Report on an
resource consent
application
for
under section 88 of the Resource Management Act 1991
TO:
Resource Consent Hearings Commissioners
FROM:
Kerrin Lithgow
Senior Planner, Resource Consents
Central Consenting and Compliance
DATE:
23 August 2013
NOTE: This report sets out the advice of the reporting planner. This report has yet to be
considered by the Panel of Commissioners delegated by the Council to determine this
application. The recommendation is not the decision on this application. A decision will
only be made after the Commissioners have considered the application and heard the
applicant and any submitters.
1.0
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION
1.1
Application and Property Details
Application number(s):
R/LUC/2013/1686 - Land Use (District Plan) and
Contaminated Land (National Environmental
Standard);
41726 - Contaminated Land (Air Land and
Water Plan); and
41725 – Earthworks (Regional Plan: Sediment
Control)
Reporting officer:
Kerrin Lithgow – Senior Planner
Site address:
33 Panama Road, 22 and 98-100 Hillside Road
and 11 Ryburn Road, Mount Wellington,
Auckland 1062
Applicant’s name:
Panama Road Developments Ltd
Lodgement date:
20 May 2013
Notification date:
3 July 2013
Submissions closed date:
31 July 2013
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 1
Number of submissions received:
One in support.
Eight neutral.
Fifteen opposing.
1.2
Locality Plan
Refer aerial photograph and Auckland District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) extract
following:
Figure 1: Extract of Map H14, Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus
Section).
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 2
SITE
Figure 1.2: Aerial photograph detailing location of subject site (outlined within red boundary)
1.3
Application Documents (Plans and Reference Documents)
The list of application documents and plans is set out in Attachment 1 of this report.
1.4
Adequacy of Information
It is considered that the information submitted by the applicant is sufficiently comprehensive
to enable the consideration of the following matters on an informed basis:
a)
b)
c)
d)
The nature and scope of the proposed activity as it relates to the National
Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to
Protect Human Health (‘NES Soil Contamination’), and Auckland Council Regional
and District Plans.
The extent and scale of any adverse effects on the environment.
Persons who may be adversely affected.
The requirements of the relevant legislation.
A series of information has been informally requested and supplied by the applicant
throughout May to August. All of this further information is supplied within the
applicants bundle of documents.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 3
1.5
Report and Assessment Methodology
The application has been prepared to an adequate standard incorporating a number of
expert assessments. In recognition of the standard of this application, this report will not
unnecessarily repeat descriptions or assessments made in the application. A separate and
independent assessment of the proposal has been undertaken and independent experts
have been engaged on behalf of the Auckland Council to review technical aspects as
required. If the descriptions or assessments provided on various aspects of the proposal are
agreed the report will simply confirm agreement with these aspects. If there are differences in
opinion or matters that need more assessment, consideration or discussion in the report or
indeed there are matters that are considered inaccurate, incorrect or that have been missed
or there is disagreement with opinion or approaches, the report will detail conflicting
assessments and opinions (of those of Council experts) where relevant. Where appropriate
extracts from the application material or from the Council expert reports will be included to
enable this report and assessment to flow and be clearly understood.
The assessment also relies upon reviews and advice from the following experts on behalf of
the Council and specialist Auckland Council officers. These assessments are attached in
Attachment 2 of this report:
1. Peter Joyce, Principal Specialist Urban Design, Built Environment Unit;
2. Karl Hancock, Associate, Flow Transportation Specialists;
3. Pragati Vasisht, Principal Consent Specialist West, Auckland Transport;
4. Scott Paton, Senior Development Engineer, Natural Resources and Specialist Input;
5. Mark Iszard, Senior Stormwater Engineer, Infrastructure and Environmental Services;
6. Parviz Namjou, Hydrogeologist, Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd;
7. Paul Carter, Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Coffey Geotechnics (NZ) Limited;
8. Daniel Winter, Environmental Health Specialist
Services;
– Noise, Licensing & Compliance
9. Sharon Tang, Environmental Health Specialist – Contaminated Land and Water Quality;
10. Gemma Chuah, Consents and Compliance Advisor – Stormwater, Natural Resources
and Specialist Input;
11. Priya-Nair Mudalier, Consents and Compliance Advisor – Earthworks, Natural Resources
and Specialist Input;
12. Samuel Woolley, Consents and Compliance Advisor – Contamination, Natural Resources
and Specialist Input;
13. Howell Davies, Arboriculture and Landscape Advisor, Local and Sports Parts, Parks
Sports and Recreation;
14. Allan Holmes, Arborist, Central Resource Consenting and Compliance;
15. Edward Jolly, Principal Specialist Landscape Architect, Built Environment;
16. Chris Boucher, Consultant Arborist acting for Cultural Heritage Implementation, Heritage
Unit;
17. Alastair Jamieson, Biodiversity Team Leader, Infrastructure and Environmental Services.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 4
18. Aru Chelliah, Developments Engineer, Watercare Services Limited.
2.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Panama Road Developments Limited has applied to the Auckland Council for resource
consent to demolish all structures on site, and carry out a residential development
comprising 424 dwellings and 439m2 of commercial floor space. The application also
proposes the provision of parks, roads, footpaths, infrastructure, landscaping and ancillary
works associated with the development. The application is to be carried out in three stages
of around a year each, which will coincide with the staged withdrawal of the existing nursery
operation on site.
The application was processed on a limited notified basis. Twenty-four submissions have
been received in relation to the proposal, with fifteen of those opposing the proposal.
It is noted that the application is currently unresolved in that the proposed stormwater
disposal method has not been proven to be acceptable to Council. Further intensive
geological investigation of the site is required before Council can potentially be assured that
the existing soakhole will be able to be utilised for the development. This matter is elaborated
upon within section 6.3.3.M below.
Given that substantial matters for consideration can be fully reported upon, with the
exception of stormwater issues, the Applicant and Council officers have mutually agreed to
progress the application to a hearing for consideration, at which time (or prior to) it is
expected that the stormwater matters can be resolved, or an alternative disposal and
treatment method can be proposed.
Subject to new or contrary evidence being presented at the hearing, and provided that the
stormwater disposal method as elaborated upon at section 6.3.3.M is resolved, it is
recommended that the application be granted consent, subject to conditions, with a lapse
period of seven years.
3.0
THE PROPOSAL, SITE AND LOCALITY DESCRIPTION
3.1
Background
Site History
The site was originally a group of cratered scoria mounds known as McLennan Hills/Te
Aponga o Tainui, prior to it being quarried from the 1940s onwards1. Quarrying ceased in the
1970s. Following the cessation of quarrying activities, the site was partially backfilled with
non-engineered fill to provide a level building platform.
In 1987 consent was given to establish a new plant nursery on site, incorporating
greenhouses, a shadehouse and two sheds including staff facilities and offices (Ref:
R/LUC/1987/1492). Subsequent applications in 1993 and 1999 saw the expansion of these
1
Refer Sheet RC-101 and RC-102 in the A3 folder of plans for historic aerial photos demonstrating the
historic changes to the site.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 5
activities on site. The site is now characterised by a large flat basin almost entirely covered
in concrete slabs and greenhouses2.
Process
The proposed development was the subject of numerous pre-application discussions with
Council officers (ref PG/2012/1286, commenced December 2012), and was presented to the
Urban Design Panel on two occasions3. The discussions covered all aspects of the
development, including:
-
Movement networks
-
Open space strategy (public vs. private)
-
Housing typologies and location of density
-
Residential site and dwelling design
-
Servicing, including service lane provision and design
-
Architectural design, including street facing elevation design and treatment
-
Safety matters (CPTED)
-
Fencing strategy
-
Street design
-
Landscape design strategy
-
Environmentally Sustainable Design elements and standards
-
Location and numbers of car parking spaces
The subject application was lodged on 20 May 2013 and accepted for lodgement purposes
on 24 May 2013. Council concurrently resolved to double the timeframe for making a
determination pursuant to s95 of the RMA 1991.
Clarification on a number of matters was requested from the applicant on 31 May 2013, with
numerous matters raised.
The application was submitted to hearings Commissioners Greg Hill (chair) and Ian Munro on
14 June with the reporting planner’s recommendation being for the application to be
processed on a publicly notified basis. The Commissioners determined on 17 June 2013 that
the application be processed on a limited notified basis.
The application was placed on hold at the applicant’s request on 20 June 2013, in order to
allow the applicant to provide a complete package of information to Council for notification
purposes. The application was taken off hold on 28 June 2013.
Noticed was served on the identified parties on 3 July 2013, with the submission period
closing on 31 July 2013.
Prior to, during, and after notification the applicant sought to address the numerous issues
raised by Council specialists. This included:
-
An archaeological assessment;
2
See Sheet RC-103 in the A3 folder of plans, which provides a current aerial photo of the site.
Refer Peter Joyce Memo at Attachment 4.1 Section 4.2 for a summary of the Urban Design Panel
responses and outcomes.
3
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 6
-
Revised architectural drawings which took into account the many discussions
between Council’s Urban Designers, traffic specialists, and the applicant;
-
Provision of a Remedial Action Plan and Site Management Plan to address
contamination concerns;
-
Engineering Reports and Calculations;
-
Geotechnical investigations, including investigation of ground improvement
methodology and batter stability;
-
Landscape Details, including draft planting specification, and tree pit details;
-
A Lighting Strategy;
-
Road C & D concept design intent statement;
-
Stormwater and cave investigations;
-
Residential Parking Strategy.
A final package of revised architectural drawings were submitted to Council on 5 August
2013, and a revised Assessment of Environmental Effects submitted 7 August.
This assessment has therefore been based on:
1.
The revised AEE by Gerard Thompson of Barker and Associates, dated 7 August
2013;
2.
The final architectural drawing package by Studio Pacific Architecture, received 5
August 2013;
3.
The final engineering drawings by Harrison Grierson, received 9 August 2013; and
4.
The additional information and supplementary reports within the bundle of documents
supplied by the applicant described as ‘Further information submitted post-lodgement
August 2013’.
It is noted that none of the information supplied over the last two months has significantly
altered the development as a whole, and has not altered the development to any worse a
degree than adjacent parties, or submitters, would have been affected previously. The
information was therefore considered as falling within the scope of the original application,
and therefore re-notification of the application was not required.
