that there will be no capacity issues in terms of wastewater
disposal and that in terms of water supply the network capacity meets 100l/s as per
Metrowater fire Risk Classification. Mr Teagle has assessed the proposal and confirms that
the site is serviced with adequate infrastructure to cause no adverse effects on the capacity
of services in the area.
Effects on Natural Hazards (Flooding)
The south western corner of the site on Altham Avenue is identified as being in a floodplain.
The dwellings will be designed with a freeboard height 500mm above the required flood
level. The proposed dwellings are to be constructed on pile foundations that will allow
potential flood waters to temporarily pond under the dwellings in the peak of a storm event.
This will ensure there is no adverse effect on the flood plain storage and therefore no
adverse effect outside of the subject site. Mr Teagle has also assessed the proposal in
terms of flood risk and determined that the proposed dwellings will have adequate freeboard
height to cause no adverse effects in terms of the free flow and storage of flood water. All
such effects will be confined to the subject site.
Effects on Traffic, Access and Parking
Traffic generation associated with the proposal will have less than minor adverse effects on
the local area and be well within the capacity of the existing roading network. The sites are
to be accessed via existing road crossings which comply with the required standards under
the District Plan. Sight lines from the accesses will be acceptable and sufficient space is
provided on site for parking and manoeuvring. As such the proposal will have less than
minor adverse effects in terms of traffic congestion and safety.
Reverse Sensitivity
From visiting the site and surrounding area it appears that the activities occurring on the
surrounding sites generally light industry. As such, the noise generated by the activities is
not considered to be excessive. Additionally, these businesses do not appear to have high
volumes of traffic associated with their use, nor large trucks or other machinery which could
result in loss of amenity or annoyance. Notwithstanding this, the dwellings will be oriented so
that the main family living and outdoor living areas are to the rear of the sites, away from the
adjacent businesses. It is therefore considered that adequate separation between the
neighbouring activities and primary amenity areas of the dwellings will be retained. Whilst
the noise amenity that will be experienced by the future occupiers will not be entirely
satisfactory, I have also considered that future residents will be aware of the activities
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 7
occurring on the neighbouring sites and therefore some degree of disturbance should be
expected. The adjoining businesses do not contain heavy industrial activity that would cause
adverse effects on residential dwellings such as dust, odour or excessive traffic. As such, I
am satisfied that adequate amenity for the future occupiers can be achieved.
Construction Effects
The primary issues concerned with construction involve noise, dust, vibration and traffic
movements resulting from the demolition of the existing structures and the importation of
materials onto the site. The scale of demolition is considered to be minor as only the
portacom needs to be demolished or removed. The site is already flat and therefore no
major re-contouring of the site is required. Minor excavation will be required for the building
foundations. It is therefore considered that the proposal will have minor effects during the
construction phase which will only occur for a limited period of time.
The noise associated with the construction phase will occur for a short period of time and
therefore have no long term adverse effects. The applicant considers that the construction
works will adhere to the District Plan construction noise controls. The dwellings are to be
relocated onto the site which will minimise the construction associated with building a
dwelling.
Summary
Overall, I do not consider that the residential units will adversely affect the general character
and use of the area, given the amount of residential development to the north, east and
southeast of the subject site. Furthermore, given the scale and location of the proposed
development I do not consider that the four residential dwellings are likely to have a
discernable adverse visual impact on the character of the area. Additionally the effects of
the proposal in terms of bulk, scale, mass, traffic and impermeable areas are considered to
be less than what is permitted by the plan in the Business 4 zone or associated with the
existing environment. In summary, having assessed the adverse effects of the activity on
the environment, I consider that the activity will have less than minor adverse effects on the
environment.
4.3
Special Circumstances (section 95A(4))
Section 95A(4) states that a council may publicly notify an application for resource consent if
it considers that special circumstances exist, notwithstanding that a rule or national
environmental standard precludes notification and the application has not requested
notification.
“Special circumstances” have been defined by the Court of Appeal as those that are unusual
or exceptional, but they may be less than extraordinary or unique (Peninsula Watchdog
Group (Inc) v Minister of Energy [1996] 2 NZLR 529). With regards to what may constitute
an unusual or exceptional circumstance, Salmon J commented in Bayley v Manukau CC
[1998] NZRMA 396 that if the district plan specifically envisages what is proposed, it cannot
be described as being out of the ordinary and giving rise to special circumstances.
In Murray v Whakatane DC [1997] NZRMA 433, Elias J stated that circumstances which are
“special” will be those which make notification desirable, notwithstanding the general
provisions excluding the need for notification. In determining what may amount to “special
circumstances” it is necessary to consider the matters relevant to the merits of the
application as a whole, not merely those considerations stipulated in the tests for notification
and service.
In this case, the reuse of previously developed land and the establishment of residential land
uses in relatively close proximity to the CBD and close to public transport options cannot be
described as out of ordinary or out of context with the physical environment within the vicinity
of the site. As such the proposal does not give rise to special circumstances.
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 8
4.4
Public Notification Summary
Accordingly, I consider this application can be processed without public notification.
4.5
Sections 95B and 95E – Limited Notification
If the application is not publicly notified, a council must decide if there are any affected
persons and give limited notification to those persons. A person is affected if the effects of
the activity on that person are minor or more than minor (but not less than minor).
