Decision following the hearing of an
application for resource consent under the
Resource Management Act 1991
Proposal
To construct a new six storey residential apartment building containing 92 residential
apartments and ground floor retail activities.
This resource consent is GRANTED. The reasons are set out below.
Application number
R/LUC/2014/5185
Site address
6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Applicant
Neil Properties Limited
Hearing commenced
16 July 2015 at 9.30am
Independent Hearing
Commissioners
Mr Barry Kaye (chairperson)
Ms Jenny Hudson
Mr David Mead
Appearances
For the Applicant
Mr Russell Bartlett – Legal Counsel
Mr Phil Ainsworth and Mr James Rigg – Applicant’s representatives
Mr Ron Fox (with Mr Graeme Ricketts and Mr Chris Pollard) –
Architects
Ms Rebecca Skidmore – Urban Design
Mr Gary Deeney (with Mr Mark Charlesworth) – Planning
With:
Ms Claire Walker – Landscape (to assist)
For the Submitters
Julia C Wood, 211/8 Nugent Street
Glenys Knox, 210/8 Nugent Street
Two Degrees Mobile Ltd
•
Ben Blakemore - Planning
•
Chris Simmons - Legal Counsel
For the Council
Mr Mark Weingarth – Team Leader Resource Consents
Ms Amber Buckley – Reporting Planner
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Mr Martin Peake – Traffic Engineer
Ms Nina Patel – Consultant Urban Design Specialists
Ms Melissa Warmenhoven – Hearings Advisor
Hearing adjourned
Adjourned 16 July 2015 to receive revised conditions.
Commissioners’ site
visit
15 July 2015
Hearing closed
20 July 2015
Introduction
1.
This decision is made on behalf of the Auckland Council (“the Council”) by Independent
Hearing Commissioners Kaye, Hudson and Mead, appointed and acting under delegated
authority under sections 34 and 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“the RMA”).
2.
This decision contains the findings from our deliberations on the application for resource
consent and has been prepared in accordance with section 113 of the RMA.
3.
The application was publicly notified on 19 December 2014. A total of 15 submissions
were received, with 1 in support, and 14 in opposition.
Summary of proposal and activity status
4.
The applicant proposes to construct a new six storey residential apartment building
containing 92 residential apartments and ground floor retail activities.
5.
We were advised that Resource Consent was granted in 2007 (Council reference
R/LUC/2006/8708) for a development of the subject site. That consent approved a mixed
use development consisting of five buildings. The approved buildings consisted of: an
apartment building with some retail (Building A); two commercial/office buildings
(Buildings B and C); one parking building (Building D); and a small service building
(Building E). The consent holder subsequently applied to extend the timeframe of the
consent in order to complete the development. An extension of time was approved 7th
December 2012 (R/EXT/2006/8707/1). The primary consent will expire December 2017.
6.
A number of variations to this consent have occurred since 2007 for minor changes to the
internal layout and design of the buildings.
7.
A separate Resource Consent (R/LUC/2009/4669) approved signage associated with the
development, and consent (R/LUC/2010/1033) was approved to establish a gym on the
site.
8.
All of the above mentioned buildings have been constructed and are now used for their
intended purposes apart from Building C. The original consent (R/LUC/2006/8708)
intended Building C to be a six level commercial building (including basement level), with
the basement level being used for parking. The basement level of Building C links up with
Building D for access. The subsurface parking structure of Building C has been
constructed to the ground floor/podium level.
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 2
9.
The subject application seeks to:
a.
change the consented use of Building C from commercial/office use to residential use
with some retail units on the ground floor; and
b.
add an extra storey to consented Building C.
10.
By adding the extra storey and reducing the floor to ceiling heights approved for the office
development two additional stories of development will be created. However this will
appear as a 3m taller building compared to the approved scheme due to the compression
of stud heights.
11.
The proposed building will cover six levels (above the basement) with bicycle and vehicle
parking located on the basement level; retail units, residential apartments, and lobby area
on the ground floor/podium level; and apartments on the remaining five floors. The
maximum height of the proposed building will be 25.5m (excluding lift overruns).
12.
The 92 proposed apartments consist of a mixture of one, two and three bedroom
apartments over the six floors. Each apartment has an outdoor courtyard or deck area.
13.
The proposed new building will have 190 parking spaces allocated for its use. 71 parking
spaces will be allocated for residential use in the basement level of Building C, 88 spaces
for residential use will be located in Building D, and 31 parking spaces for retail use will be
located in Building D. Access to parking will be through the existing vehicle access ways
through the internal plaza and also through the garage doors directly off of Nugent Street.
14.
The proposal also involves the development of 4 signage zones for backlit signs on the
Western façade of the building, and 1 signage zone along the facia of the projected
canopy over the pedestrian entrance.
15.
A full and accurate description of the proposal was set out in the Assessment of Effects
prepared by Positive Planning, dated December 2014.
16.
The proposal requires resource consent for the following reasons:
•
Retail activities exceeding the permitted threshold level across the entire site;
•
Infringements to maximum building height and gross floor area;
•
Private open space shortfalls on four ground floor apartments;
•
Loading space shortfalls;
•
Development within an overland flow path.
Full details of the reasons for consent was set out in para. 4.1 of the section 42A report
and we do not repeat those here.
17.
There is a consent notice on the title that needs to be amended to enable this grant of
consent to be implemented. Consent Notice 9231567.3 states that any structure in this
location has to be built in accordance with approved plans as part of R/LUC/2006/8707.
The proposal changes the design of Building C and therefore the consent notice must be
amended.
18.
Overall the proposal has been considered as a discretionary activity.
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 3
Relevant statutory provisions considered
19.
In accordance with section 104 of the RMA, we have had regard to the relevant statutory
provisions including the relevant sections of Part 2 and sections 104, 104B, 108 and 221.
Relevant standards, policy statements and plan provisions considered
20.
21.
In accordance with section 104(1)(b)(i)-(vi) of the RMA, we have had regard to the
relevant policy statements and plan provisions of the following documents:
•
Operative Auckland Council District Plan – Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999
(“District Plan”)
•
Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement ("ACRPS")
•
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (“PAUP”).
We also considered the following other matters to be relevant and reasonably necessary
to determine the application in accordance with section 104(1)(c) of the RMA.
•
Resource Consent granted in 2007 (Council reference R/LUC/2006/8708) and an
extension of time approved 7th December 2012 (R/EXT/2006/8707/1).
Summary of evidence heard
For the council
22.
The evidence presented at the hearing responded to the issues and concerns identified in
the Council planning officer’s (Ms Buckley) recommendation report, the application itself
and the submissions made on the application.
23.