3.2
Proposal
I concur with the detailed description of the proposal, site and surrounding environment on
pages 4 - 14 of the Assessment of Environmental Effects prepared by Gerard Thompson of
Barker & Associates (henceforth referred to as ‘the agent’), dated 7 August 2013. The
following is a summary of the key features of the proposal and site.
The application proposes the construction of 424 new residential units, of which 277 will be
two to four bedroom terraced houses and 147 will be one to four bedroom apartments.
The project is proposed to be delivered in three main stages to coincide with the staged
withdrawal of the Zealandia nursery from the site. Broadly speaking, each stage will take
approximately one year to complete.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 7
This is summarised as follows within Table 1:
House
2 bed
Apartments
3 bed
(Type B)
3 bed
(Type C)
4 bed
1 bed
TOTAL
2 bed
3 bed
Stage 1
17
36
44
11
25
24
5
162
Stage 2
12
25
19
5
9
31
0
111
Stage 3
23
15
55
5
31
22
0
151
TOTAL
52
86
118
21
65
77
5
424
Table 1: Residential Unit Schedule
4
The overall development will be subject to ongoing oversight by an incorporated Residents’
Society. A copy of the constitution and associated bylaws are attached as Appendix 4 to the
AEE.
The site works, proposed housing, commercial activities, open space, connections and
servicing are fully described in the AEE pages 5 to 14, but the key points are briefly
summarised here as follows:
Site works:
ƒ
Staged removal of all buildings, driveways, fences, and landscaping;5
ƒ
Undercut and uplift the fill material on site, and replace this same material (where
possible) to engineering standards;
ƒ
In instances of significant depth of unconsolidated fill, stockpile and ‘preload’ these
areas to assist with consolidation and reduce long-term settlement effects;
ƒ
Cut-to-fill on site to form the final shape of lots and roads;
ƒ
Provision of retaining walls at three locations (the two Hillside Road entrances, and the
western edge of the Ryburn Road property);
ƒ
The proposed earthworks will provide for overland flowpaths to pass over the site to
proposed Road B2 and then out towards Hillside Road.
Terraced Housing:
ƒ
Provision of 277 terraced units in four main housing types A to D, all of which are twostoried;
ƒ
Units range from 2 to 4 bedrooms, from 99m2 to 146m2, and are provided with a single
uncovered parking space. Types C and D also provide a second stacked uncovered
parking space;
4
Refer Beca Technical Note dated 29 July 2013, within Item 11 of further information package supplied by
applicant.
5
See plan sheets RC-317 to RC-320 for the three stages
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 8
ƒ
Associated outdoor spaces of 23.4m2 to 44m2 which includes provision for some
landscaping, a washing line, space for outdoor seating, and an enclosure for rubbish
and recycling bins;
ƒ
Associated fencing. In most cases properties are not fenced, but where fences are
proposed they are typically to be of 1200mm high, with the upper 300mm being visually
permeable. Fencing between the lots is proposed to be of 1700mm high and of solid
construction;
ƒ
Materials are proposed to be of brick and weatherboard with metal roofing. A variety of
colours are proposed to be used within stage 1. This materials schedule is intended to
be replicated within stages 2 and 36;
Apartments:
ƒ
A total of 12 apartment buildings developed as three basic typologies: Park
Apartments; Terrace Apartments; and Retail Apartments. Al are proposed to have
painted brick at ground floor, metal cladding and weatherboard at upper levels, and a
metal roof;
ƒ
The one Retail Apartment building is located on Panama Road, and is of two levels
above the retail level (three storeys total). They comprise of five maisonette units each
of approximately 70m2 in area;
ƒ
There are four Park Apartment buildings, two of which are located around the central
reserve, one in the south-eastern corner, and one to the north-west. The Park
Apartment buildings are all of three storeys asides from Apartment block 4 in the southeastern corner which will be of four storeys;
ƒ
There are a total of seven Terrace Apartment buildings. The terrace apartment
buildings are of three or four storeys, with undercroft parking and storage/service
facilities on the ground floor.
Commercial Activities
ƒ
A total of 439m2 gross floor area (GFA) to be provided in the ground floor of the
apartment building fronting Panama Road for commercial activities. It is anticipated
that these would be neighbourhood shops accommodating activities such as a café,
hairdresser, dairy, greengrocer or similar.
Open space and landscaping7
6
7
ƒ
A neighbourhood park in the centre of the site, measuring approximately 2,500m2 in
area. It is anticipated that this park will be vested with Council;
ƒ
Five pocket parks located throughout the site ranging in size from approximately 350m2
to 1750m2. These parks will be retained in private ownership and will be managed by
the Residents’ Society;
ƒ
Existing boundary planting will generally be maintained, particularly the grove of
pohutukawa trees along the eastern boundary and in the south-eastern corner of the
Refer Plan RC-350 and subsequent elevation drawings.
Illustrated on Plans RC-200 to RC-228.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 9
site. New planting is proposed to be established around the western perimeter of the
site;
ƒ
The grove of pohutukawa trees along Panama Road is proposed to be removed and
new landscaping will be established in its place;
ƒ
The scheduled poplar tree located at 11 Ryburn Road will be retained.
ƒ
Street tree planting is set out on Sheets RC-203 with further details shown on the
cross-sections set out on Sheets RC-303 to RC-305. Footpath details are shown on
Sheet RC-211.2.
ƒ
Typical planting plans for the terrace houses are shown on Sheets RC-228. Front yards
will typically feature hedging and a native tree (5.2m units) or other specimen tree
(7.5m units). A similar approach will be taken to the landscaping in the rear yard.
ƒ
A mixture of native, fruiting, and exotic trees are proposed in order to provide some
deciduous trees and a variety of colour. This is subject to change following discussions
with iwi about increasing the proportion of native species.
Connections and parking8
ƒ
8
The new road network will feature four basic typologies:
ƒ
Type A: 16m wide road reserve with car parking, street trees, berms and
footpaths provided on both sides.
ƒ
Type B: 14m wide road reserve with car parking and street trees on one side and
berms and footpaths on both sides.
ƒ
Type C: 12m wide road reserve which will be treated either as a Homezone
(shared space) or if formed as a road, will feature car parking and street trees on
one side and footpaths on both sides.
ƒ
Type D: 7.5m wide and treated as shared space driveways.
ƒ
It is anticipated at this time that Types A-C will be vested in Council but that Type D
roads will be retained in private ownership and will be managed by the Residents’
Society.
ƒ
Car parking is set out on Sheet RC-310.1-RC-310.10 and shows that a total of 780 car
parks will be provided.
ƒ
Three main road accesses to the site will be provided, including the existing access off
Panama Road and two new accesses to be formed off Hillside Road (one from the east
and one from the south).
ƒ
The pedestrian access strategy is shown on Sheet RC-311. Principally pedestrian
routes rely on the footpath network on public roads but a number of lanes are also
proposed to provide mid-block connections and to provide access to the pocket parks.
A pedestrian connection to Panama Road will be provided between Units 8 and 9 (to
connect to Road C5) and a further connection is proposed to be provided from Road
B1/B3 via a series of stairs to connect to Ryburn Road. It is not proposed to utilise the
two existing rights of way from Mt Wellington Highway as part of the proposal.
ƒ
Car parking is set out on Sheet RC-310.1 and shows that a total of 780 car parks will
be provided
Refer plans RC-302 to RC-311.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 10
Servicing9
3.3
ƒ
Wastewater: it is proposed to connect directly to the 300mmø public sewer line under 8
George Bourke Drive via a new public sewer network.
ƒ
Stormwater: It is currently proposed to dispose of stormwater via a soakhole in the
south-western corner of the site which is currently used for that purpose. Stormwater
from the site will be treated prior to disposal to remove at least 75% of suspended
solids (the design is intended to achieve 80-90% suspended solid reduction).
Discussions are currently being held between applicant and Council with respect to the
adequacy of this system. Commissioners will be updated at the hearing on resolution
of this matter.
ƒ
Water Supply: Some further details have been requested from Watercare, however, it
is understood that potable water supply appears to be available.
ƒ
Power, gas and telecommunications: there is either sufficient existing capacity or
upgrades can readily be provided to service the development.
Site, Locality, Catchment and Environs Description
I concur with the detailed description of the site and surrounding environment as detailed on
pages 4 - 5 of the Assessment of Environmental Effects prepared by the agent.
I would note, with regards to the surrounding environment that, whilst the area is
characterised by modest post-WW2 housing, there are pockets of infill housing. The
northern side of Panama Road has seen the development of Sophia Close within the last ten
years. Sophia Close is of a more dense form than the surrounding Residential 6a and 5
zoned land.
3.4
Other Consents
No other consents (regional or district) are currently required for the development beyond
those detailed in section 4.0 below.
Question was raised as to whether the application required consent for diversion and
discharge of stormwater under the Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water). It
has been determined by Council officers that the proposed development constitutes
permitted activity under 5.5.1(1A) of the Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land and
Water)10.
It is further noted that the application has been prepared on the basis of all the development
land being treated as though it were a single site, and District Plan infringements have been
assessed on that basis. The site will be subdivided in the future and any infringements
arising from individual allotments will be considered at that time.
9
Refer to the Harrison Grierson infrastructure report attached as Appendix 5 to the AEE.
Refer comments by Council Officer Gemma Chuah at Attachment 4.10, which confirms that the activity is
considered a Permitted Activity under Rule 5.5.1(A) of the Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land and
Water) and as such no consent to divert and discharge stormwater is required.
10
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 11
4.0
REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION
Resource consents are required under the provisions of the following District Plan, Regional
Plans and National Environmental Standards.