In deciding who is an affected person under section 95E, a council:
-
may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on a person if a rule or national
environmental standard permits an activity with that effect (i.e. council may consider
the “permitted baseline”);
-
must disregard an adverse effect of the activity on a person that does not relate to a
matter for which a rule or environmental standard reserves control or restricts
discretion;
-
must have regard to every relevant statutory acknowledgement made in accordance
with a statute set out in Schedule 11 of the Act.
A council must not consider that a person is affected if they have given their written
approval or it is unreasonable in the circumstances to seek that person’s approval. In this
case, written approval has been received from the parties listed above.
Having regard to the above provisions, I do not consider that any persons are affected by
the activity for the following reasons:
Written approval has been received from 23, 26 and 29 Athlam Avenue and 30 Rossmay
Terrace. As such any adverse effects on these properties will be disregarded.
Character and Visual Amenity
The dwellings to be located on the site have been designed to comply with the adjacent
residential zone development controls rather than those of the Business 4 zone and
therefore the proposal retains a spacious feel common with residential development in the
vicinity of the site. The proposed new dwellings are of a design and scale which will not be
out of place in the surrounding environment given the close proximity to the Residential 6a
zone. It is considered there is sufficient separation distance between the proposed dwellings
and the neighbouring site to the east (off Rossmay Terrace) to avoid any adverse
dominance and shadowing effects. Given the mass, scale and bulk of the proposed
residential units in comparison to the existing apartments to the north on Rossmay Terrace,
and as the proposal is located to the south, separated by Rossmay Terrace, it is considered
there will be no dominance or shading on these apartments as a result of the proposed
development.
The existing site is currently covered with asphalt and is approximately 86% impermeable
coverage. As part of the proposal, this impermeable area will be scraped off and permeable
surfaces will be reinstated in the site. The only impermeable surfaces currently proposed
will be the driveway and paths to the front of each dwelling. The applicant has suggested
that planting along the front boundary of Altham Avenue can be secured by way of condition
should resource consent be granted. I generally support this approach and consider that
the proposal incorporates adequate provisions for landscaping and the removal of a large
amount of the paved surface will improve the amenity for the adjacent residential sites. As
such it is considered that there will be less than minor adverse effects on the visual amenity
and character of the adjacent sites resulting from the proposal.
Privacy
Additionally, given the nature of the surrounding land-uses I do not consider there to be any
persons or neighbouring properties which will suffer an adverse loss of privacy. The
residential sites to the east of the proposed development on Rossmay Terrace will be
screened from the proposal by an existing solid 1.8m high timber fence along the boundary.
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 9
This adjacent site also contains a large number of mature trees along its boundary with the
subject site which will screen the proposal and as such any adverse effects in terms of
privacy will be less than minor. The residential sites to the north generally have their living
areas and main views to the north, away from the subject site. The proposed residential
units on the subject site have main outdoor living areas to the rear of the dwellings and no
adverse privacy effects on the apartments to the north will result from the proposal given the
juxtaposition of the two sites and primary living areas.
Traffic, Access and Parking
Traffic generation associated with the proposal will have less than minor adverse effects on
the adjacent residential sites and be well within the capacity of the existing roading network.
The sites are to be accessed via existing road crossings which comply with the required
standards under the District Plan. Sight lines from the accesses will be acceptable and
sufficient space is provided on site for parking and manoeuvring. The sites to the south on
Atlham Avenue are used for light commercial type businesses with large warehouse type
buildings which cover the entire site. As access to the subject site will remain the same and
will not generate, more traffic than that associated with a permitted business use, thus any
effect on the owners and occupiers of these sites will be less than minor.
Noise
The surrounding Business 4 zone is be made up of offices and warehousing activities that
generally do not generate noise or effects that could result in loss of amenity. The adjacent
businesses are light industrial and do not generate adverse effects in the way of dust or
odour that could diminish the amenity of people living in residential dwellings on the site.
Whilst the noise amenity that will be experienced by the future occupiers may be less than a
normal residential area, I have also considered that future residents will be aware of the
activities occurring on the neighbouring sites to the west and south and therefore some
degree of disturbance may be anticipated. This may help to avoid complaints about any
adverse noise and associated effects which are related to the adjacent businesses within
the Business 4 zone.
Accordingly, I consider this application can be processed non-notified.
5.
SECTIONS 95A AND 95B RECOMMENDATION
5.1
That, pursuant to section 95A of the Resource Management Act 1991, this application be
processed without public notification because the activity will have adverse effects on the
environment that are less than minor. In particular:
•
The nature and design of the proposal will be in character with the adjacent residential
sites to the east and southeast.
•
The proposed four residential dwellings are unlikely to have an adverse visual impact
on the character of the area that is significant.
•
The existing site is currently covered with asphalt and is approximately 86%
impermeable coverage. As part of the proposal, this impermeable area will be scraped
off and permeable surface will be reinstated on the site resulting in a substantial
decrease in the impermeable surfaces.
•
Planting along the front boundary of Altham Avenue is proposed. This will provide the
residential dwellings which are accessed off Altham Avenue some privacy and
screening from the business activities opposite the site.
•
The dwellings will comply with the minimum finished floor levels and will be
constructed on pile foundations that will allow potential flood waters to temporarily
pond under the dwellings in the peak of a storm event. This will ensure there is no
effect on the flood plain storage and therefore no adverse effect on the street or
surrounding properties from flooding
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 10
•
Traffic generation associated with the proposal will be significantly less than what
would be associated with a permitted business activity at the subject site. As such,
traffic generation associated with the proposal will be well within the capacity of the
existing road network
•
The surrounding Business 4 zone appears to be made up of offices and warehousing
activities that generally do not generate noise or effects that result in loss of amenity.