The Council planning officer’s recommendation report (Ms Buckley) was circulated prior to
the hearing and taken as read.
24.
Ms Buckley undertook a careful analysis of the environmental effects of the proposal,
relying upon the Council's specialist advisors as appropriate, and analysed the application
in terms of the statutory criteria. She concluded that although there would be some
adverse privacy, dominance and amenity effects on existing residents in the complex,
these effects would be acceptable given the nature of the surrounding environment and
proposed mitigation measures. She considered that the proposal was consistent with the
objectives and policies of the relevant statutory documents and there would be positive
social and economic benefits that would outweigh the minor adverse effects experienced
by a few adjacent sites. She recommended that consent be granted subject to conditions.
For the applicant
25.
The evidence presented by the applicant at the hearing is summarised below.
Mr Bartlett, counsel for the applicant, outlined the previous history of the site and the
proposed amendments to the consented design (as a new application). He described the
main features of the proposed building, which is to be developed on the consented and
established footprint for Building C by adding two levels. As a result of the reduced stud
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 4
height for residential rather than commercial use, one of the new floors "is absorbed into
the consented volume". 1
Mr Bartlett also described the elements of consent sought as:
•
the proposed quantum of retail area
•
open space reductions for ground floor apartments
•
loading space requirements
•
overland flowpath issues
•
exceedance of the permitted activity standards for building height and gross floor
area.
Mr Bartlett referred to the evidence to be called for the applicant and discussed the issue
of height. He submitted that the modification to the standard development control is at the
lower end, representing one storey, and the site and surrounds are able to accommodate
this. He concluded that the completed parts of the development provide an excellent
example of what can be achieved "in a generally scrappy brownfields area." 2
Mr Ainsworth, the CEO of The Neil Group Limited, gave evidence on behalf of Neil
Properties Limited ('Neil'), the applicant company. He commented on the type of
development and staging originally envisaged and consented for the site, and the impact
of the Global Financial Crisis on the company's ability to lease both the office and
residential floorspace. He stated that Building C had been promoted until late 2014 as A
Grade office space but the company had been unsuccessful in obtaining tenants. The
decision was made to investigate an apartment option for Building C based on successful
sales of apartments in Building A. Mr Ainsworth anticipated that the construction
timeframe for this option would be approximately 15 months because the car park level
and podium have already been built. A construction methodology for the site has already
been worked through and a construction traffic management plan will be implemented for
the Plaza to minimise disruption to existing tenants and owners of Building A apartments.
He considered the site had locational attributes which would give residents access to
many amenities and had observed that many existing apartment owners do not need to
use their cars to get to work, as around 44% of their vehicles are left in the parking
building each day. He considered that the Building C apartments would see the successful
conclusion of the Nugent Street project.
The applicant's architect, Mr Fox, discussed the built form of the existing development, the
design brief for the Building C apartments, the proposed layout of this building, the mix of
apartments, inter-floor heights, setbacks from Building B, changes in building bulk,
proposed materials and colours, and privacy and outlook issues. He explained that the
ground to first floor height would be 3.5m and floor to floor heights for the remaining levels
would be 3.4m. Living and bedroom areas would have a minimum floor to ceiling height of
1
2
opening submission of counsel for the applicant, paragraph 7
ibid, paragraphs 14 and 16
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 5
2.6m whereas bathrooms would be 2.4m high to allow for services. The structural design
for the building would not enable the floor to floor heights to be reduced.
Ms Skidmore gave evidence on the urban design, landscape and visual effects of the
proposed building. Ms Skidmore cross-referenced her evidence to the November 2014
assessment that she had undertaken and which formed part of the resource consent
application AEE. She referred to the description and analysis of the subject site, and the
consented building which she considered "has a solid appearance that reflects its
commercial use with generous proportions and a stepped profile to the roofline." 3 She
discussed the site context and referred to the proximity of rail and road networks, and the
traditional 'Mainstreet' commercial strip in nearby Symonds Street. She noted that her
previous report had set out the relevant District Plan context for considering the proposal
and that the statutory context was set out fully in the AEE.
She considered that the site is well located to accommodate residential activity, which is
permitted in the Mixed Use zone. She was of the opinion that the proposed building has a
better visual appearance than the consented building, and that it would be compatible with
its surrounds, although taller.
She commented on the issues raised in submissions in some detail, identifying four
distinct groups comprising the viewing audience. She considered that the proposal was
consistent with the policy framework for the Mixed Use zone in terms of its easy access to
a range of employment and transport options and would make "a positive contribution to
the creation of a vibrant urban area." 4
Ms Skidmore was of the opinion that a separation distance of 17m between the
apartments in Building A and the proposed apartments in Building C, which she likened to
the dimension of a street, would maintain the amenity of the existing apartments. She
noted that all apartments in Building A, except the one in the north eastern corner of the
building at each level, have a primary orientation to the north or south, away from Building
C. 5
Ms Skidmore discussed the specific effects of the additional building height on Units 507
and 508 of Building A, acknowledging that there would be "some reduction" in the
extensive outlook currently enjoyed by Unit 508 but in her opinion, the amenity of the unit
would be maintained. She said that there would also be a reduced outlook from Unit 507,
but that there would be a reduced outlook for this unit from the central portion of the
consented building, albeit that this was lower at its western face. She considered that the
proposed building provided good separation to avoid over-dominance and to maintain the
amenity of this unit.
She also considered the effects of the building on the Level 6 apartment facing towards
Building C, concluding that the rooftop elements would occupy a limited area of outlook,
and are setback from the building edge so that they would not intrude to an extent that
adversely affects the amenity of Apartment 602.
3
Evidence of R Skidmore, paragraph 2.2
ibid, paragraph 2.11
5
ibid, paragraph 3.3
4
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 6
Ms Skidmore then commented on the amenity of the plaza space and in her opinion, an
increased concentration of residential activity would not diminish the amenity or
attractiveness of the plaza area.
She referred to the section 42A report and responded to the CPTED and visual privacy
matters raised in the urban design specialist report, as well as proposed conditions.
Her overall conclusion was that the proposal will make a positive contribution to the
evolving inner city neighbourhood and is consistent with the policy framework set out in
the District Plan for the Mixed Use zone.
Mr Deeney's planning evidence covered the matters requiring consent in some detail. He
referred briefly to the statutory matters under sections 104 and 104B of the RMA, the
relevant rules and assessment criteria relating to construction of a new building,
establishment of retail activities, and modification of the building height, site intensity and
private open space controls, as well as the loading bay shortfall, provision of more than
100 parking spaces and diversion of an overland flow path. He referred to submissions
and the consent notices, and recommended conditions of consent. His overall conclusion,
having had regard to Part 2 of the RMA, was that any adverse effects would be less than
minor and that the application is not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the
Operative District Plan or the PAUP.