4.1
District Plan
Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section)
•
The proposal involves earthworks with an area greater than 500m2 on an area with
an average slope less than 5%. This is a restricted controlled activity under Rules
4.3.2.5 & 4A.2 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus
Section). In particular, the applicant proposes to undertake earthworks across an
area of approximately 9.6 hectares with an average slope of less than 5%;
•
The proposal involves the removal of street trees (trees 2, 3, 4, 6 and 15) and
generally protected trees, along with other tree works set out in the arboricultural
report attached as Appendix 6 of the Agent’s report. This is a restricted
discretionary activity under Rule 5C.7.3.3B and C of the Auckland Council District
Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section);
•
The proposal involves works within the dripline of a scheduled golden poplar tree
(H14-14). This is a discretionary activity under Rule 5C.7.3.3A of the Auckland
Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section);
•
The site is identified on Council records as being potentially subject to weak/filled
ground. Pursuant to Rule 5D.6.1.1 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland
City Isthmus Section), any use, development or subdivision of land known to be
subject to instability is a restricted discretionary activity in accordance with Clause
4.3.2.6;
•
The proposal involves commercial activities in the Residential 6a zone. This is a
non-complying activity under the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City
Isthmus Section);
•
The proposal requires consent as a non-complying activity pursuant to Rule 7.7.1
of the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) as it is
proposed to construct residential dwellings which exceed the density limits
specified in Clause 7.7.2.1. The following applies:
−
The maximum permitted density in the Residential 5 zone is 1:500m2 with
1:283m2 proposed (three units permitted and six proposed);
−
The maximum permitted density in the Residential 6a zone is 1:375m2 with
1:247m2 proposed (273 units permitted and 418 proposed);
•
The 8 metre maximum height control (Rule 7.8.1.2 of the Auckland Council District
Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) as it applies in this zone is infringed by the
gable roofs of the Type A and Type B houses and all of the apartments. The extent
of infringements is included at Attachment 1. This is a discretionary activity
pursuant to Rule 4.3.2.1B (Development Control Modification);
•
The building in relation to boundary controls (Rule 7.8.1.3b of the Auckland Council
District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) as it applies in this zone is infringed to
varying degrees around the extent of the site. The extent of the infringements is
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 12
included at Attachment 1. This is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 4.3.1.2B
(Development Control Modification);
•
The 40% minimum landscaped-permeable surface control (Rule 7.8.1.5 of the
Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) as it applies to this
zone is infringed by 17% with 40% required and 23% proposed. This is a
discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 4.3.1.2B (Development Control Modification);
•
The maximum paved-impermeable surface control (Rule 7.8.1.6 of the Auckland
Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) as it applies to this zone is
infringed by 17% with 35% allowed (using the offset rule) and 52% proposed. This
is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 4.3.1.2B (Development Control
Modification);
•
The front yard setback control (Rule 7.8.1.7A of the Auckland Council District Plan
(Auckland City Isthmus Section) as it applies to the Residential 6a requires a 2.5m
set back. This rule is infringed by the Retail Apartment building by 2.5m along a
length of 17.5m. This is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 4.3.1.2B
(Development Control Modification);
•
The front yard landscaping control (Rule 7.8.1.7A of the Auckland Council District
Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) is infringed as follows:
−
Panama Road: 60% required with 45% proposed;
−
Hillside Road East: 50% required with 33.3% proposed; and
−
Hillside Road South: 50% required with 0% proposed.
This is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 4.3.1.2B (Development Control
Modification);
•
The private open space control (Rule 7.8.1.8B and C of the Auckland Council
District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) as it applies to the Residential 5 and
6a zones is infringed with respect to all of the units as they do not meet the
minimum standards requiring a 100m2 area capable of accommodating a 6m
diameter circle or the alternative requirements set out in Rule 7.8.1.8C. This is a
restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 4.3.2.1B (Development Control
Modification);
•
The vehicular use of residential sites control (Rule 7.8.1.9 of Auckland Council
District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) as it relates to the Residential 5 and
6a zones, which requires that except as otherwise specified in the Plan, no part of
any parking or loading space is to be located in an outdoor living area, required
landscaped area or front yard, is infringed as this requirement is not complied with
in respect of the four units proposed for 98-100 Hillside Road. This is a
discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 4.3.1.2B (Development Control Modification).
•
Rule 7.8.1.11 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section)
requires that where four or more parking spaces will be visible from an adjoining
residential site, the parking spaces must be screened with fences and/or planting.
This is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 4.3.2.1B (Development Control
Modification);
•
Rule 12.8.1.1 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section)
requires a total of 889 parking spaces to be provided on the subject site. As the
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 13
applicant proposes to provide 778 parking spaces, this is a discretionary activity
consent pursuant to Rule 12.9.1.1 for a reduction or waiver of 111 of the required
spaces;
4.2
•
Rule 12.8.1.3 Assessment and Formation of Parking and Loading Areas (Auckland
Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) sets out the required
dimensions for car parking spaces. The proposal infringes Clause (i) relating to
minimum dimensions for some of the parallel car parking spaces and (iii) requiring
that minimum manoeuvring space be provided (with 150 pairs of car parks being
provided in a stacked arrangement). This is a restricted discretionary activity
pursuant to Rule 12.9.1.1.
•
Rule 12.8.2.2(i) Vehicular Access over Footpaths (Auckland Council District Plan
(Auckland City Isthmus Section) provides that up to two crossings per site are
permitted provided that no crossing exceeds 6m in width and their combined width
does not exceed 7m. The application provides a total of eight crossings with a
combined width of 50 metres and four of which exceed the 6m maximum width.
This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 12.9.1.1;
•
Rule 12.8.2.3 Reverse Manoeuvring (Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City
Isthmus Section) requires that where four or more car parks gain access from a
local road, sufficient space shall be provided so that no reverse manoeuvring is
required on or off the site. This control is not complied with in respect of the eight
car parks associated with the four units located at 98-100 Hillside Road. This is a
discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 12.9.1.1.
Regional Plans
4.2.1 Auckland Council Operative Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water)
•
Pursuant to Rule 5.5.44 of the Regional Plan: Air Land Water, a controlled activity
consent is required for applications that involve the remediation of contaminated
sites. In this case, elevated levels of contamination have been detected in the
southern part of the site and these “hotspots” are proposed to be remediated;
4.2.2 Auckland Council Operative Regional Plan (Sediment Control)
•
4.3
National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to
Protect Human Health (‘NES Soil Contamination’)
•
4.4
Pursuant to Rule 5.4.3.1 of the Regional Plan: Sediment Control, earthworks in
excess of five hectares requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity. In this
case earthworks are proposed over an area of approximately 9.6 hectares;
Pursuant to Regulation 11 of the National Environmental Standard, any
development that is not permitted, controlled or restricted discretionary is deemed
to be a discretionary activity. In this case, the activity is discretionary as the site is
known to be contaminated but a detailed site investigation has yet to be prepared.
Status of the Application
Overall, the application is considered to be a non-complying activity.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 14
5.0
NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS
5.1
Notification
Notice of the application was served on 3 July 2013 on those persons identified as being
adversely affected by the proposal in accordance with s95E of the RMA.
All matters required to be assessed in terms of sections 95 to 95F, of the RMA have been
addressed in the notification determination report, which is attached at Attachment 6.
5.2
Submissions
At the close of the submission period, total of twenty-four (24) submissions were received.
One (1) submission supported the application, fifteen (15) opposed the application and eight
(8) submissions were neutral. A summary of the issues raised in submissions together with
the relief sought by the submitters is set out as follows.
Please note that this table is only a summary of the key issues raised in submissions.
Please refer to the full set of submissions as required. These are included within Attachment
8 to this report.
The following summary identifies the following:
•
•
•
No.
1
2
3
4
5
the issues raised in submissions in terms of the key issues summarised further below;
details any relief sought by the submitter;
whether the submitter(s) wish(es) to be heard at the hearing.
Name
Moye M
Tu’ungafasi
Thomas
Czebely
Sanjana
Sharma
Gordon S
Plowman
Anand Kumar,
Suruj Kali
Kumar, Saneel
S. Kumar,
Ranjila D.
Kumar, Shelvins
Kumar
Physical
Address
Issues Raised
Support/
Oppose/N
eutral
(refer table below)
Wish
to be
heard
?
Oppose
100 Hillside Road
110 Hillside Road
12 Hillside Road
26 Hillside Road
1,2,3,4
Not stated
Yes
3
Support
Not stated
No
1, 3, 6, 7
Neutral
a, b
No
8, 9, 10, 11
Neutral
c, d, e
No
e,f
No
g, h, i, j, k,
l, m, n, o, p,
q
No
r
-
b,d,j,k,m,s
Yes
Oppose
17A Hillside Road
3, 4, 6, 12
Oppose
6
Relief
Sought
58 Hillside Road
7
Elaine M Rankin
LK Gtrustee (No
99) Ltd &
SK Leung & YC
Cheng
8
Claire Vial
32 Hillside Road
1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 17
Oppose
15A Hillside Road
3, 6, 18
1, 8, 9, 11, 12
Neutral
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 15
9
Ravindra Kumar
92 Hillside Road
10
Anna C White
Maryann &
Johnson Koo
Pattyanne
O'Sullivan
102 Hillside Road
11
12
13
14
Peter M Macer
Rajnita Kumar &
Vinesh Vinay
Badlu
15
Colin G Rabe &
Yola Macken
16
2/31 Ryburn Road
46 Hillside Road
2/602 Mt
Wellington
Highway
4/612 Mt
Wellington
1/29 Ryburn Road
Tim Burnie
Joseph & Lisa
Andrews
Ngati Te Ata
Waiohua
9A Ryburn Road
618 Mt Wellington
Highway
PO Box 97 294
20
Ngati Tamaoho
Te Akitai
Waiohua Waka
Taua Trust
21
Septimia D Pop
PO Box 59-185
612A Mt Wellington
Highway
22
Kevin Barry
34 Hillside Road
23
Toki Taiao (Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whai Maia Ltd) PO Box 42 045
24
V. Barret 15 Hillside Road
17
18
19
C/- Karl W T Flavell
1, 19
Oppose
t
No
20, 21
Neutral
u, v, w
Yes
22
Oppose
x
No
1, 3, 6, 11, 12, 16
Oppose
j, n, y
No
k, z, aa
Yes
b, bb
Yes
Not stated
Yes
Neutral
12, 23, 24
Oppose
6, 9, 25, 26,16
2, 6, 12, 27, 28,
29
Oppose
9, 30
Oppose
cc
No
1, 8, 31,32, 33
Oppose
Not stated
Yes
34
Neutral
dd
-
34
Neutral
Not stated
Yes
Not stated
Yes
Oppose
35
1, 6, 9, 16, 25
Oppose
j, n, ee
Yes
9, 1, 12
Oppose
d, j, k,s
Yes
i, ff
Yes
t
-
Neutral
21, 36, 37, 38
6, 12, 39
Oppose
Table 5.2A: List of submitters, issues and relief sought
Key:
•
For those wishing to be heard “-“ means not stated
No.