•
The site is serviced with adequate infrastructure to result in no adverse water capacity
and supply issues. The use of soakholes will ensure the stormwater effects are
confined to the subject site.
•
The Business 4 zone will be maintained and therefore the site could be developed for
business activities in the future
5.2
That, pursuant to section 95A(4), there are no special circumstances to warrant public
notification because the proposed development is not considered to be ‘special’. Although
not provided for in the Business 4 zone, residential development does occur and as such, it
cannot be described as being out of the ordinary and giving rise to special circumstances.
5.3
That, pursuant to section 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991, this application be
processed without limited notification because the adverse effects on any person are less
than minor. In particular:
•
It is considered there is sufficient separation distance between the proposed dwellings
and the neighbouring site to the east (off Rossmay Terrace) to avoid any adverse
dominance and shadowing effects.
•
Given the nature of the surrounding land-uses I do not consider there to be any
neighbouring properties which will suffer an adverse loss of privacy.
•
The residential site to the east of the subject sites on Rossmay Terrace will be
screened from the proposal by an existing solid fence along the boundary
approximately 1.8m in height. This adjacent site also contains a large number of
mature trees along its boundary with the subject site which will screen the proposal
•
The residential sites to the north generally have their living areas and main views to
the north, away from the subject site. The proposed residential units on the subject site
have the main outdoor living areas to the rear of the dwellings and no adverse privacy
effects on the apartments will result from the proposal.
•
When compared to the overall mass, scale and bulk of the residential apartments to
the north of the subject site on Rossmay Terrace, and the separation distance
between the existing and proposed developments, the proposal will result in no
dominance or shading on these apartments.
•
The zoning of the land will not change as a result of this proposal. As such,
neighbouring business development, which accords with the controls of the plan, will
not be affected by the proposal as this it can be built as of right
•
Written approval has been given by the persons listed in Section 5.1 above, and no
effects on those persons have been considered.
Accordingly, I recommend that the application proceed on a non-notified basis.
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 11
AUTHOR
Mark Weingarth
Senior Planner, Regulatory Planning
Date:
APPROVED FOR RELEASE TO DUTY COMMISSIONER
David Oakhill
Manager Resource Consents Central
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Date:
Page 12
8.
SECTION 104D ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to section 104D of the Resource Management Act if a proposal is a non-complying
activity then it must pass at least one of the tests of either section 104D(1)(a) or section
104D(1)(b) before an application can be assessed to make a decision under section 104B of
the Act. If the application fails both tests of section 104D then the application must be
declined.
8.1
Section 104D(1)(a) – Adverse effects on the environment will be minor
Section 104D(1)(a) of the Act requires that a council have regard to any adverse effects on
the environment of allowing the activity.
Pursuant to section 104(2), when forming an opinion for the purposes of section 104D(1)(a),
a council may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if the plan or a
national environmental standard permits an activity with that effect (i.e. the council may
consider the “permitted baseline”). In this case, In this case there is no permitted baseline
as all permitted and controlled activities on Business 4 zoned land, within 30m of a
residential zone require consent. A resource consent was granted on the site in 2008. This
allowed the site to be used as a construction storage yard, storing materials and equipment
used for constructions jobs. This consent makes up part of the existing baseline.
Pursuant to section 104(3)(a)(ii), when forming an opinion for the purposes of section
104D(1)(a) a council must not have regard to any effect on a person who has given written
approval to the proposal. The following persons have given written approval to the
application.
Owner / Occupier
Address
David
Sharpe
Brenna Waghorn
26 Altham Avenue
BVB
Limited
23 Altham Avenue
Holdings
Dave and Lesley
Giddens
30 Rossmay Terrace
Hard Rock Limited
29 Altham Avenue
No written notice of withdrawal of the approvals has been received from any party.
Having regard to the notification assessment of adverse effects on the environment of
allowing the activity for which resource consent is sought, it is considered that the proposal
will have less than minor adverse effects in the context of the local environment.
8.2
Section 104D(1)(b) – Proposal will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the
District Plan
Clause 2.3 – Resource Management: Objectives
Resource management objectives deal with the natural environment and resources,
heritage, community, commerce and urban growth. Of these, clause 2.3.5 (urban growth)
of the plan is considered most relevant to this proposal. Notwithstanding this, it is
considered that the proposal will fulfil the natural environment and resources, community
and commerce requirements.
Primarily the proposal involves the redevelopment of a brownfield site thereby preserving
natural resources and maintaining flora and fauna within the city. The proposal is not
considered to involve any significant heritage issues. In terms of community, the proposal
is considered to fulfil an economic and social need, providing additional housing within the
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 13
City on a site that has been vacant and under utilised for a number of years. The proposal
also improves the overall visual amenity of the existing built environment.
As for clause 2.3.5 of the plan, (which is concerned with urban growth), the subject site is
located within 350m of the Morningside train Station and Morningside shops. This supports
the promotion of use of public transport systems and helps to support the local economy.
As discussed above it is considered that the proposed land uses will be compatible with the
existing activities occurring on the sites surrounding the application site. Furthermore, the
proposal will visually enhance the amenity and character of the area and therefore I am of
the opinion that the resultant development will be generally consistent with the future urban
growth objectives of the plan.