For the submitters
26.
The evidence presented by the submitters is summarised as follows.
27.
Ms Julia Wood told us that she is a resident in Building A and her apartment faces the
existing parking building, which is about 15m away. She has a problem with car headlights
both day and night. Her curtains do not mitigate the effects of the headlights as she does
not want to close them during the day. She would like the parking building to have raised
palings. She did not consider that this concern has been adequately resolved.
She also mentioned that the plaza is windy and queried whether the proposed
building would create a wind tunnel. The wind is mostly from the south.
28.
Ms Glenys Knox owns an apartment on the south-eastern corner of Level 2 in Building A.
Her main concern is privacy. She has always known about the consent for Building C, but
office use would mean that after hours no-one would be looking towards her apartment.
Her east-facing windows are important for sun and outlook and she did not think that there
was enough separation between Buildings A and C to maintain privacy. She was not
assured that the amount of sunlight she received would be the same with the new building
as the consented one.
She considered that mixed use was a good concept, but the present balance was in
favour of a small community of residents and it would be hard work getting to know three
times as many people in the proposed apartments. She had trusted the consent for the
office building and did not want residents living opposite her apartment.
Two Degrees Mobile Limited
29.
Mr Simmons, counsel for Two Degrees Mobile Limited ('2degrees'), submitted that the
proposed development would obstruct the operation of one of the panel antennas at an
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 7
established mobile telecommunications facility at 131 Khyber Pass Road. His submission
outlined the background and significance of the 2degrees facility, the effect of the
proposal on the facility, the relevant statutory criteria and policy considerations under the
RMA, the Council officer's report, and the relief sought. He told us that the proposed
development will block one of the antennas, which "will have the practical effect of
completely obstructing a significant proportion of the coverage area ... which will prevent
2degrees from providing reception coverage to half of the area it currently services." 6
He discussed the concept of the 'existing environment', citing the Court of Appeal decision
in Hawthorn, that the existing consent is extant, and cannot be considered as part of the
existing environment. He submitted that the future environment aspect of the existing
environment is unchanged by the previously consented Building C because it is likely that
the consent will not be given effect to (as per Hawthorn). 7
Mr Simmons referred to the three alternative grounds for relief in the 2degrees submission
on the application, being:
30.
•
that the application is amended to allow the 2degrees facility to continue to operate
without interference effects from the proposed building;
•
that the applicant agree to the relocation of the 2degrees facility on the proposed
building; or
•
that the applicant contribute to the cost of relocating the facility.
Mr Blakemore, the RAN Acquisition Manager at 2degrees, gave evidence on the
discussions that had taken place with the applicant regarding 2degrees' concerns, the
history of the facility at 131 Khyber Pass Road (constructed in 2007), the extent of the
mobile telecommunications coverage provided by the facility, and the effects of the
proposed building. In his evidence, he conceded that the consented building "would have
equally significant effects on [2degrees] ability to provide coverage to the target area." 8
However, he was relying on legal advice that the consented building does not form part of
the existing environment. He said that 2degrees was now looking for a replacement site,
but clarified that it was one antenna only that was affected by the height of Building C. It
would cost approximately $50,000 - 60,000 to relocate that antenna and relocation would
be required from the time that construction begins to physically block the coverage from
Antenna 2.9 In response to questions from the commissioners, he advised that a change
to the 2degrees site or antenna location, should Building C be granted consent, would be
required 3 - 4 years ahead of what would otherwise be needed in the area.
Applicant’s reply
31.
The applicant’s right of reply was given by Mr Bartlett and addressed the following
matters.
6
submission by counsel for 2degrees, paragraph 4.5
ibid, paragraph 6.11
8
evidence of Mr Blakemore, paragraph 20
9
ibid, paragraph 31
7
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 8
Mr Bartlett indicated that the suggested conditions including the changes discussed during
the course of the hearing were generally satisfactory. In regards to submitters’ evidence
he noted inner city living involves an inevitable degree of loss of some amenity and that
proximity to neighbours was part of that. It was not realistic to apply suburban living
standards to apartment living at sites and location such as the application site.
In regards to 2degrees he noted that if they wished to have certainty as to what may
happen in the future then they should designate their sites the same way other
telecommunication providers do. Just because 2degrees have a Certificate of Compliance
for their activity they could not dictate urban form around them because of their antenna
heights. In his view 2degrees simply have to ‘fit in’ unless they chose to designate
transmission corridors.
They want the applicant to lose a floor of apartments simply because they may have to
spend $200-350k to remedy any loss of transmission effectiveness. Mr Bartlett also
highlighted para 20 of Mr Blakemore’s evidence where he stated that the approved
Building C had the same effect on them as the proposed building.
In essence it was submitted 2degrees were now seeking to claw back what they now see
as an adverse effect on them in relation to the 2007 consent that they did not factor into
their considerations when setting up operations in 2007.
While Mr Bartlett noted he genially agreed with Mr Simmons views on the Hawthorn case
in respect of baselines, the existence of the 2007 consent for Building C fell into
consideration as ‘other matters’. He noted that in any event the applicant and application
had never sought to rely on any baseline considerations stemming from the 2007 consent.
He noted though that in reality there was little likelihood of any development on the
Building C area being less than what had already been consented.
Overall, there was no difference either way to 2degrees between the consented building
and what was proposed now.
Mr Bartlett then noted that of the various reliefs sought by 2degrees, a reduction in
building size was the only one that was real. That relief however relied on the applicant
suffering a significant loss of apartment yield and value in order to give a temporary relief
to 2degrees who may relocate at any time at the future in any case. No expert engineering
evidence was provided by 2degrees in support of their submissions and they did not
discuss the potential mitigation of effects using a repeater station as a solution. As there
were no technical witnesses present for 2degrees such matters could not be explored
properly.
We note that we further refer to aspects of the evidence, submissions, officers' comments
and specialist reports in our findings on the issues in contention.
Principal issues in contention
32.
After analysis of the application and evidence (including proposed mitigation measures),
undertaking a site visit, reviewing the Council planning officer’s recommendation report,
reviewing the submissions and concluding the hearing process, the proposed activity
raises a number of issues for consideration. The principal issues in contention are:
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 9
•
Whether the adverse amenity effects of the proposal on adjoining property and
occupiers (and the nearby residential apartments in particular) are acceptable.
•
Whether the effects of the proposed building on 2degrees telecommunications
antennae are an effect that supports refusal of consent.
•
Whether the proposal is consistent with the relevant planning documents and in
particular the objectives and policies.