Issue Raised
1
Density, overcrowding, pollution
2
Loss of views
3
Loss of quiet neighbourhood due to additional population
4
Additional potential for crime due to additional population
5
Loss of local work source
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 16
6
Additional traffic: delays at intersections, delays for egress for properties on Hillside and Panama
Roads
7
Disruption to, and loss of, existing tenants disturbed by construction effects
8
Notification should have been wider/full notification
9
Proposed hours of construction, duration of construction (three years), and anticipated level of noise
and vibration is excessive
10
Rats. Need for poisoning prior to commencement
11
The Pohutukawas and other trees on site should be protected and required due to non-compliances
with permeable/impermeable requirements.
12
Insufficient parking for both residents and visitors
13
Height of trees on site needs to be controlled to ensure views are retained
14
Fencing around perimeter of the site needs to be ensured to avoid short-cuts by residents
15
Recognition of the significant history of the land should be provided for in commemorative plaques
or park/street/place names
16
Height and height in relation to boundary is in excess, with resultant dominance, shading, loss of
privacy effects
17
Monotonous building design with little variation in housing type and design
18
Noise, traffic, construction traffic from the new road into Hillside Road (south)
19
Pedestrian safety – particularly for schoolchildren walking along Panama and Hillside
20
Damage to neighbouring property through additional stormwater run-off, and damage to
neighbouring trees
21
Contamination of the environment through discharge of stormwater into tomo. Need to ensure
disposal will have no effect on the quality of the water in the aquifer
22
Height of blocks TA-2 and TA-3 exceeds 8m and should be reduced
23
Some trees should be removed (refer 2/602 Mount Wellington Highway)
24
Walkways through to Mount Wellington Highway should not be utilised
25
Dust, grime, odour, asbestos and other contaminants from construction earthworks. Are the dust
suppression measures effective, practical and realistic?
26
Firm assurance has not been given in Appendix 8 (Groundwater and Environmental Services
Report) with regard to protection from contaminant hazards
27
Archaeological impact. Bones and shells from pa site being continually found (1/29 Ryburn Road)
28
Traffic volumes have been underestimated
29
The commercial area is sited in the fastest part of the road adjacent to the main entrance
30
Earthworks appears to extend from 11 Ryburn outside the site into 9 Ryburn Road
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 17
31
Commercial activity within a residential area is not appropriate
32
Type of development appears prone to building quality issues
33
Building number, size and layout is not in character with the surrounding area
34
Cultural assessment currently being undertaken
35
Insufficient consultation has been undertaken
36
Four areas remain historically intact. 11 Ryburn and 98 & 100 Hillside should remain as they are. If
not, then archaeological discovery conditions should be required
37
Vegetation should be native and naturally occurring rather than hybrids
38
Sustainable design features should be utilised (solar water heating, re-use of roof water)
39
Units are likely to be rentals, which causes concern as we do not know who will live there.
Table 5.2B: Summary of issues raised
No.
Relief Sought
a
To be kept informed about the construction process/period to ensure that residents/tenants can plan
and cope
b
Construction to be carried out as sensitively as possible to ensure the least effects
c
Re-notification
d
Reduce the proposed construction hours and days
e
Retain as many pohutukawas and other trees as possible
f
Look for other alternatives for the site
g
Maintain trees at boundary of 58 Hillside Road to a low height (as carried out presently) to maintain
views to Manukau Harbour
h
Fencing plan for perimeter of site to ensure that residents do not short cut through properties to
Hillside Road
i
Commemorative plaques, street/park/locality names for descendants of the area
j
Reduce density as per the District Plan
k
Provide additional parking as per the District Plan
l
Inclusion of restrictions on dog ownership within Residents Association rules to prevent additional
noise
m
Inclusion of sound deadening features around boundaries to stop excessive noise
n
Reduce height and height in relation to boundary as per the District Plan
o
Restrict provision of roofing fixtures such as aerials/masts/solar panels so as to avoid impact on
sight lines or reflective nuisance
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 18
p
Allow for a variety of housebuilders and designers (such as at Hobsonville Point) so as to avoid
monotony
q
Restrictions on height/type/maintenance of tree types should be incorporated into Residents
Association rules
r
Avoid roading connection into Hillside Road
s
Inform of any changes to the masterplan, particularly as it relates to 32 Hillside Road
t
Decline the application
u
Manage stormwater efficiently
v
Consultation with neighbours where retaining walls/boundary works required (see 102 Hillside)
w
Disposal of stormwater into something other than the tomo
x
Reduce height of TA-2 and TA-3
y
Provision of measures for pedestrian safety
z
Removal of trees on the boundary (2/602 Mt Wellington Highway)
aa
Walkways through to Mt Wellington Highway should not be used
bb
Careful consideration of hazardous materials and potential effects arising
cc
Further understanding of earthworks effects on 11 Ryburn Road
dd
Cultural assessment needs to form part of the decision making of Council
ee
Provide sufficient setbacks between surrounds and apartments
ff
Inclusion of conditions in the event lava caves uncovered
Table 5.2C: Summary of relief sought
5.3
Written Approvals
The applicant has not obtained the written approval from any persons.
5.4
Location Plan and Submissions
Refer to Figure 5.4 following.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 19
2
10
11
15
1
9
SITE
16
13
21 14
17
6
4 8
3
22
12
24
7
5
Figure 5.4: Map detailing location of submitters in support and opposition to application. Numbers correspond to
Table 5.2A above. The site is located within the red boundary.
5.5
Amendments to the Application following Notification
During and after the limited notification process, a number of revised drawings and technical
reports were amended or provided by the applicant, either in response to Council officer or
submitter concerns.
The essential changes and additional information included the following:
1.
Reduction in the number of residential units, from an original 440 units (as applied for),
to 429 units (as notified) to 424 units (as of 6 August);
2.
Further modification to the external appearance of all apartment blocks, in order to
address concerns from Council’s Urban Design team;
3.
Modification to the hierarchy of roading within the development, to provide for a logical
and clear pattern of roading, and clear distinction between private and public roading;
4.
An increase in the number of parking spaces on site, from a shortfall of 212 (as lodged)
to 109 spaces (as of 6 August). This has been obtained through:
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 20
ƒ
deletion of end-of-row terrace houses to accommodate on-street parking;
ƒ
provision of additional parking on ‘D’ lanes and ‘C’ roads for residents and
visitors11
5.
Provision of a concept design intent statement for Roads C and D;
6.
Provision of a lighting strategy for the site;
7.
Landscape Details, including draft planting specification, and tree pit details;
8.
Further technical information and analysis of the stormwater disposal method on site.
In particular:
9.
ƒ
Investigation of the current soakhole which is proposed to be utilised;
ƒ
Investigation as to the ground water levels on the site, and impact on the water
level as a result of the cessation of the current water take on site.
Further technical information and analysis surrounding geotechnical matters raised by
Council’s experts, in particular:
ƒ
Investigation of potential settlement over the site;
ƒ
Additional information around slope stability, in order to reduce any rock fall
hazards.
10.
Modification and assessment of apartment block TA-7, located in the western-most part
of the site. This included placement of the building further away from the boundary to
provide more separation to the properties on Mount Wellington Highway; cross
sections indicating the placement of the apartment block relative to the neighbouring
properties, and sunlight studies.
11.
Provision of edge section studies around the perimeter of the site to demonstrate
separation distances and relationships between the development and adjoining
dwellings.
This information forms part of the application and has been considered in this report. The
information was considered as falling within the scope of the original application, and
therefore re-notification of the application was not required.
Those parties that submitted will be provided with a complete set of the additional or revised
plans and technical reports with a copy of this planning assessment.
6.0
CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION
6.1
Statutory Considerations
When considering an application for a non-complying activity the consent authority must
have regard to Part 2 of the RMA (“Purposes and Principles” – sections 5 to 8), and sections
104, 104B, 104D and, where relevant, section 108 of the RMA.
Subject to Part 2 of the RMA, when considering an application for resource consent and any
submissions received a council must, in accordance with s104(1) of the RMA have regard to:
11
See overall parking layout at plan RC-310.1
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 21
•
•
•
any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity;
any relevant provisions of a NES, 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
Section 104(2) allows any effects that may arise from permitted activities set out in a NES or
a plan to be excluded from the assessment of effects related to the resource consent. This is
known as the permitted baseline test. The ‘baseline’ constitutes the existing environment
(excluding existing use rights) against which a proposed activity’s degree of adverse effect is
assessed. Generally it is only the adverse effects over and above those forming the baseline
that are relevant when considering whether the effects are minor. It is at the Council’s
discretion whether to apply the assessment of the permitted baseline to any proposal.
Essentially, the consent authority may disregard an adverse effect of any activity on the
environment if a NES or an operative plan (or an operative rule in a proposed plan) permits
an activity with that effect.
When considering an application for resource consent, the consent authority must not have
regard to trade competition or the effects of trade competition [s104(3)(a)(i)] or any effect on
a person who has given their written approval to the application [s104(3)(a)(ii)].
Under s104B a consent authority may grant or refuse consent for a discretionary activity or
non-complying activity and, if it grants the application, may impose conditions under s108 of
the RMA.
Section 104D sets out the ‘threshold test’ for non-complying activities. A consent authority
may only grant consent to a non-complying activity if it is satisfied that the adverse effects on
the environment are minor, or the activity will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of
the relevant plan or proposed plan. If either of the limbs of the test has been passed then the
application is able to be considered for approval subject to consideration under s104 of the
RMA.
Section 108 provides for consent to be granted subject to conditions and sets out the kind of
conditions that may be imposed.