Clause 5D.3 – Natural Hazards: Resource Management Objectives & Policies
As set out in section 4.1 of this report it is considered that the resultant development will be
constructed in a manner that avoids adverse effects on flooding. Furthermore, the ground
floor level of the resultant development will provide adequate freeboard clearance in
relation to the 1 in 100 year flood plain. As such, it is considered that the proposal will not
result in any significantly adverse effects in terms of flooding as required by clause 5D.3 of
the plan.
Clause 8.6.4 – Business 4 Zone: Objectives & Policies
The Business 4 zone primarily seeks to provide for medium intensity business activity,
maintain and enhance the quality of the environment in these zones and ensure that any
adverse environmental or amenity impact on adjacent residential or open space zones is
prevented or reduced to an acceptable level.
The proposal will enhance the visual amenity of the surrounding area and the residential
amenity of existing residents will be maintained with adequate separation distances between
the proposal and nearby residential zones. It is also considered that the proposed
development will not prevent future light industrial and office development within the area.
The zoning will remain Business 4 and as such future business development could occur on
the site. The proposed development would easily accommodate a number of activities which
are permitted within the zone, such as offices, care centre, healthcare services and
community welfare facilities in a form of development that provides increased amenity to the
adjacent residential sites. Notwithstanding the above, the Business 4 zone objectives and
policies make no provision for residential development and this is reflected by the list of
anticipated activities for the zone. I am of the opinion that the scale and form of the
residential activity will be appropriate in the context of the zone and surrounding area. As
such, on balance, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with, but not to the extent of
being contrary to the above objectives and policies.
Of the five titles, the most western lot is to remain in commercial use. Whilst the majority of
the site will become residential, the resultant development will visually enhance the
character and appearance of the area, as required under by policy 8.6.4.1(b) of the plan.
Also the proposed development will not prevent future light industrial and office development
within the area as the zone will not change. Additionally, the proposed dwellings may be
used for commercial activities which are permitted in the Business 4 zone and which could
easily be accommodated in a residential dwelling such as those proposed on the site.
Activities such as care centres, community welfare facilities, educational facilities and offices
are all examples of permitted activities which frequently operate out of residential dwellings
in other parts of the city.
It is acknowledged that this proposal has the potential to result in a precedent for allowing
future residential activity in the local area and Business 4 zones. As each application would
have to be determined on its own merits I consider that there are a number of unique factors
which make residential development at the subject site acceptable in comparison to other
Business 4 zones in the city. Primarily, this is due to the location of the site, directly
adjacent to medium density residential, in proximity to open space land uses, fairly close to
the CBD and close to public transport routes which supports the promotion of use of public
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 14
transport systems. Additionally the site has been vacant for a number of years which is not
a common occurrence for Business 4 zoned sites within the Isthmus. Recently it has been
used as a storage yard which was received a number of complaints regarding noise and the
activity occurring on the site. This, along with its lack of occupancy indicates that the site
may not be suitable for business use. It would be reasonable to say that such a situation is
fairly unique and therefore it is considered that granting consent to this application will not
set a precedent for residential units in the Business 4 zone.
District Plan Policy Summary
Overall, I consider that the proposal will not compromise the objectives and policies outlined
for the Business 4 zone. Whilst residential development is not anticipated for the Business
4 zone, the subject site is considered appropriate, given the surrounding residential zones
and as the proposal will make appropriate use of a vacant and under utilised piece of land.
It is considered that the proposal will improve the visual amenity and character of the street
around the site whilst not preventing future business development of the surrounding
Business 4 sites. As such the proposal is not considered to be contrary to the objectives
and policies of the District Plan.
9.
SECTION 104D RECOMMENDATION
From the above section 104D assessment it can be concluded that the application meets
both of the tests of section 104D of the Act. Therefore the application can be assessed
against the provisions of section 104B of the Act and a substantive decision made.
AUTHOR
Mark Weingarth
Senior Planner, Regulatory Planning
APPROVED FOR RELEASE TO DUTY COMMISSIONER
David Oakhill
Manager Resource Consents Central
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Date:
Page 15
10.
SECTION 104 ASSESSMENT
10.1 Statutory matters
Subject to Part 2 of the Act, when considering an application for resource consent and any
submissions received, a council must, in accordance with section 104(1) of the Act have
regard to:
•
any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity;
•
any relevant provisions of a national environmental standard, other regulations,
national policy statement, a New Zealand coastal policy statement, a regional policy
statement or proposed regional policy statement; a plan or proposed plan; and
•
any other matter a council considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine
the application.
As a non-complying activity, section 104B of the Act states that a council:
(a)
may grant or refuse the application; and
(b)
if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108.
10.2 Actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity –
section104(1)(a)
Section 104(1)(a) of the Act requires that the Council have regard to any actual and potential
effects on the environment of allowing the activity.
As a non-complying activity all actual and potential effects of the proposal are subject to
scrutiny. A variety of issues are relevant in determining the nature and scale of effects on
the environment including character, visual amenity, neighbouring amenity, traffic, parking,
amenity of future residents, natural hazards, stormwater, and future land uses. The adverse
effects of this proposal were assessed in section 4.1 of this report where it was considered
the adverse environmental effects would be less than minor.
In terms of positive effects, it is considered that the proposal will increase the visual amenity
of the street adjacent to the subject site and establish a less intrusive landuse adjacent to
the residential zone. Additionally the proposal will make good use of a vacant and under
utilised piece of land whist not preventing future business development on the site. As
established in section 4.1 of this report it is considered that the adverse environmental
effects associated with the proposal will be less then minor and the positive effects identified
above will help to mitigate the adverse effects. In particular, the use of already developed
land for more efficient uses is considered to sustain natural resources, whilst allowing the
applicant and local community to provide for their social and economic well-being.