•
Whether the proposal will promote the sustainable management of natural and
physical resources as contemplated by Part 2 of the RMA.
Main findings on the principal issues in contention
33.
Our main findings on the principal issues that were in contention are as follows:
Whether the adverse amenity effects of the proposal on adjoining property and occupiers
(and the nearby residential apartments in particular) are acceptable
34.
The submitters who appeared at the hearing, Ms Wood and Ms Knox, were concerned
over loss of amenity and loss of sunlight and privacy in particular. Issues were also raised
in respect of the effects of car lights from the car park areas. The effects of wind were also
discussed. Ms Knox noted that while the zone was ‘mixed use’ it was now becoming more
‘residential’. She had not envisaged three times as many people being close by and
‘trusted’ the existing consent when she bought her property.
There was a lengthy discussion around those matters during the Hearing including the
need for and mitigating effects of blinds and screens, and the effect of the separation
distance between the proposed building and the submitters’ apartments. In that context
consideration was also given to the particular relationship of balconies and windows to the
applicant’s building.
Ms Knox noted that sun from the side (east-facing) windows of her apartment was
important to her. In answer to questions from Commissioner Mead it was established that
she lost the sun at about 11am already. Building C as consented would reduce the
amount of early morning sun received, while shading diagrams prepared by the applicant
suggested only a small reduction is sun light access during mid winter as a result of the
extra height of the new building. The nature of sunlight access to the submitters’
properties was canvassed in order to properly understand the amenity that the submitters
currently enjoyed and how the proposal would affect that.
Ms Knox also advised us that even at a 17m separation she felt the proposed building
was too close. The applicant noted that it was a similar separation to that created by a
road separating housing.
On balance we find that the proposal, while having some adverse amenity effects on the
submitters, does not have adverse effects to the extent that consent should be refused.
In reaching that finding and noting the well presented submissions from Ms Knox and Ms
Wood we have had regard to the combination of separation distance, the consented
development and related existing amenity effects, design elements of the new building
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 10
and the particular conditions offered by the applicant in relation to window blinds and the
proposed screening of the car park lights.
Whether the effects of the proposed building on 2degrees telecommunications antennae
are an effect that supports refusal of consent
35.
The evidence from the witnesses for 2degrees focussed on the loss of a large part of the
line of sight 'coverage' that their equipment relied on to maximise signal availability to
customers. No evidence showing the details of that effect was produced but we accept
their general evidence that there will be a loss of signal coverage (50% in Mr Simmons
submission, while Mr Blakemore noted at his para 16 it was 50% of Antenna 2’s coverage
area). This was seen to be a large reduction in availability of their services in a context of
where they would not otherwise make any changes to their existing equipment.
Mr Blakemore in his evidence at para 13 clarified that it was the southern antenna that
was affected. While we were shown drawings of how high antennae needed to be to
counteract the effects of the building and retain the current levels of service, we were not
provided any evidence on other techniques such as repeater antennae which could also
be used.
We note that 2degrees’ evidence (Mr Blakemore’s para 24) suggested that changes to
equipment and methods of delivery are likely in any event notwithstanding the applicants
proposals, given the on-going development of the wider area and demand for better
coverage and service levels. We also note that 2degrees committed to their site at about
the same time as the original consent was granted to the applicant in 2007. Seemingly
there was no due diligence carried out to identify what may happen on surrounding land.
Mr Blakemore noted at his para 15 that “at the time of planning for and construction of the
facility in 2007 2degrees was not aware of the proposed development at 6A and 6B
Nugent Street”. Beyond that we note that 2degrees is not a requiring authority and that
option is available to them.
The existing antennae can be modified to some extent to offset signal loss and clearly
relocation is also an option that 2degrees can contemplate. We note also that if the
original consented building C were to be constructed 2degrees would also suffer a loss in
coverage albeit not to the same extent as the proposal now generates given the additional
height of the proposed building.
Mr Simmons argued that the approved building C did not form a ‘baseline’ as that building
could not be constructed at the same time as the proposed building. Whether or not he is
correct on that approach is not fundamental in our opinion as the fact is approved Building
C could still be erected and lead to a loss of coverage which 2degrees would have to
respond to. We were not advised by 2degrees as to the tenure of their lease for the space
their facility occupies but we were advised that the cost of relocation may be $200-350K.
We also note that 2degrees attempted to engage with the applicant over whether they
could relocate their equipment to the top of the proposed building but that was not
successful.
Mr Simmons opined that the issue was whether the effects of the proposal on 2degrees’
activities were an RMA effect that should be avoided, remedied or mitigated. In his opinion
it was, as the effect was a loss of functionality of an important element of infrastructure. Mr
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 11
Simmons also addressed the matter of the principle of ‘non derogation’ in that he argued
the proposal would lead to derogation of 2degrees’ resource consent which was
established by a section 139 RMA Certificate of Compliance in 2011. While we can
understand 2degrees’ concern over the likely loss of coverage that the proposal will lead
to, we are not convinced by their evidence that those effects are resource management
effects to the extent that consent should be refused.
While 2degrees has, as Mr Simmons pointed out, a lawful right to operate their facility that
does not mean that they may not be adversely affected by land use activities on adjoining
sites - either the applicants or other nearby land. If 2degrees were a designating authority
that might well be a different matter.
Mr Blakemore noted at his para 19 that while a complying 15m building would result in
Antenna 2 having to increase 5m in height, the proposed building would mean that
particular antenna would need to be increased by 13m in height. That latter height
increase was said to pose structural difficulties such that it was not viable.
At his para 20 Mr Blakemore also noted that the consented Building C would “have
equally significant effects on its (2degrees) ability to provide coverage to the target area”.
We find that statement of fact telling. Essentially the applicant could construct Building C
as approved forthwith and have the same adverse effects on 2degrees as those
associated with the new building proposal.
In that context we find that as the approved building and proposed building have the same
adverse effects on 2degrees' coverage, there are no fresh adverse effects arising from the
proposal, beyond those that could still occur under an existing consent. That is a simple
fact and is nothing to do with any ‘baseline’ type argument advanced by either the
applicant or the submitters.
On balance we find that there are no reasonable grounds to refuse consent based on the
submissions and evidence from 2degrees.
Whether the proposal is consistent with the the relevant planning documents and in
particular the objectives and policies
36.
The report of Ms Buckley (paras 6.4.1 on) referred us to the District Plan provisions and in
particular the objectives and policies that are relevant to the proposal.
She noted therein in terms of the relevant Business Zone objectives and policies that:
The proposal is considered to be consistent with the above mentioned objectives and
policies for the following reasons:
•
The proposed development results in 92 residential units while providing an active
retail or business frontage along the ground floor level of the building. This mix in
activities and location of business activities fosters employment and productive
potential of business while providing a high quality residential amenity.