All considerations are subject to Part 2 of the RMA, which sets out the purpose and
principles that guide this legislation. This means the matters in Part 2 prevail over other
provisions of the RMA or provisions in planning instruments (e.g. regional plans) in the event
of a conflict. Section 5 states the purpose of the RMA and sections 6, 7 and 8 are principles
intended to provide additional guidance as to the way in which the purpose is to be achieved.
The application of Section 5 involves an overall broad judgement of whether a proposal will
promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The RMA’s use of
the terms “use, development and protection” are a general indication that all resources are to
be managed in a sustainable way, or at a rate which enables people and communities to
provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, and for their health and safety,
while sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonably
foreseeable needs of future generations, safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air,
water, soil and ecosystems, and avoiding, remedying and mitigating any adverse effects of
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 22
activities on the environment. The enabling and management functions found in section 5(2)
should be considered of equal importance and taken as a whole.
Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the RMA provide further context and guidance to the constraints found
in section 5(2)(a),(b) and (c). The commencing words to these sections differ, thereby laying
down the relative weight to be given to each section.
Section 6 of the RMA sets out the matters of national importance which need to be
recognised and provided for and includes among other things and in no order of priority, the
protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, the protection of areas of
significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, and the
protection of historic heritage. In the case of this particular proposal, relevant matters are
considered in the evaluation section of this report.
Section 7 of the RMA requires the consent authority to give particular regard to those matters
listed in the section. Section 7 matters are not expressly ranked in order of priority.
Therefore, all aspects of this section are to be considered equally. In the case of this
particular proposal the relevant matters are considered in the evaluation section of this
report.
Section 8 of the RMA requires the consent authority to take into account the principles of the
Treaty of Waitangi. This section of the RMA recognises the relationship of Tangata Whenua
with natural and physical resources and encourages active participation and consultation
with Tangata Whenua. Relevant matters are considered in the evaluation section of this
report.
6.2
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.
Given the requirement to carry out an assessment under 104(1) it is considered reasonable
to carry out this full assessment, and return to section 104D to make a recommendation as to
whether the application meets one or both of these tests. Refer below to section 6.10 for the
summary s104(D) assessment.
6.3
Section 104(1)(a) Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment
6.3.1 Effects that must be disregarded
A.
Any effect on a person who has given written approval to the application
No written approvals were obtained.
B.
Trade competition
No trade competition effects have been considered, or are considered, relevant to the
application.
6.3.2 Effects that may be disregarded – Permitted Baseline assessment
When forming an opinion for the purposes of section 104(1)(a) a Council may disregard an
adverse effect of the activity on the environment if the plan permits an activity with that effect,
under section 104(2) (i.e. the Council may consider the “permitted baseline”).
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 23
As noted by the agent, there is comparatively little that can be carried out on the site, as any
new residential development involving four or more units requires a restricted discretionary
activity consent.
The existing nursery activities and associated buildings and hardstand areas have been
consented and therefore form part of the legally established existing environment. In
assessing the effects of this proposal, regard has been had to this existing environment
as a baseline.
Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that the site is zoned Residential 5 and 6a (under the
Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999)) and some form of
residential development of the site is therefore reasonably anticipated. With a combined site
size of 10.4971 hectares and an expected density of one per 375m2 or one per 500m2, the
site could be expected to accommodate approximately 28012 dwellings in accordance with
the current Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999).
6.3.3 Assessment of Effects
Having regard to the above and after an analysis of the application, including any proposed
mitigation measures and specialist reports, undertaking a site visit, reviewing Council
records, reviewing the submissions received and taking advice from the appropriate experts,
the following effects that require specific consideration in respect to this application have
been identified and considered as follows.
A.
Amenity Values
Built Form and Streetscape Character
In this instance I consider that there are two distinct potential built form impacts – that upon
the surrounding neighbourhood, and the built form and character effects of the development
itself.
•
Built form and streetscape character - effects on wider surrounds
In this particular instance, I would describe the character of the area as being predominantly
that of a low-density post-WWII neighbourhood of detached dwellings on large sites. The
subdivision pattern is a typical suburban form of detached dwellings with generous side and
front yards.
There are pockets of infill housing, with the most visually obvious being located at Sophia
Close to the north of the Panama Road entrance. However, infill housing is predominantly
located to the rear of existing older housing, with little street presence. To the wider public
the only indications that there is infill housing is reflected in the number of driveways, and
more distant views down to the rear of properties where a dwelling may be located. The
existing and infill housing varies in terms of size and scale, however, the predominant
building form is generally of a modest, single storey nature.
As noted within the agent’s AEE, the existing site itself is unusual amidst this context. The
site is set in something of a basin, with limited views gained from the wider environment into
the site. The Panama Road frontage is open and well-treed, with planting having been
established on this frontage with the cessation of the quarrying activities on site.
12
Arrived at as follows: Residential 6a area of 102,464m2/375m2 minimum site = 273 residential units;
Residential 5 area of 2,507m2/500m2 minimum site size = 5 residential units, total of 278 residential units.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 24
The proposed design has maximised this basin-like opportunity, with the placement of the
apartments around the western edge of the site where they can take advantage of the drop in
levels to screen their height and appearance to as great an extent as possible from
neighbouring properties and the wider environment. Apartments have also been sited in the
centre of the development around the park. These apartment buildings will not be
immediately discernible to the wider viewing audience beyond the neighbouring properties.
There are limited views into the site from Hillside Road (south) due to housing between the
site and road. Distant views would be obtained of the proposed apartments around the
western perimeter beneath Ryburn Road, however, this would not result in any appreciable
difference to the established character of the area. This is also the case with the eastern
side of the site, where views into it will be limited due to the houses between the site and
road. The wider public will have views of the outer edges of the site due to the location of
terrace housing on the Hillside Road frontage itself, however, this will be limited in size and
scale with only four residential units on this frontage. This is also the case with development
on Ryburn Road, which will be limited to four terrace houses with minimal frontage on to
Ryburn Road itself.
In contrast to this is the development fronting on to Panama Road. The main frontage is to
Panama Road, with this boundary measuring approximately 190m in length. To the west of
the Panama Road access, a three storey block including two levels of apartments is
proposed. This building is proposed to be of approximately 10 metres in height, with a
Panama Road front setback at the corner edge of 3.6 metres, with no front setback otherwise
provided.
To the east of the Panama Road access, two rows of terrace housing are proposed
separated by a pedestrian walkway linking through to Panama Road. The terrace houses
are provided with a more generous setback of between 6 to 8 metres, and vary in height from
6m to 8.5m.
The application includes removal of the pohutukawa trees currently sited on the Panama
Road frontage. Replacement planting and fencing will take place, with rebuilding and
extension of the existing stone walls on the road boundary to contain the increase in height to
the east.
I consider that the proposed Panama Road frontage will appear as an urban form of
development, in contrast to the suburban character of the area in which the site is located.
This urban nature is a combination of factors, shaped by the largely continuous lengths of
buildings, the inability to provide for breathing space and landscaped vegetation between the
houses as currently experienced within the neighbourhood, the elevated nature of the terrace
housing further to the east, the height and form of the retail apartment building and views to
the apartment building behind. The design of the apartment building also necessarily lends
itself to a more urban environment, with no front setback and with balconies directly located
on the street frontage. I consider that all of these factors will result in the development
appearing more akin to an inner-city urban location than the spacious single and two-storey
area in which the site is located.
I consider that the built form and appearance of the buildings will differ markedly from what is
existing on site at present and would instantly appear of a more urban nature to that currently
encountered on and around the site.
However, after taking into account the positive benefits which arise in relation to the
development, I consider that the form would be acceptable. In particular, the proposed
planting, quality built form (which can be ensured through conditions of consent) and as
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 25
compared to the existing situation on the site, which offers poor amenity in relation to the
surrounding residential neighbourhood. Further, the development offers positive effect in that
it provides for a more active urban edge to that currently experienced, which will provide for
surveillance and a range of uses within the retail offerings. Whilst the Panama Road frontage
will appear different in form to what is around it, given the above considerations I do not think
that this will be a negative effect.
On the basis of the above, I consider that the positive effects of the transition to an urban
form will outweigh any discordant effects.
•
Built Form and Streetscape Character – Internal Built Form and Character
The internal built form and character of the site has been comprehensively discussed at
length within a number of design meetings, which has resulted in the drawing package today.
Council’s Urban Design Specialists Peter Joyce and Anna Wood advise that there are some
points of conflict and difficulties with the built form and character which arise, namely:
-
The prevalence of parking spaces located to the front of residential units, and located
in undercroft spaces;
-
Some confusion between fronts and backs of houses as a result of the overall layout,
which may result in additional fencing being installed;
However, the report also considers that there are a number of positive aspects of the
development, and overall concludes that the merits of the proposal outweigh the potential
issues. Relevant matters to the built form and character considerations are as follows:
‘In my opinion, although obviously different to the existing residential neighbourhood, the proposed
new development will create a clear sense of its own urban identity and exemplify the changing
scale and characteristics anticipated within specified areas of Auckland identified for residential
growth. Over time it is reasonable to anticipate that a new neighbourhood character will emerge
13
that is a result of the integration of the different qualities of the new and existing urban forms’
…
‘It is my conclusion that the comprehensive development proposed by the consent application effectively responds to the four qualities of good design as defined by the Auckland Plan (Identity, Diversity, Integration and Efficiency (Chapter 10)) and illustrates a unique response to the site and the development objectives. The result is a living option based on an innovative spatial relationship between proposed shared amenity elements of the site design and the functional requirements for adequate privacy on individual lots and within the various residential unit 14
typologies’. I acknowledge that there are difficulties with the design, as there are on any site, and concur
with the comprehensive urban design report provided in that overall the development
provides for an acceptable built form and design which will establish its own separate
character and identity as Springpark.
Dominance and Shading
As noted above, the application includes a number of apartment buildings which are for the
most part located well within the site itself.
A number of these apartment buildings are either over the height or height in relation to
boundary for this zone, and which generates potential for dominance and shading effects15.
13
Refer Peter Joyce’s Memo at Attachment 4.1, page 26.