In summary, it is my opinion that the proposal will result in positive effects that will result in a
net community benefit whilst adequately avoiding and mitigating adverse effects on the
environment.
10.3 Relevant national environmental standards, other regulations, policy statements,
plans or proposed plans (section 104(1)(b))
Section 104(1)(b) of the Act sets out that when considering an application for resource
consent, council shall have regard to the relevant provisions of any national environmental
standards, other regulations, policy statements (national and regional, including proposed
regional policy statements), or plans or proposed plans. The relevant statutory documents
in this case, are addressed below.
10.3.1 Auckland City Operative District Plan 1999 – Isthmus Section
10.3.1.1 Objectives and policies
The objectives and policies relevant to this proposal have been assessed above in section
8.2 of this report and it has been concluded that the proposal is not contrary to the relevant
provisions of the District Plan.
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 16
10.3.1.2 Assessment Criteria
The District Plan does not specify any assessment criteria for non-complying activities
however the following activities have assessment criteria and for the purposes of this
proposal they have been used to assist in the assessment of the proposal.
Clause 8.7.3.2 – Business Activity: General Criteria for Assessing Discretionary Activities
Parking is provided for onsite and allows for two car parks per residential dwelling which is
consistent with the requirements for residential dwellings. Access to the site will not change
and traffic generation will be much less than an activity such as an office in this zone.
The dwellings will be of a similar size and design to those on the adjoining sites to the east
and southeast. Furthermore, the proposal is considered to have positive visual impacts in
terms of the visual amenity of the locality.
Given the nature of the use and the scale of the proposed development it is my opinion that
the noise resulting from the proposal will comply with District Plan noise controls.
Additionally, from visiting the site, the surrounding area is made up of light industrial and
warehouse type businesses which generally do not produce excessive amounts of noise
that are likely to reduce the aural amenity of the residential dwellings on the subject site.
The proposed development complies with the development controls for both the Business 4
and Residential 6a zone. The proposal will increase the amenity value of the adjacent
residential sites and will not impact on the visual and aural amenity of these sites.
The applicant has demonstrated that the resultant development can be serviced for
infrastructure. In terms of topography the site, being generally flat, it is suitable for the
proposed development. It is considered that the resultant development will offer a higher
degree of visual amenity to the surrounding area than what currently exists.
Overall, I consider that the proposal will adhere to the assessment criteria for discretionary
within the District Plan
10.4 Part 2 of the Act
Section 5 in Part 2 identifies the purpose of the RMA as being the sustainable management
of natural and physical resources. This means managing the use of natural and physical
resources in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, cultural
and economic well-being while sustaining those resources for future generations, protecting
the life supporting capacity of ecosystems, and avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse
effects on the environment. The proposal represents a sustainable form of development
that allows the applicant to provide for their economic and social well being in a manner that
generally avoids and mitigates adverse effects on the environment.
Section 6 of the Act sets out a number of matters of national importance, however this
proposal does not involve any such matters.
Section 7 identifies a number of “other matters” to be given particular regard by a council in
the consideration of any assessment for resource consent, and includes the efficient use of
natural and physical resources, and the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values.
It is considered that the proposal is an appropriate use and development of the site and the
proposal will retain and enhance the visual amenity of the area.
Section 8 requires a council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
The proposal is not considered to raise any treaty issues.
Overall, the application is considered to meet the relevant provisions of Part 2 of the Act as
the proposal achieves the purpose of the Act being the sustainable management of natural
and physical resources.
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 17
10.5 Section 104(1)(c) - Other matters
10.5.1 Monitoring
In granting consent to an application, a council may impose conditions to offset any adverse
effects associated with the land use. In addition, a council is required to monitor the
exercise of resource consents under section 35 of the Act and may fix a charge under
section 36 payable by the consent holder in order to carry out monitoring functions. The
amount that can be charged is based on actual and reasonable costs associated with
monitoring and covers such tasks as site inspections, carrying out tests and administration.
The main components of this consent that will require monitoring are ensuring that the works
are carried out in accordance with the approved plans and accompanying information. It is
therefore anticipated that a monitoring fee of $500 (exclusive of GST) will be appropriate in
this case. A condition requiring payment of this fee is recommended.
10.5.2 Local Government Act 2002 – Development contribution
The proposal provides for four additional household units/residential lots. The application
was received on 30 September 2010 therefore a development contribution is applicable
under the Auckland City Council Development Contributions Policy. The contributions team
have been advised and a notice of assessment will be sent out in due course.
10.5.2 Auckland Regional Growth Strategy
The proposal is considered to be consistent with the Auckland Regional Planning Statement
as it encourages the use of previously developed land and directs development to the areas
of the region which are served by existing transport services and infrastructure. The
proposal will promote the intensification of existing urban areas providing more efficient use
of existing infrastructure and slowing down the expansion of urban growth into the rural land
being used for agricultural and recreational purposes.
Although not within one of the identified town centres, the subject site is within 350m of the
Morningside Railway Station and Morningside Shops. As such do not consider the proposed
development will fundamentally jeopardise overall objectives or be contrary to the
requirements of Regional policy.
The Development Plans seek to intensify development within the boundaries of the existing
urban environment and do so in a manner, which preserves natural resources. The
Regional Policy seeks to promote the use of public transport and reduce reliance on nonrenewable fuels. Furthermore, the Regional Plan goes onto outline policies and methods of
encouraging public transport use and increasing access. In light of the Regional Plan
Policies I consider it more appropriate to promote development within the existing urban
environment rather than looking at greenfield development on the edge of urban areas.