•
The proposed new building will house an appropriate mix of retail and residential
activities which is in keeping with the scale and style of surrounding buildings and is
considered to have acceptable adverse effects on the environment.
•
The proposal provides ample off-street parking by way of a large multi storey parking
building (Building D), basement parking in Building C, and plaza parking. The entire
development at 6-10 Nugent Street provides 602 off-street parking spaces. As well as
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 12
ample off-street parking, the mixture of retail and residential uses provides
opportunities for residents to limit off-site travel for amenities.
And in respect of the Mixed Use provisions of the District Plan, Ms Buckley goes on to
state:
The proposal is considered to be compliant with the Mixed Use zone objectives and policies
for the following reasons:
•
The proposal provides for a diverse mixture of residential and retail activities within the
same building which is located close Auckland’s CBD. The subject site also has good
access to public transport with regular bus services along Khyber Pass Road, and the
Grafton train station within walking distance. The proposed new building is also
located on the same development site (6-10 Nugent Street) as other café and leisure
(gym) activities. As such, the proposed new building and associated retail and
residential activities will add to the vibrant mixture of activities within the site and the
surrounding area.
•
The proposed building will increase in height and bulk when compared to the
consented development, which will result in additional shading, privacy, and
dominance effects on adjacent sites. However, as discussed in the effects
assessment above, the adverse amenity effects are considered acceptable due to
greater modulation of building form and new materials which mitigate dominance, and
through the use of privacy louvers which reduces adverse overlooking and privacy
effects between sites and adjacent buildings.
•
It is considered that the proposal will fit in with the surrounding buildings within the
development site (6-10 Nugent Street) and will act as a visual link between the
Building A and B. Furthermore, it is also considered that the proposed building meets
the relevant urban design criteria in terms of appearance and form and does not
detract from the streetscape appearance of the site.
With regard to the relevant PAUP provisions Ms Buckley noted that the proposal is
consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the Mixed Use Zone under the PAUP and
we accept that analysis.
The Commissioners are also of a view, consistent with the opinions expressed by Ms
Buckley and Mr Deeney (with the relevant provisions included at Attachment 8 of the
section 42A agenda report) that the proposal is not contrary to other particular objectives
and policies of the District Plan such as those for transportation and parking.
Ms Buckley also includes a discussion of the relevant rules and assessment criteria at
page 34 of the hearings agenda (page 30 of her section 42A report). In relation to the
submitters who occupy Building A it is noted that adverse effects associated with light spill
arising from cars using the car parks is an existing condition. A condition of consent
proposed by the applicant requires screens to mitigate that effect. She also notes in
relation to an assessment of the infringements of height, site intensity and the size of the
ground floor private open space that:
•
Overlooking and privacy effects due to the change in use and intensity of the
proposed building are considered appropriate and adverse effects will be mitigated
through the location of decks in relation to adjacent sites private open space and
decks, and by implementing a condition that privacy blinds be installed within the
proposed building.
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 13
And
•
Modulation and articulation of the façade of the proposed building acts to soften and
reduce perceived dominance effects of the proposed new building height on adjacent
sites and people.
We note the concerns expressed by Ms Knox and Ms Wood in relation to effects and have
considered those in the light of the particular conditions devised to address some of those
matters. We also note that we fully understand their position in regards to the approved
Building C with a daytime business focussed use changing to a residentially dominant use
and their expectations in that regard.
However, there is no obligation on the applicant to proceed with the building as approved
and they are entitled to apply for a different proposal as they have done. The prime issue
is whether or not any effects on the submitters arising from the proposal can be
adequately addressed, such that they are acceptable. On balance we find that given the
separation distance of the proposed building from Building A, the orientation of the
outdoor living areas of the submitters, the design of the deck areas and associated
screens of the new apartments and the general design of the proposed building that while the proposal leads to a different set of activities that were not contemplated by the
submitters when they bought their apartments - the effects of the proposal overall are
acceptable.
We also note the comments at para 6.2.2 of the section 42A report where it is stated that:
The use of the proposed new building for residential purposes is in keeping with the
character of the area which is undergoing a transition from mainly commercial and light
industrial use to a mixture of both residential, commercial, retail and office use. Recent
Resource Consents have been granted at 44 Khyber Pass Road, 195 Khyber Pass Road,
246 Khyber Pass Road, and 371 Khyber Pass Road. Each of these consents involved
converting commercial sites into residential apartments. Given the location of the site (being
close to the CBD), residential use is appropriate and anticipated within the inner-city area.
Furthermore, it is considered that the scale and intensity of the residential activity is
appropriate for the site. In terms of the scale of people on the site, the consented activity was
for a four storey office and showroom which would occupy and attract more people to the
site than a 92 unit residential apartment building with ground floor retail units. In terms of
intensity of use of the site, it is considered that residential use will result in less vehicle
movements during peak hours when compared to the consented office development. It is
considered that the proposal will be easily absorbed into the surrounding area due to the
existing high intensity uses in the immediate area.
We concur with those comments.
In terms of the other submitters who did not appear at the hearing we have reviewed
carefully the matters they raise and reach the same conclusion.
2degrees also argued in their evidence and submissions that there were a number of
objectives and policies that supported their position that the proposal was contrary to
those objectives and policies. We have reviewed those provisions and considered them in
the context of the other objectives and policies as set out and discussed in Ms Buckley’s
section 42A report.
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 14
On balance, and considering all relevant objectives and policies as a whole, we do not
agree with the conclusion reached by Mr Blackmore and Simmons in respect of the weight
that these objectives and policies should be given in the context of this application.
We concur with the assessment by Ms Buckley in particular and find that the proposal is
overall consistent with the the relevant planning documents and in particular the
objectives and policies.
Whether the proposal will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical
resources as contemplated by Part 2 of the RMA
37.
We heard no evidence to the contrary on this aspect of the proposal and concur with the
Council officers that the proposal will raise no significant adverse effects.
Reflecting the nature of the proposal, we have reached the conclusion that the application
will meet the relevant provisions of Part 2 of the RMA as the proposal will achieve
sustainable management of natural and physical resources and provide for the
maintenance and enhancement of amenity values.
The proposed apartment/commercial building will provide for the needs of the wider
community by supplying quality residential units while maintaining the essential elements
of the character and amenity of the surrounding environment which comprises a mix of
business and residential activities. The additional apartments will result in a more active
residential component to the area and that will lead to a better living environment long
term, in our opinion.