Refer Peter Joyce’s Memo at Attachment 4.1, page 27.
15
See District Plan Compliance drawings at RC-400 to RC-410.7 illustrating non-compliances.
14
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 26
However, due to the building locations, the higher apartment buildings within the site will not
be readily visible or obvious to the wider viewing public.
The one possible exception to this is again the retail/apartment block on the frontage of
Panama Road, which is provided with no setback upon the street boundary. However, whilst
the building is of 24 metres in length immediately upon the boundary, and will provide a
strong urban edge to the street, I consider that Panama Road is of sufficient width so as to
accommodate this higher form of development and not result in dominance effects upon the
road. Being located on the southern side of Panama Road it would also not result in any
shading to the street.
In regards to effects upon immediately adjacent properties, I consider that the following
apartment blocks identified in Figure 6.2 require closer consideration. These apartment
blocks have been identified to have potential adverse effects in relation to dominance and
shading due to their close relationship to the exterior of the site. A number of submissions
in relation to these apartment blocks have also been received.
TA-2
2/31 Ryburn
1/29 Ryburn
TA-3
4/612 Mt Wellington H/Way
612A Mt Wellington
H/Way
618 Mt Wellington H/Way
TA-7
Figure 6.2: Apartment blocks considered to present potential dominance, shading, visual and
aural effects, in relation to neighbouring submitters
-
TA-2 and TA-3 (4 storeys)
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 27
Residents at 2/31 Ryburn Road and 1/29 Ryburn Road expressed concern with regard to the
height of the proposed apartment buildings along this section, and resultant dominance and
shading effects.
In regards to these concerns, I note that both TA-2 and TA-3 are proposed to be sited some
20 metres from western boundary.
Further to this, they will also be situated at a significantly lower level. Plans RC-404.1 Rev B
illustrate the level difference, which results in the apartments TA-2 having (at most) its
uppermost level at the same height as a comparative single storey dwelling on Ryburn
Road16.
Having viewed the further information provided on these plans, I am confident that there will
be no resultant adverse dominance and shading effects on the occupiers of 2/31 Ryburn
Road and 1/29 Ryburn Road.
-
TA-7 (3 storeys)
Residents at 4/61217, 612A and 618 Mt Wellington Highway each made submissions with
respect to the height of the proposed buildings and their resultant bulk, dominance, shading,
and visual privacy effects. I consider these as follows:
-
Block TA-7 has a more significant height in relation to boundary effect upon the rear
property of the neighbour at 4A Hillside Road due to the change in levels in this area18.
Infringements upon the submitters properties are of a more minor nature and can best
be seen at RC-407.2 Revision B;
-
The neighbouring house at 4/612 Mount Wellington Highway, and its relationship with
TA-7, is best illustrated in plan RC-404.10, which indicates that TA-7 will be located
some 6 to 7 metres from the residential unit at 4/612 Mount Wellington Highway.
Further, the apartment block will be set at an oblique angle to the house, and will
present as two storeys due to the changes in levels between properties;
-
Neighbouring house 612A is located behind 4/612 Mount Wellington Highway, and for
the reason above (that is, the apartment building presenting as two storeys in height,
and separation distances proposed) I do not have concerns with regards to bulk and
dominance to this house;
-
The neighbouring house 618 Mount Wellington Highway and its relationship with TA-7
is best demonstrated in plan RC-404.12 and also at RC-407.2. This illustrates a minor
height in relation to boundary infringement, and a setback of 5.79 metres (at worst) to
the rear of 618 Mount Wellington Highway;
-
The sun shading effects as a result of TA-7 are demonstrated in plans SK-407 to SK410, where it is demonstrated that the additional shadowing effects will be negligible, in
particular given the retention of the existing trees around proposed block TA-7.
Having considered the application, submissions, anticipated development of the site which
conforms to the height requirements, and in particular the detailed plans illustrating setbacks
16
Refer also plans 410.6-410.7 which illustrates the relationships between the Ryburn Road properties and
Terrace Apartments TA-2 and TA-3; also plans SK-388, SK-389, SK-390, SK-391, SK-392 (received
09/08/2013) which illustrate the level changes and separation distances.
17
Note that the applicants plans refer to this as 612 Mt Wellington Highway, whereas the submitters have
referred to themselves as 4/612 Mt Wellington Highway. 4/612 has been the address used for the purposes
of this report.
18
It is noted that this neighbour at 4A Hillside did not make a submission on the application.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 28
and level changes over the site, I am of the view that the proposal will generate minor
adverse dominance, bulk and shading effects, in particular upon the neighbours at 4/612 Mt
Wellington Highway, and 618 Mt Wellington Highway. I am of the opinion that these effects
will be avoided to some degree through retention of the screen of planting along the western
edge of apartment block TA-7, but that there will nevertheless be some effect from the siting,
size and scale of this apartment block in such a location.
Aural and Visual Privacy
Due to the isolated nature of the site there are limited points at which the development will
potentially have adverse aural and visual privacy effects upon the wider environment.
I do not consider that the development would provide for any level of acoustic or visual
privacy effect on the wider environment over and above what could generally be expected
from a residentially-zoned development. The one potential exception to this is the retail
development upon Panama Road, which has potential for adverse noise effects generated
by, for instance, café and restaurant activities. However, I would expect that this would be
limited to the immediate neighbourhood, including those across Panama Road, those to the
immediate side of the site (25 Panama Road) and those above the retail units.
I consider that the adverse visual effects of this could be adequately avoided through
imposition of conditions around the nature of the proposed activities, hours of operation, and
hours of deliveries. As such, a condition of consent is proposed.
In regards to the effects of the development upon immediately adjacent properties, I note the
following:
-
The development provides for (mostly) oblique relationships with exterior properties,
therefore avoiding back-to-back relationships and potential visual and acoustic privacy
issues; and
-
Where there are some back-to-back relationship with adjoining properties (32-38, 102,
104 Hillside) the dwellings are of two storeys and have separation distances not unlike
a typical residential subdivision as follows:
-
32-38 Hillside: 10 metres from proposed terrace house type B to the rear of the
section; and
-
102-104 Hillside: 13 metres from the rear of proposed terrace house type B to the
rear of the section.
There are some terrace apartment relationships to adjacent properties which require further
consideration as follows:
-
TA-2 and TA-3
As noted above, I consider that the large separation distances, combined with the change in
levels, will satisfactorily avoid any adverse aural and visual privacy effect upon neighbouring
properties.
-
TA-7
Again, as noted above I consider that the separation distances, level changes, oblique
angles, and in particular the retention of the shelter belt of trees at this point, will be sufficient
to provide for the visual and aural privacy of residents, and that overall the building would
present less than minor visual and acoustic privacy effects on residents at 4/612 and 618 Mt
Wellington Highway.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 29
In regards to the internal design and layout, and visual and privacy effects arising, Council’s
Urban Design Specialist Mr Peter Joyce has commented that there has been a great deal of
consideration as to separation distances, and that the design arrived at provides for modest
but acceptable distances which will ensure the amenity of residents19. I concur with Mr Joyce
in this regard.
B.
Earthworks
The agent’s report notes proposed earthworks as being:
-
‘Undercutting of an average 1.5m depth (to a max of 3m depth) of unconsolidated
material and replacing this material as engineered fill (approximately 150,000m3).
Following compaction an additional 40,000-50,000m3 of “make-up” replacement fill will be
needed.
-
Placement of “pre-loading” stockpiles for six months and then spreading of this material
on-site as “make-up” fill described above and to cover the 10,000m3 shortfall described
below (approximately 60,000m3).
-
General cut-to-fill on site to form final shape of lots/roads/etc (30,000m3 cut and 40,000m3
fill leaving a 10,000m3 shortfall in fill required).
-
Retaining walls are proposed at three locations. These include:
1.
2.
3.
Adjacent to the start of Road B2 at the intersection point with Hillside Road. The
wall is to retain a cut face required to form the new road.
On either side of proposed Road B6 where it passes between two existing
properties and connects with Hillside Road.
Adjacent to the accessway Road D3 off Ryburn Road’.20
The agent has noted that the following measures will be utilised in order to avoid adverse
effects arising from earthworks:
-
Implement sediment and erosion control measures as and when required;
-
Implement measures to control dust generation, hydrocarbon spills and noise
generation;
-
Preparation of a construction management plan.
Council Officer Ms Priya Nair-Mudalier has carried out a review in respect of the earthworks
matters and concludes that the adverse effects on the environment will be less than minor,
for the following reasons:
a. ‘The earthworks operation will utilise best practice erosion control methodologies
and controls such as progressive stabilisation, reduction in contributing catchment
using clean water diversions, minimising the limit of disturbance, treatment through
decanting earth bunds and sediment retention pond and the chemical treatment of
the impoundment devices that will reduce the risk of an adverse effect via. The
measures outlined have been assessed as being the most appropriate for
earthworks of this nature and scale.
b. The earthworks effects are temporary and short term’.21
19
Refer Attachment 4.1, section 4.3.1.6, page 21.
Refer Agent’s AEE page 7.
21
Refer Attachment 4.11, section 6.2, page 6.
20
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 30
On the basis of the above, and the proposed means by which the effects will be avoided, I
consider that there will be less than minor effects as a result of the required earthwork
activities, which would be mitigated by the measures put in place as mentioned above.
C.
Contamination
The site is subject to contamination due to the previous fill which has taken place on site, and
due to the current use as a nursery.
The contamination aspects of the development have been assessed by:
•
Samuel Woolley, Consents and Compliance Advisor – Contamination, Natural
Resources and Specialist Input. Refer Attachment 4.12;
•
Sharon Tang, Environmental Health Specialist – Contaminated Land and Water
Quality. Refer Attachment 4.9.
As outlined in Samuel Woolley’s assessment:
1. Subject to the imposition of consent conditions, it is considered that the effects
on the receiving environment are less than minor.
2. The sensitivity of the receiving environment to the adverse effects of the
discharge will not be compromised given the level of the discharge, the
application of suitable control technology and appropriate on site management
techniques.
3. It is considered that due to the temporary nature which applies to the proposal,
a grant of consent is justified.