The proposal is considered to be consistent with the Auckland Regional Planning Statement
as it encourages the use of previously developed land and directs development to the areas
of the region which are served by existing transport services and infrastructure. The
proposal will promote the intensification of existing urban areas providing more efficient use
of existing infrastructure and slowing down the expansion of urban growth into the rural land
being used for agricultural and recreational purposes.
10.5.3 Designations/limitations
Flooding
Council Development Engineer, Mr Wayne Teagle has assessed the proposal and the
applicant’s flooding report and determined that the proposed dwellings will have adequate
freeborard heights to comply with clause 5D.6.1 of the District Plan. In order to ensure this,
in the event of consent being granted I consider a condition requiring freeboard heights of
34.68m for the residential properties would be reasonable and necessary.
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 18
10.5.4 Any other relevant matters
Katherine Dorofaeff, Senior Policy Planner, Inner Isthmus was consulted with regard to this
application. Ms Dorofaeff provided a policy overview (Appendix D) relevant to this proposal
and these policies have been assessed above in section 8.2 of this report. Ms Dorofaeff
also outlined the background to plan change 71 which rezoned Business 4 land to Mixed
Use. Principally the purposes of the plan change was to address concerns around the loss
of business land and to address reverse sensitivity issues. For the reasons outlined above
in this report I am of the opinion that the proposal will have no adverse reverse sensitivity
issues given the sites relationship with existing residential activities and the nature of land
uses in the Business 4 zone neighbouring the site. Secondly, the subject site has been
vacant for a number of years, with previous business activities not being sustained at the
site. Ms Dorofaeff is of the opinion that this proposal could be refused purely on policy
grounds, however Ms Dorofaeff has not had regard to other planning considerations being
Part 2 of the Act, principles of sustainable development, the nature of the proposal and its
relationship with existing residential areas and so on. Overall, when balancing all these
factors I do not concur with Ms Dorofaeff. It is acknowledged that the proposal could be
seen as contrary to the District Plan, however on balance when considering all factors I am
of the opinion that refusal is not justified in this instance.
It is acknowledged that this proposal has the potential to result in a precedent for allowing
future residential activity in the local area and Business 4 zones. Each application has to be
determined on its own merits and in this case I consider that there are a number of unique
factors which make residential development at the subject site acceptable in comparison to
other Business 4 zones in the city. Primarily, this is due to the unique location of the site,
directly adjacent to medium density residential, in proximity to open space land uses,
approximately 4km from the CBD and close to public transport routes which supports the
promotion of use of public transport systems. Additionally the site has been ‘vacant’ for a
number of years which is not a common occurrence for Business 4 zoned sites within the
Isthmus. Recently it has been used as a commercial storage yard which was received a
number of complaints regarding noise and the activity occurring on the site. This, along with
its lack of occupancy indicates that the site may not be suitable for business use. In my
opinion that such a situation is fairly unique and therefore it is considered that granting
consent to this application will not set a precedent for residential units in the Business 4
zone.
I am aware of the apartment complex opposite the subject site which is also on land zoned
Business 4. This was developed prior to the existence of the Mixed Use zone and when
residential development was a permitted activity in the Business 4 zone. I do not consider
that the presence of these apartments sets a precedent whereby this development need be
approved. Consequently, should consent be granted for this proposed development, I do not
consider it will set a precedent for subsequent applications of this nature.
11.
SECTION 104 CONCLUSION
Taking the above assessment into consideration, I consider the proposal is appropriate in
the context of the Business 4 zone and specifically on the subject site. The proposal has
been considered in terms of character, visual amenity, neighbouring amenity, traffic, parking,
amenity of future residents, natural hazards, stormwater, and future land uses and it is
considered that any adverse effects arising from the proposal will be less than minor.
In terms of positive effects, it is considered the proposal will increase the visual amenity of
the street adjacent to the site and establish a less intrusive landuse adjacent to the
residential zone. The use of already developed, yet under utilized sites for more efficient
uses is considered to sustain natural resources, whilst allowing the applicant to provide for
their social and economic well-being.
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 19
In terms of section 101(1)(b) of the Act, the proposal is not contrary to the objectives and
policies for the Business 4 zone under the Operative Plan, the assessment criteria for
development control modification and Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Taking the above into consideration, the effects on the environment are considered to be
less than minor and the proposal is consistent with the relative objectives and policies, and
assessment criteria for development control modification and Part 2 of the Resource
Management Act 1991.
12.
SECTION 104B RECOMMENDATION
That for the reasons stated in the above assessment (and subject to conditions), this
application be granted consent.
AUTHOR
Mark Weingarth
Senior Planner, Regulatory Planning
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Date:
Page 20
RECOMMENDATION ON RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION R/LUC/2010/4041 AT 25 & 27
ALTHAM AVENUE AND 26 & 28 ROSSMAY TERRACE, KINGSLAND, AUCKLAND 1024
Application R/LUC/2010/4041 has been made by K McEwan for a non-complying activity land use
consent to construct and use four residential units at 25 & 27 Altham Avenue and 26 & 28
Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland 1024 on land described at LOT 99 DP 18503 CT
NA427/85, LOT 100 DP18503 CT NA429/59, LOT 63 DP19002 CT NA443/106 and LOT 64
DP19002 CT NA482/117. This requires resource consent for the following reasons:
Operative Auckland City District Plan 1999 – Isthmus Section
•
Under Rule 8.7.1 of the Operative District Plan 1999 – Isthmus Section, the construction and
use of residential units are not provided for as permitted, controlled, restricted discretionary
or discretionary activity in the Business 4 zone and therefore pursuant to clause 4.2.1.4 of
the District Plan assesment as a non complying activity is reqired.