Decision 1
In exercising our delegation under sections 34 and 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991
and having regard to the foregoing matters, including sections 104,104B, 108 and Part 2 of the
RMA, we determine that resource consent R/LUC/2014/5185 to develop a new 92 unit
apartment building with basement parking and including retail activities on the ground floor
(podium level) at 6A and 6B Nugent Street, Grafton is granted to Neil Properties Limited for the
reasons and subject to the conditions set out below.
Decision 1 reasons
(a)
In terms of section 104(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the proposed
development will have minor actual and potential adverse effects on the environment. In
particular:
•
The proposed building will have some additional adverse dominance and privacy
effects on adjacent sites when compared to the consented building due to the
increased height of the proposed building. However, due to the modulation of built
form, material variation, internal privacy screens, building set back from boundaries
and relationships of buildings within the site, we consider adverse dominance and
privacy effects will be acceptable.
•
The scale of the proposed building is in keeping with the surrounding built
environment and is appropriate in terms of wider environment effects.
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 15
(b)
(c)
•
The proposal will have acceptable infrastructure and traffic effects on the
surrounding environment due to there being adequate capacity in existing
stormwater and wastewater lines to cater for the proposed new use, and sufficient
onsite parking with well-designed entry and exit points.
•
The proposal will result in positive effects in that the residential use will increase the
vitality of the wider Grafton area by bringing more people into the site and locality,
and in-turn will increase the safety of the area through increased surveillance. The
proposed change in use of the building (from the original consented proposal)
leading to the development of 92 residential units located in close proximity to
Auckland’s CBD is a positive effect for the Auckland region which has a housing
shortage. Overall, the proposal is a sustainable use of the site.
•
Overall and on balance, any actual and potential adverse effects of the proposal will
be acceptable.
In terms of section 104(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the proposal is
consistent with the relevant assessment criteria of the Operative Auckland Council District
Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
(PAUP). The proposal is also consistent with the objectives and policies of the Mixed Use
zone of the Operative District Plan and of the Mixed Use Zone under the PAUP. In
particular:
•
The proposal provides for a diverse mixture of residential and retail activities within
the same building which is located close Auckland’s CBD and provides for 92
residential apartments while maintaining the amenity of adjacent sites.
•
The height of the proposed new building is appropriate within the locality given the
presence of other multi-storey buildings located within the site at 6-10 Nugent
Street, and when viewed in the context of the wider Grafton area and Auckland’s
CBD. The height and size of the proposed building is appropriate and acceptable
and in keeping with the scale of buildings in the immediate and wider locality.
•
The proposal provides a compliant ratio of onsite car parking for the proposed new
activities (retail and residential) within the existing basement area of the proposed
Building C and within the existing car parking Building D. By providing sufficient
onsite parking for the proposed uses, there will be no additional strain on the
existing parking infrastructure in the area. Furthermore, the proposal provides
bicycle parking areas which will help to promote and provide for alternative methods
of transport for residents and users of the site, further reducing the impact of the
proposed new development on the surrounding road network.
•
The proposed development results in 92 residential units while providing an active
retail or business frontage along the ground floor level of the building. This mix in
activities and location of business activities fosters employment and productive
potential of business while providing a high quality residential amenity.
In terms of section 104(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991, other relevant
matters, including monitoring, have been considered in the determination of the
application.
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 16
(d)
The proposal is consistent with the sustainable management purpose of the Resource
Management Act 1991 (Part 2) as the development will contribute to the sustainable use
of natural and physical resources. The proposal will provide 92 residential apartments of
differing sizes within close proximity to the city centre and public transport networks while
mitigating adverse effects on the environment through building setbacks and modulation
of building form and material use. Overall, the application achieves the sustainable
management purpose of the Act, as the adverse effects will be mitigated to an acceptable
level, while the development will enable greater housing supply and choice, which will
contribute to social and economic well being.
Decision 1 conditions
Under section 108 of the RMA, this consent is subject to the following conditions:
General conditions
(1)
The new building shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and all information
submitted with the application, being:
•
Application Form, and Assessment of Effects prepared by Positive Planning Limited,
dated December 2014.
•
Email correspondence from Positive Planning Limited, dated 16th February 2015.
•
Section 92 Response titled Request for Further Information Pursuant to Section 92 –
R/LUC/2014/5185 – Resource Consent Application at 6a & 6b Nugent Street,
Grafton, prepared by Positive Planning Limited, dated 27th February 2015.
•
Urban Design Specialist Report. Entitled: Proposed Apartment Building
at 6a and b Nugent Street, Grafton, prepared by R A Skidmore Urban
Design, dated November 2014
•
Infrastructure Report. Prepared by Brian Jones, dated November 2014
•
Architectural Statement. Prepared by Swan Riley Architects Ltd, dated 26 November
2014
•
Transport Specialist Report. Prepared by P.R Brown of Traffic Engineering &
Management Ltd (TEAM), dated 2 December 2014
•
Plans as detailed below:
Reference
number
Rev
Title
Architect/Author
Dated
Revision
Date
RC01
B
Locality Plan
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC02
B
Titles Layout Plans
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC03
C
Site Plan
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
RC04
B
Typical Apartment Layout
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC04.1
A
Level 1: (Plaza Level)
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 17
Apartment Layout
RC04.2
A
Level 2: Apartment Layout
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
RC04.3
A
Level 3: Apartment Layout
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
RC04.4
A
Level 4: Apartment Layout
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
RC04.5
A
Level 5: Apartment Layout
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
RC04.6
A
Level 6: Apartment Layout
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
RC04.7
A
Level 7: Apartment Layout
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
RC05
D
Level 0: Basement Plan
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
RC06
D
Level 1: Floor Plan (Plaza
Level)
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
RC07
D
Level 2: Floor Plan
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
RC08
D
Level 3: Floor Plan
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
RC09
D
Level 4: Floor Plan
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
RC10
D
Level 5: Floor Plan
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
RC11
D
Level 6: Floor Plan
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
RC12
B
Roof Plan
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC13
B
West Elevation
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC14
B
South Elevation
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC15
D
East Elevation
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
RC16
D
North Elevation
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
25/02/2015
RC17
B
Area Schedule: Overall GFA
& Levels 1 & 2
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC18
B
Area Schedule: Levels 3 & 4
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC19
B
Area Schedule: Levels 5 & 6
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC20
B
West Elevation: Planning
Controls
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC21
B
South Elevation: Planning
Controls
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC22
B
East Elevation: Planning
Controls
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC23
B
North Elevation: Planning
Controls
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC24
B
Overall Site Massings
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 18
RC25
B
Consented Development:
Photo Montage from Mount
Eden
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC26
B
Proposed Development:
Photo Montage from Mount
Eden
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC27
B
Shadow Comparison
Studies: Summer
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC28
B
Shadow Comparison
Studies: Winter
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC29
B
West Elevation: Signage
Swan Railley Architects
7/2014
21/11/2014
RC30
C
Longitudinal Section
Swan Railley Architects
02/201
5
25/02/2015
RC31
C
Cross Section
Swan Railley Architects
02/201
5
25/02/2015
RC32
A
17 Auburn Street Views
Swan Railley Architects
07/201
4
05/02/2015
01
Landscape Concept: Building
C
Walker Landscape
Architecture
11/2014
02
Landscape Concept: Building
C
Walker Landscape
Architecture
11/2014
03
Landscape Concept: East
Cross Section
Walker Landscape
Architecture
02/2015
04
Landscape Concept: North
Cross Section
Walker Landscape
Architecture
02/2015
Materials Palette
Swan Railley Architects
Stamped
Received
10/07/2015
All charges paid
(2)
This consent (or any part thereof) shall not commence until such time as the following
charges, which are owing at the time the Council's decision is notified, have been paid in
full:
(a)
All fixed charges relating to the receiving, processing and granting of this resource
consent under section 36(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA); and
(b)
All additional charges imposed under section 36(3) of the RMA to enable the
Council to recover its actual and reasonable costs in respect of this application,
which are beyond challenge.