The above conclusions are reciprocated within the report prepared by Sharon Tang –
Environmental Health Specialist in her assessment under the NES ‘Resource Management
(National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to
Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011’.
Two submissions were received in relation to contamination. These were from Ms Septimia
Diana Pop and Rajnita Kumar and Vinesh Vinay Badlu as follows:
•
Ms Pop is opposed to the proposal on the basis of the heavy metal, arsenic and
hydrocarbon contamination at the site. As noted within Mr Woolley’s report, the
concerns of Ms Pop related to the Contaminated Site Discharge activity are likely to be
addressed through the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant and the
proposed conditions of any consent.
•
Mr Kumar and Ms Badlu also raise concerns relating to the inhalation of contaminated
soil and dust and the effectiveness of the dust suppression measures proposed. In
addition, Mr Kumar and Ms Badlu express their concern regarding the level of
investigation undertaken at the site and their protection from potential hazards given
the lower-level contaminated material to remain at the site.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 31
The level of investigation has been restricted due to the presence of site structures.
The further investigation proposed is considered to be sufficient to further characterise
the contamination status of the site and address the concerns of Mr Kumar and Ms
Badlu.
The protection from potential hazards remaining at the site is a matter for consideration
by Ms Sharon Tang, who has advised that the development will need to be carried out
to ensure that dust is controlled in accordance with the Good Practice Guide for
Assessing and managing the Environmental Effects of Dust Emissions, Ministry for the
Environment (2001).
Consequently, after having considered the reports submitted, the specialist input, and the
suggested conditions of consent, it is considered that any potential contamination effects in
relation to human health or the environment can be avoided or mitigated.
I note that a number of matters relating to contamination have been conditioned as part of
the decision should consent be granted.
D.
Geotechnical
The site has been subject to two geotechnical investigations throughout 2012 and 2013 by
Soil and Rock Consultants.
The geotechnical reports have also been subject to a thorough review by Coffey’s
Geotechnical Engineers, who comment that both the slope stability hazard and the
subsidence hazard (fill settlement) can be adequately mitigated by engineering measures. A
copy of this memo is attached at Attachment 4.7.
Given the investigations carried out to date, the specialist reports provided, and the
measures which will be utilised, I consider that that any potential adverse effects with respect
to instability will be able to be avoided.
E.
Impact upon Geological features
The site is located on a former volcano. Due to the anecdotal evidence of the current site
owner, it is thought that there are two lava caves in the south-western area of the site, into
which the stormwater currently disposes.
At time of lodgement, further information was requested from Council Biodiversity Officer Mr
Alaistair Jamieson as to the nature of the caves, and what adverse effects might occur in
relation to them.
The applicant subsequently commissioned Speleologist Mr Peter Crossley of the Auckland
University to investigate the stormwater drain and ‘caves’ further. Mr Crossley was able to
descend down the 600mm diameter pipe 14 metres, at which point there was a shallow cover
of water. No voids or ‘caves’ were seen through the pipe openings.
Given the depth, inaccessibility, and likelihood of modification during excavations and work to
originally install the stormwater pipe, it is considered that the geological value of the ‘caves’
are of little merit and that there would be no adverse effects on these cavities. This has been
confirmed by Mr Alastair Jamieson who has advised:
‘Any caves that still exist at the site would be of limited merit for their geological
values (scientific, educational or aesthetic) given their depth and inaccessibility. In
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 32
addition there is a low likelihood of further significant modification from the works
that are proposed’22.
Given the above, it is considered that there will be no resultant effects on any remnant
geological feature.
F.
Vegetation and Scheduled Tree
The application proposes:
•
Removal of 24 individual trees and 15 groups of trees (numbering some 832 trees)
over the site. This includes removal of existing street trees upon Panama, Hillside and
Ryburn Roads;
•
Works within the dripline of a scheduled golden poplar tree located on the western
boundary of what is currently known as 11 Ryburn Road;
•
A large amount of landscape work, and tree replacement both within the pocket parks
and alongside the new roads23.
In this regard, the application has been reviewed by the following specialists:
•
Allan Holmes, Arborist, Central Resource Consenting and Compliance (in relation to
the removal of a trees upon the site itself). Refer Attachment 4.14;
•
Howell Davies, Arboriculture and Landscape Advisor, Local and Sports Parts, Parks
Sports and Recreation (in relation to the removal of existing trees at the access points,
and proposed streetscape planting). Refer Attachment 4.13;
•
Chris Boucher - Consultant Arborist, Arbman (in relation to effects upon the Scheduled
Poplar tree). Refer Attachment 4.16.
The following effects and mitigation measures are summarised and considered as follows.
Mr Allan Holmes has assessed the trees to be removed, and considers that the tree
removals can, for the vast majority, be supported. However, Mr Holmes questions as to why
the Pohutukawa trees upon Panama Road are to be removed, when they could provide a
screen for the site, would provide a noise buffer for the intended residents, and when the
trees could be altered to be beneficial to both occupiers and the street.
While I concur that this removal is unfortunate, and could be avoided, it is acknowledged
that:
-
22
23
the Pohutukawa trees along Panama Road would conflict with the future residential
amenity of the terraced housing, particularly given that they are to the north of the
proposed residential units;
Refer Attachment 4.17 for Mr Jamieson’s assessment.
Refer A3 set of drawings numbered RC200-RC228 for landscape package.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 33
-
the trees are of limited value as specimens (as noted by Mr Holmes); and
-
the planting along Panama Road would, in future, to some degree mitigate the effects
of this tree removal24.
On this basis I consider that the removal of the trees can be supported, subject to the
planting and ongoing maintenance of the proposed trees and shrub under planting on
Panama Road.
Mr Howell Davies has assessed the removal of the street trees and streetscape planting
plans. He has commented that:
-
He supports the proposal to undertake tree removals to provide for site access at
Panama Road and Hillside Road (south and east);
-
He supports the planting of new trees, on the basis that the trees will be appropriately
positioned and that the species selection is agreed upon once the final development
plans (Engineering Approval) have been assessed by the Council;
On this basis I am supportive of the street tree removals and planting, and have included Mr
Davies recommended conditions of consent.
Mr Chris Boucher has considered the application in regards to the works within the dripline of
the scheduled Golden Poplar tree. Work will consist of the construction of Lane D3 which
will serve the four terrace residential units accessed from Ryburn Road. The Masterplan and
Stage 3 Plan indicate an area of retained earth around this tree, with the Lane being built
around the tree25.
He has noted that the Golden Poplar tree is included within the Schedule of Notable Trees
under categories ‘b’ and ‘c’, being of botanic and visual amenity values. Given that the tree
is located within Stage 3, and the levels and detail around this are yet to be finalised, he has
recommended a suite of conditions to ensure that the design detail and construction will
ensure protection of the tree. Subject to the implementation of these conditions, he is of the
opinion that any adverse effects arising from the proposals can be managed as being no
more than minor.
Based on the replanting proposed, and the measures which can be taken to ensure the
health of the scheduled tree, it is considered that the adverse effects in relation to vegetation
loss can be mitigated and that effects on the scheduled Golden Poplar tree will be avoided.
G.
Cultural Values
As noted by the agent:
Prior to it being quarried away, the subject site featured a number of volcanic
cones and was known as Te Aponga o Tainui/McLennans Hills. The site was
strategically located at a relatively narrow part of the Isthmus and therefore
24
Refer Architectural Drawings RC-307.1 Rev B (for Panama Road elevations), RC-365.1 Rev A and RC365.2 (for the Panama Road frontage plans giving indicative planting and layouts).
25
Refer Architectural Drawing RC-320.1 Rev C.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 34
offered an elevated position overlooking the portage route between the Manukau
Harbour and Tamaki River. For this reason, the site has a history of occupation as
a pa and later, in the 1860s, as a military camp.
A number of iwi have indicated an interest in the site and consultation has
commenced with these groups….
Te Aponga o Tainui/McLennan Hills have long been quarried away so the
physical manifestation of the volcanic cones has been lost. Notwithstanding this, it
is considered that there is an opportunity to commemorate the essential elements
of the site’s history in the future development. The applicant has an ongoing
commitment to work collaboratively with iwi in this regard.26.
An archaeological investigation into the site was received 14 June 201327. The report
identifies that, on the basis of the assessment undertaken, the site has at best ‘moderate’
significance, but that there are three areas in which the effects of development are likely to
damage or destroy any historic remnants. An additional site in the south-east potentially has
remnants, and this area is to be landscaped with trees. It is anticipated that adverse effects
would be avoided in this location.
The archaeological report has made a number of recommendations, including that an
authority to destroy, damage, or modify this archaeological site is applied for from the New
Zealand Historic Places Trust; that any consent be conditioned to cover any event where
Koiwi (human remains) be uncovered, and that tangata whenua be consulted regarding the
possible existence of sites of traditional significance.
In this regard, consultation has been undertaken with a number of iwi, which included a
recent hui on site. There are on-going conversations with these iwi with respect to water, the
lava caves, and planting on the site.
The applicant has summarised their consultation with iwi to date as follows:
‘In March we emailed the following iwi groups to ascertain if they had an interest in the site:
• Ngati Paoa
• Ngai Tai ki Tamaki
• Ngati Te Ata
• Ngati Tamatera
• Ngati Whanaunga
• Ngati Tamaoho
• Te Akitai
• Ngati Whatua o Orakei
Of these the following indicated that they had an interest in the site:
• Ngati Paoa
• Ngai Tai ki Tamaki
• Ngati Te Ata
• Ngati Tamaoho
• Te Akitai
• Ngati Whatua o Orakei
All iwi except Te Akitai indicated that they were happy to meet as a collective to discuss the project
and we have proceeded on that basis since March. We have been consulting with Te Akitai
separately.
In terms of the collective, we have had three hui – 8 May, 12 June and 26 July. I have forwarded
you the minutes for the May and July hui – these mainly covered landscaping, water quality and
26
See section 8.3.6 of the agent’s report, and Appendix 6 to the AEE.
Refer Archaeological Assessment prepared by CFG Heritage, dated 13 June 2013, item 1 of ‘Additional
Information’ folder. This archaeological assessment was required as the site is included as a recognized
Archaeological site by the New Zealand Archaeological Association (ref R11/10).