Pursuant to section 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991, this application is granted
consent.
Pursuant to section 113 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the reasons for this decision are
as follows:
(a)
In terms of section 104(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the reasons for this
decision are as follows:
•
The resultant development will have a considerably lower height, mass, scale and bulk in
comparison to what could be built on the site in terms of the Business 4 development
controls
•
The nature and design of the proposal will be in character with the adjacent residential
sites to the east and southeast.
•
The proposed four residential dwellings are unlikely to have an adverse visual impact on
the character of the area that is significant.
•
The existing site is currently covered with asphalt and is approximately 86%
impermeable coverage. The proposal will decrease impermeable coverage and improve
stormwater drainage
•
The proposal does not represent an overdevelopment of the site and confines
stormwater effects to the site
•
Planting along the front boundary of Altham Avenue is proposed. This will provide the
residential dwellings which are accessed off Altham Avenue some privacy and screening
from the business activities opposite the site.
•
Traffic generation associated with the proposal will be significantly less than what would
be associated with a permitted business activity at the subject site
•
It is considered the proposal will increase the visual amenity of the street adjacent to the
subject site and establish a less obtrusive landuse adjacent to the residential zone
•
The dwellings will be oriented so that the main family living and outdoor living areas are
to the rear of the sites, away from the adjacent businesses. It is therefore considered
that adequate separation between the neighbouring activities and primary amenity areas
of the dwellings will be retained
•
The surrounding Business 4 zone is made up of offices and warehousing activities that
generally do not generate noise or effects that could result in loss of amenity.
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 1
•
The Business 4 zone will be maintained and therefore the site could be developed for
business activities in the future
•
The proposal will make use of an already developed, vacant and under utilised piece of
land for more efficient uses and is considered to sustain natural resources, whilst
allowing the applicant and local community to provide for their social and economic wellbeing.
•
The proposal has the potential to result in a precedent for allowing future residential
activity in Business 4 zones. However, as each application would have to be determined
on its own merits I consider granting consent would not set a precedent for residential
units in the Business 4 zone.
(b)
In terms of section 104(1)(b) of the Act, the proposal is not contrary to the relative policy
statements and plans or proposed plans, including the relevant objectives and policies and
assessment criteria of the Auckland City Operative Plan 1999 – Isthmus Section. In
particular it is considered that the proposal is a appropriate within the Business 4 zone in this
area and represents a sustainable form of development.
(c)
In terms of section 104(1)(c) of the Act, other relevant matters, including monitoring and
precedent have been considered in the determination of the application.
Pursuant to section 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991, this consent is subject to the
following conditions:
Predevelopment conditions
Administrative Charges
(1)
Pursuant to section 116 of the RMA, this consent (or any part thereof) shall not commence
until such time as all charges pursuant to section 36 of the RMA, owing at the time of
Council’s decision is notified are paid in full to the Council.
Monitoring Charges
(2)
The consent holder shall pay the Council a consent compliance monitoring charge of $500
(exclusive of GST), plus any further monitoring charge or charges to recover the actual and
reasonable costs that have been incurred to ensure compliance with the conditions attached
to this consent. (This charge is to cover the cost of inspecting the site, carrying out tests,
reviewing conditions, updating files, etc, all being work to ensure compliance with the
resource consent).
The $500 (exclusive of GST) charge shall be paid as part of the resource consent fee and
the consent holder will be advised of the further monitoring charge or charges as they fall
due. Such further charges are to be paid within one month of the date of invoice.
Earthworks
(3)
Prior to any earthworks, demolition or site works commencing, the consent holder shall
provide to the satisfaction of Council’s Resource Consents Monitoring Leader an erosion
and sediment control plan. The plan should be in accordance with ARC Technical
Publication 90 (TP90). The approved sediment control plan shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of council’s Resource Consent Monitoring Leader prior to any works occurring
on site.
The implementation and maintenance of the sediment control measures shall ensure that no
silt, or sediment, including soil, excavated material, material, building material or other
materials, or water containing silt or sediment, including soil, excavated material, building
material or other materials, is discharged into or deposited, washed, drained, pumped, or
allowed to flow to any:
(a)
stream; or
(b)
park or reserve; or
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 2
(c)
stormwater pipe, drain or channel; or
(d)
soakage pit; or
(e)
road, road reserve, berm, footpath; or neighbouring site
Construction Traffic Management Plan
(4)
Prior to commencement of any works on the site, the consent holder shall submit a
Construction Traffic Management (CTMP) Plan to the satisfaction of the Council (Resource
Consents Monitoring Leader). The CTMP shall include specific details relating to avoiding,
remedying or mitigating adverse traffic effects on the environment associated with
demolition, earthworks, and construction works and include the following details:
i)
Details of the site manager, including their contact details (phone, facsimile, postal
address);
ii)
The location of a large notice board on the site that clearly identifies the name,
telephone number and address for service of the site manager;
iii)
Ingress and egress to and from the site for vehicles and construction machinery
during site works period.
iv)
Proposed location of wheel-wash facilities.
v)
Proposed numbers and timing of truck movements throughout the day and the
proposed routes.
vi)
Details of any required road closures or obstruction of the public roads during delivery
of materials (including the siting of the dwellings) and the removal of waste.
vii)
Proposed hours of work on the site (NB: hours shall correspond with any other
condition in this consent relating to working hours).