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 19
(3)
The consent holder shall pay any subsequent further charges imposed under section 36
of the RMA relating to the receiving, processing and granting of this resource consent
within 20 days of receipt of notification of a requirement to pay the same, provided that, in
the case of any additional charges under section 36(3) of the RMA that are subject to
challenge, the consent holder shall pay such amount as is determined by that process to
be due and owing, within 20 days of receipt of the relevant decision.
Advice note:
Development contributions levied under the Local Government Act 2002 are payable in relation to
this application. The consent holder will be advised of the development contributions payable
separately from this resource consent decision. Further information about development
contributions may be found on the Auckland Council website at www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz.
Lapse of consent
(4)
This consent will lapse 5 years after the date of Council’s decision unless the consent is
given effect to or the Council decides to grant an extension to the period after which the
consent lapses
Monitoring charges
(5)
The consent holder shall pay the Council an initial consent compliance monitoring charge
of $1000 (inclusive 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.
The $1000 (inclusive 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.
Advice note:
Compliance with the consent conditions will be monitored by Council (in accordance with section
35(d) of the RMA). The initial monitoring 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. In order to recover actual and reasonable costs, inspections, in excess of those
covered by the base fee paid, shall be charged at the relevant hourly rate applicable at the time.
Only after all conditions of the resource consent have been met, will Council issue a letter on
request of the consent holder.
Pre-development conditions
Construction
(6)
All works associated with the construction will occur during the hours of 7.30am – 6pm
Monday to Saturday with no noisy construction work (use of power tools, hammering, loud
machinery) occurring on Sundays and Public Holidays.
(7) (a) Prior to the start of construction, the consent holder shall submit a Construction and
Construction Traffic Management Plan to the Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central for approval. That Management Plan shall include specific details relating to
avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment from demolition,
construction and management of all works associated with this development as follows:
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 20
•
Details of the site manager, including their contact details (phone, facsimile, postal
address;
•
Measures to be adopted to maintain the site in a tidy condition in terms of disposal /
storage of rubbish, storage and unloading of building materials and similar
construction activities;
•
Measures for waste management which include designated sites for refuse bins,
and for recycling bins for glass, plastic and cans storage and collection in
accordance with the Council’s waste reduction policy;
•
Procedures for controlling sediment runoff and the removal of soil debris and
construction materials from public roads;
•
Proposed numbers and timing of truck movements throughout the day,
•
Location of workers’ conveniences (e.g. portaloos);
•
A site plan identifying material, plant and machinery storage areas as well as
loading and unloading zones within the site;
•
Location and height of site hoardings;
•
Procedures for managing construction traffic;
•
Proposed hours of work on the site (NB: hours shall correspond with any other
condition in this consent relating to working hours).
The above details shall be shown on a site plan and supporting documentation as
appropriate.
(7) (b) The approved Construction and Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be
implemented and maintained to the satisfaction of the Team Leader Monitoring – Central
throughout the entire construction phase of the project.
Development in progress conditions
Acoustic
(8)
Prior to the issuing of building consent the consent holder shall provide a report prepared
by a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic consultant demonstrating that the noise
levels in the bedrooms of the apartments will be no more than 35 dB LAeq(15min) and no
more than 45 dB LAeq(15min) in any other habitable spaces based on the following
incident noise spectrum:
63 Hz
77 dB
125 Hz
75 dB
250 Hz
70 dB
500 Hz
69 dB
1 kHz
68 dB
2 kHz
62 dB
4 kHz
56 dB
Parking
(9)
Prior to occupation of Building C, 141 parking spaces shall be set aside and marked for
residents. 71 spaces shall be located within the basement of Building ‘C’. The remainder
shall be located within Building ‘D’. 18 spaces shall be set aside and marked for visitor
parking and 31 spaces shall be allocated to retail tenancies within Building D. The
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 21
parking spaces shall be marked to the satisfaction of the Team Leader Monitoring –
Central.
Advice note:
The parking allocation detailed above for Building C should reflect and form part of an updated
parking management plan across the entire development site at 6-10 Nugent Street. The updated
parking management plan should be brought to the attention of, and made available to all users
and residents of the site.
(10) Loading Zones 1 and 2 shall be explicitly marked and signed to clearly identify the areas
as loading zones prior to completion of Building C and to the satisfaction of the Team
leader Monitoring - Central.
Urban design
(11) Building C shall be finished to the specifications shown on the approved materials palette
provided by Swan Railley Architects. Any departure from the approved material schedule
shall be submitted for approval to the Team Leader Monitoring – Central prior to
installation. Following approval of the alternative materials they shall supersede those
detailed in condition 1 and the development shall occur in accordance with the approved
revision.
(12) As offered by the applicant on an Augier basis, owners of residential units in Building A on
Levels 1 and 2 which face Building D, and who made formal submissions in accordance
with section 96 of the RMA regarding the application R/LUC/2014/5185, may request to
the consent holder that light screening curtains are provided on south and east habitable
windows fronting Building D, providing:
(a)
Requests for a curtains are formally made in writing to the consent holder and
copied to the Team Leader Monitoring – Central and;
(b)
The requests for curtains are made prior to the occupation of Building C.
(13) If a request is made under Condition 12 above, the consent holder shall install light
screening curtains along south and east facing windows within one month following the
first occupation of Building C. A record of correspondence relating to the request,
including the formal request described in Condition 12(a) above, shall be kept and
supplied to the Team Leader Monitoring- Central upon request.
(14) Prior to completion of work on site, the consent holder shall provide a lighting plan for the
basement parking area in Building C. The lux levels and types of lighting (i.e.
manufacturer’s specifications once a lighting style has been determined) shall be noted on
the plan. The purpose of this plan is to demonstrate that adequate CPTED provisions will
be provided for the car park areas for the visibility and safety of occupants/residents at all
times. The lighting plan shall be submitted for approval to the Team leader Monitoring –
Central, and shall be implemented and maintained thereafter.
Site and Landscape Management Plan
(15) The approved landscape plan (reference number 01, 02, 03 and 04 by Walker Landscape
Architecture) shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Team Leader Monitoring –
Central prior to the occupation of Building C.
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 22
(16) Prior to the first occupation of the premises the consent holder shall submit a Site &
Landscape Maintenance Management Plan for the landscape areas, which should
include (but not be limited to):
•
vegetation maintenance policies for the proposed planting, in particular details of
maintenance methodology and dates / frequencies for the first three years of the
issue of the consent by an appointed contractor with arboricultural experience;
•
an irrigation system.
This information shall be submitted prior to the occupation of Building C to the Team
Leader Monitoring Central for approval and thereafter be implemented to the satisfaction
of the council.
Advice note:
The on-going maintenance responsibility will be passed to the Body Corporate as Consent Holder
following the approval of the unit title subdivision and first occupation of the development.
Waste Management Plan
(17) Prior to initial occupation of the residential and/or commercial premises (whichever is the
first), the consent holder shall provide a final Waste Management Plan establishing the
methodology for refuse and recycling storage and disposal from the site, including
proposed days/frequency of collection. This plan shall provide clear management policies
to cater for different waste management requirements of the commercial tenancies and
residential apartments. This Plan shall be submitted to the Team Leader Monitoring
Central for approval and thereafter all waste collections shall take place in accordance
with the approved details unless otherwise agreed by the Team Leader Central
Monitoring.
Advice note:
The on-going maintenance responsibility will be passed to the Body Corporate as Consent Holder
following the approval of the unit title subdivision and first occupation of the development.
Decision 1 advice notes
1.
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 remove the need to comply with all other applicable Acts (including the Property
Law Act 2007), regulations, relevant Bylaws, and rules of law. 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.
2.
A copy of this consent should be held on site at all times during the establishment and
construction phase of the activity. 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 (email:
[email protected]) and include the following details:
•
name and telephone number of the project manager and the site owner;
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 23
•
site address to which the consent relates;
•
activity to which the consent relates; and
•
expected duration of works.
3.
The consent holder shall ensure that all works to the public wastewater system comply
with all conditions outlined in Watercare Services Limited’s peer-review #37416 dated 20
February 2015.
4.
The granting of this resource consent does not in any way allow the applicant to enter and
construct drainage within neighbouring properties, without first obtaining the agreement of
all owners and occupiers of said land to undertake the proposed works. Any negotiation
or agreement is the full responsibility of the applicant, and is a private agreement that
does not involve Council. Should any disputes arise between the private parties, these
are civil matters which can be taken to independent mediation or disputes tribunal for
resolution. It is recommended that the private agreement be legally documented to avoid
disputes arising. To obtain sign-off for the resource consent, the services described by the
conditions above are required to be in place to the satisfaction of Council.
5.
The Consent holder shall be advised that internal plumbing and drainage reticulation
alterations shall be required to be detailed with the building consent application.
6.
Adequate provision shall be made during the earthworks construction for the protection of
any existing public drains and watermains that traverse the site. Any damages to the
drains or watermains that may occur during the development shall be the applicant’s
responsibility.
7.
This consent does not constitute authority to build or undertake private water supply
and/or drainage works and it may be necessary for the applicant to apply for a Project
Information Memorandum and Building Consent if not already done so.
8.
The granting of this application does not constitute a guarantee from the Watercare
Services Limited to provide a fire fighting capability in accordance with the Fire Service
Code of Practice at any given point in time. If the development is to be sprinklered to
certain flow and pressure, the applicant need to be aware that the flow and pressure in the
public main can change, and periodic test needs to be carried out and, if required,
upgrade of the sprinkler system to meet the development demand at no cost to
Watercare.
9.
To comply with FW2 fire risk classification, installation of sprinkler system may be required
for commercial, industrial and high rise mixed use buildings.
10.
Watercare level of service can guarantee only domestic water supply to a property 25
litres per minute at 200 kPa at the point of connection to existing public water supply
reticulation main. For multi storey development private booster pumps and storage may
be required.
11.
Approval of the water and/or wastewater aspects of this resource consent does not
constitute approval by Watercare Services Limited, and therefore does not confirm that
connection to the reticulation owned by Watercare Services Limited will be permitted. The
applicant should contact Watercare Services Limited directly to negotiate the
requirements under which connection to the reticulation network will be allowed.
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 24
12.
Watercare Services Limited advise that at the time of application for a water and/or
wastewater connection (or application for demand increase), completed in conjunction
with a building consent, a water and wastewater Infrastructure Growth Charge per
additional equivalent unit shall apply. Details of the charge are available on the website,
www.watercare.co.nz.
13.
All utility service installation works crossing existing public roads shall be undertaken by
the use of “trenchless techniques”. Where the use of “trenchless techniques” is
considered to be impractical, approval is required from Auckland Transport.
14.
Auckland Transport approval is required for all works within the legal road (road berm,
footpath and carriageway). A Corridor Access Request (CAR) application can be made to
obtain approval from the roading authority.
15.
Watercare approval is required prior to connecting any individual dwelling to the public
water and/or wastewater network. This application is generally made at the same time
as the building consent application.
Decision 2
Following Decision 1 above the Council resolves pursuant to Section 221(3) of the Resource
Management Act 1991 that, by mutual agreement with the owner (Neil Properties Limited)
Consent Notice 9231567.3 which is registered against the Certificate of Title for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5 of DP 419269, be varied for the following reasons and subject to the condition set out
below.
Decision 2 reasons
(a)
The consent notice must be amended to reflect Decision 1 above as that decision
replaces the earlier approved plans for Building C that the consent notice refers to and
which Decision 1 now replaces.
Decision 2 conditions
(1)
An amended Consent Notice certificate under Section 221(3) of the Resource
Management Act 1991 reflecting the amendments arising from Decision 1 for
R/LUC/2014/5185 shall be forwarded to the owner’s solicitor for lodgement with LINZ,
following the consent holder and the Council’s signatures being placed on the amended
document.
Barry Kaye
Chairperson
6 August 2015
R/LUC/2014/5185 6A & 6B Nugent Street, Grafton
Page 25