Street Tree Protection
(5) Prior to the commencement of development the consent holder shall erect tree protection
fencing around the driplines of the street trees located outside the subject site on Altham
Avenue and Rossmay Terrace. The fencing shall be no less then 1.8m high and be of a
solid construction. The location of the fencing shall be erected to the satisfaction of the
Resource Consent Monitoring Leader and the ACR Services Street Arborist and thereafter
retained during the proposed works.
Development in progress conditions
Flooding
(6)
The dwelling hereby approved on Lot 100 DP DP18503 shall have a minimum freeboard
height of 34.68m to comply with the required freeboard clearance as specified by clause
5D.6.1 of the District Plan.
Post development conditions
Amenity Planting
(7)
Immediately following the completion of works on site, the consent holder shall plant at
least three appropriate replacement trees along the road boundary of 25 Altham Avenue
and plant at least three appropriate replacement trees along the road boundary of 27
Altham Avenue. The trees shall have a minimum root ball size of Pb 150 (or equivalent)
and a minimum height of 1.8 metres at the time of planting. The replacement trees shall be
maintained thereafter and remain for the duration of this consent.
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 3
Other conditions
Activity in Accordance with Plans
(8) (a) The construction of four residential units shall be carried out in accordance with the plans
and all information submitted with the application, being
Reference number
Title
Architect/Author
Date
Drawing No A1100
Drawing No A1200
Drawing No A2000
Existing Site Plan
Proposed Site Location Plan
Proposed
Street
Frontage
Elevations
Proposed Eastern Elevations
Proposed Western Elevations
Studio Alila
Studio Alila
Studio Alila
01/08/10
01/08/10
01/08/10
Studio Alila
Studio Alila
01/08/10
01/08/10
Drawing No A2001
Drawing No A2002
•
Application for Resource Consent to establish four residential dwellings a 25 & 27
Altham Avenue and 26 & 28 Rossmay Terrace, Mount Eden, Joint Forces Limited
•
25,27 and 29 Altham Avenue and 26 and 28 Rossmay Terrace, Mt Eden
Engineering Report, MSC dated 10 September 2010.
and referenced by Council as R/LUC/2010/4041.
(b) In the event of any inconsistency between the approved plans and supplementary
documentation, the plans will prevail.
(c)
Please read the conditions of this resource consent carefully and make sure that you
understand all the conditions that have been imposed before commencing the
development.
Amenity
(9)
The colour scheme of the dwellings shall be compatible with the dwellings in the
surrounding area.
Advice notes
1.
The Consent Holder shall be advised that by giving effect to this resource consent,
resource consent R/LUC/2008/2369 may not be implemented in whole or part and
therefore no commercial storage facilities shall be permitted on site.
2.
This resource consent will lapse five years after the date of commencement unless:
(a)
it is given effect to before the end of that period; or
(b)
an application is made and granted prior to the expiry of that period for a time
extension. The statutory considerations that apply to extensions are set out in
section 125 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
3.
The consent holder shall obtain all other necessary consents and permits, including those
under the Building Act 2004, and comply with all relevant Council Bylaws. This consent
does not constitute building consent approval. Please check whether a building consent is
required under the Building Act 2004. Please note that the approval of this resource
consent, including consent conditions specified above, may affect a previously issued
building consent for the same project, in which case a new building consent may be
required.
4.
A copy of this consent shall be held on site at all times during the establishment and
construction phase of the activity.
5.
The consent holder is requested to notify Council, in writing, of their intention to begin
works, a minimum of seven days prior to commencement. Such notification should be sent
to the Resource Consent Monitoring Team Leader (email: rcmadmin or fax: 353 9186) and
include the following details:
•
name and telephone number of the project manager and the site owner
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 4
•
•
•
site address to which the consent relates
activity to which the consent relates
expected duration of works
6.
This consent does not relieve the consent holder of his/her responsibility to apply for any
other consents which may be required by the Auckland Regional Council and/or New
Zealand Historic Places Trust. This consent is issued under the Resource Management
Act 1991 and does not remove the need to comply with all other applicable Acts (including
the Property Law Act), regulations, Bylaws, and rules of law.
7.
The scope of this resource consent is defined by the application made to Auckland City
Council and all documentation supporting that application.
8.
If you disagree with any of the above conditions, or disagree with the additional charges
relating to the processing of the application you have a right of objection pursuant to
sections 357A or 357B of the Resource Management Act 1991. Any objection must be
made in writing to Council within 15 working days of notification of the decision.
9.
Subject to Section 198 of the Local Government Act 2002 and Auckland City Council’s Policy
on Development Contributions, a development contribution is payable on this proposal. A
notice of this assessment will be sent out which outlines the amount of the contribution payable
for this development. Pease contact the Development Contributions team for any queries in this
regard. Please note that with respect to this development, building consents will not be
released and code of compliance certificates will not be issued until the development
contribution is paid.
APPROVED FOR RELEASE
Recommendation approved for release to the Duty Commissioner.
David Oakhill
Manager Resource Consents Central
Date:
R/LUC/2010/4041 – 25, 27 Altham Avenue and 26, 28 Rossmay Terrace, Kingsland, Auckland
Page 5