27
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 35
archaeology. The June hui (for which there were no minutes) was onsite to look at the water bore
and stormwater soakhole. There is a further hui scheduled for 30 August – the agenda is yet to be
confirmed but we expect we will be mainly covering stormwater quality, archaeology and ways in
which the site’s past can be celebrated. As discussed, we are currently exploring if it is feasible to
do less (or no) development on the Ryburn Rd property in order to assuage concerns about
potentially disturbing intact archaeological material.
In addition to the collective huis, Ngati Te Ata and Ngati Tamaoho are preparing individual CIAs –
these are expected to be received by the end of the month.
In terms of Te Akitai, we had an initial meeting on 3 May to discuss the project. From that meeting
we engaged CFG Heritage to prepare an archaeological report at Te Akitai’s request. This was
provided to them in June. We had a further meeting on 2 August and from that meeting we agreed
to engage a historian (Tony Walzl) to undertake further research with respect to iwi members that
were imprisoned on site in the 1860s. This research is due in the next week or so. We have also
engaged Te Akitai to prepare a CIA but (we are)not sure when that will be due’.28
It is clear from the above that there have been a number of measures undertaken to consult
with relevant iwi, and that this dialogue is ongoing. It is anticipated that further comment on
the consultation undertaken, and outcomes, will be presented by submitters and the
applicant at the hearing.
Taking into consideration the above report, submitters concerns, and the consultation
currently ongoing, it is currently considered that the effects of the development upon the
archaeological remnants on site can be avoided and mitigated.
H.
Personal Safety
Consideration has been given within the agent’s report to personal safety and crime
prevention through environmental design (CPTED)29.
As noted by the agent, the development proposes a typical grid design with dwellings facing
the streets. There will be limited views into the development site from the surrounding
environment, but there will be four points of access and presence at the street edge (Panama
Road, Ryburn Road, Hillside Road (south) and Hillside Road (east)).
It is considered that the access points, and design of buildings fronting on to Panama Road,
will result in a good level of passive surveillance upon the neighbouring wider environment
and streets. The Panama Road retail apartment building will in particular provide for a high
level of surveillance of the street.
In regards to the internal effects within the site, and the surveillance which is offered
internally, Council’s Urban Designers have noted that:
Several conditions exist within the master plan that are not typical conditions within
successful development and which raise the potential for safety concerns.
Two conditions require considerations. Firstly, the safety of the pocket parks, due to the
potential for conflict between the public/private nature of the park and the ‘back’ yards of
surrounding houses, as described above. If the use and integration of the park and
surrounding houses envisaged by the applicant does not eventuate as intended, there is a
risk of the pocket parks becoming spaces where anti-social behaviour could occur.
28
29
Email Gerard Barker to Kerrin Lithgow ‘Iwi Consultation’ dated 21 August 2013.
See section 8.3.11 of the agent’s Assessment of Environmental Effects, pages 39-40.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 36
The second non-typical condition is the ‘service lanes’ that run between many properties in
order to provide access to the related backyards. The lanes are designed to fulfil a
functional requirement, providing residents with access to their rear gardens, to take in/out
rubbish bins and garden furniture etc. The lanes are intended to be private, with locked
gated access at each end. To offer some surveillance over the lanes, the fence heights
are set at 1700mm, with the top 300mm at 50% transparency. This is furthered by views
possible from upper floors of the bounding dwellings.
However, such lanes are typically sought to be avoided due to the safety concerns that
they raise – both for personal safety and the security of dwellings and contents. In the
worst instance, the lanes may be used to facilitate crime and anti-social behaviour.
On reflection, the applicant has utilised a land ownership pattern that could facilitate the
removal of the service lanes if required, reallocating these spaces back to private
ownership30.
Given the above considerations, and the possibility of altering the internal layouts and public
lanes depending on issues arising, overall, I consider that the proposed residential
development would result in acceptable safety effects which can be remedied if need
requires.
I.
Traffic, Parking and Access
Traffic and parking matters have been addressed in detail within the Integrated Transport
Assessment (ITA) prepared by Beca, the Traffic and Parking Report prepared by Beca, and
the various architectural plans. These reports and supplementary information have been
assessed by the following:
ƒ
Karl Hancock, Associate, Flow Transportation Specialists (refer Attachment 4.2);
ƒ
Pragati Vasisht, Principal Consent Specialist West, Auckland Transport (refer
Attachment 4.3).
Their findings are summarised as follows:
Trip Generation (Traffic)
Based on the predicted trip rates, Ms Vasisht and Mr Hancock expect that the traffic
generated by this development will be accommodated within the carrying capacity of the
network. However, some changes will be required to the local road network to cater for the
increase:
ƒ
A right-turn pocket on Panama Road at its intersection with Road A;
ƒ
Formalisation of the flush median on Mt Wellington Highway south of the Hillside
Road intersection to cater for right-turning traffic towards the southern end of the
development;
ƒ
New intersections at the access points onto Hillside Road east and south.
The applicant has also proposed a pedestrian refuge on Panama Road to improve access to
the eastbound bus stop. All of these works form part of the proposal.
It has been noted within the report by Karl Hancock, Pragati Vasisht and the applicant’s
agents Harrison and Grierson that the proposed development would provide for 80 additional
30
Refer Peter Joyce’s report Attachment 4.1 section 4.3.1.2.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 37
peak hour trips in the afternoon as compared to an Integrated Housing Development under
the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section). This provides a useful
comparison, but cannot be utilised as a permitted baseline as such given the constraints
which apply to the site.
On the basis of the assessments above, and the mitigation measures which have been
offered by the applicant, and which have been considered to be suitable and effective by
Council’s specialists, it is considered that the proposed development would result in minor
impacts upon the local road network, which can be adequately avoided or mitigated through
the measures as outlined above.
Parking
A number of pieces of further clarification were sought from the applicant in regard to
parking, access and traffic matters. The majority of these details were of a minor nature
which were resolved by small design changes, however, of more substantial concern was the
provision of parking on site. Both Council specialists initially identified the 212 space parking
shortfall as being of concern. In particular, a number of the three-bedroom houses were
proposed to provide only one car park per dwelling.
As a result of this concern, a number of alterations have been undertaken to provide for
additional parking spaces. This has involved deletion of a total of 11 residential units to
provide for additional parking spaces, with a further five residential units being lost to
amalgamation into four bedroom maisonette units above the retail units.
This results in a total of 424 residential units, 778 parking spaces being provided, with a
District Plan requirement of 889, and a resulting parking shortfall of 111 parking spaces. In
achieving this level of parking the development relies on a number of private parking spaces
being provided on-street in private lanes. This then allows parking spaces to be linked to an
individual property. This is particularly the case for the Type B three bedroom dwellings
which only provides for one space, with the other on-road.
In summary, Mr Hancock finds the following in relation to parking provision:
ƒ
The provision of only one space for 1 and 2 bedroom apartments or units is
acceptable given that they have lower parking demand and will be aware of only one
space being available at time of purchase;
ƒ
The exact mechanism for providing for co-located parking spaces is yet to be
resolved, but it is expected that they would be able to be bought and sold through the
Residents Association. A condition which requires a Parking Management Plan prior
to occupation is recommended;
ƒ
A total of 121 visitor parking spaces have been identified and are considered
acceptable. There are ‘gaps’ in the network which may result in illegal on-street
parking, however, this could be avoided through no-stopping lines;
ƒ
There is ability for visitors to park on the periphery of the development and walk into
the site, and this would likely be utilised for those residential units on the edge of the
site.
Access
Mr Hancock has discussed potential difficulties with the design of the terrace edge
apartments, in that they do not provide for adequate visibility when reversing from parking
spaces with respect to pedestrian movements. Mr Hancock has recommended that:
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 38
‘consideration is given to either screening the entrance as has been done on
the opposite side of the entrance – with any screening being permeable – or
providing glazing on this corner so a reversing vehicle can view movements to
and from the entrance.’
Mr Hancock’s diagrams illustrating this matter are as follows beneath at Figure 6.231:
OPTION: Provide a glazed
surface
OPTION: Replicate
permeable screening on
both sides of the entrance
Figure 6.2: Diagram illustrating need for permeable screening within the Terrace Edge Apartments.
No other particular access matters have been raised by Council’s specialists.
Given the above, it is recommended that the applicant consider the above minor changes to
provide for improved inter-visibility for pedestrians and vehicles. Alternatively, this can be
resolved through conditions of consent.
Submissions in respect to Traffic, Access and Parking
A number of submissions were raised in respect to traffic, access and parking matters, which
can be summarised as follows:
31
Refer also page 8 of Karl Hancock’s report at Attachment 4.2.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 39
ƒ
Insufficient parking for both residents and visitors;
ƒ
Proposed hours of construction, duration of construction (three years), and anticipated
level of noise and vibration;
ƒ
Additional traffic: delays at intersections, delays for egress for properties on Hillside
and Panama Roads;
ƒ
Noise, traffic, construction traffic from the new road into Hillside Road (south);
ƒ
Pedestrian safety – particularly for schoolchildren walking along Panama and Hillside;
ƒ
Traffic volumes have been underestimated.
Mr Hancock has addressed these submissions as follows32:
‘Insufficient parking for both residents and visitors: this was the most commonly raised
issue. It is noted that the submitted proposal, being that which the submitters have
commented on, did have a significant shortfall. As discussed in Section Error!
Reference source not found. the most recent proposal has addressed this shortfall, and
while there is still a shortfall across the entire site we are of the opinion that this is
suitable given the dwelling type the shortfall refers to.
Construction Matters: it is anticipated that a construction management plan will be
required as a condition of consent and that this would deal with the proposed hours of
construction, duration, traffic routes to and from the site etc. This will need to be
approved by Auckland Council prior to work being undertaken.
Increased Delays: inevitably with any new development, particularly of this scale, there
will be increased traffic movements to and from the site and increased delays caused
about the road network. Beca has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the
anticipated traffic effects to arise from the proposed development and we are in
agreement with the assessment and findings of Beca’s review in regard to the operation
of the surrounding intersections. As identified in Section 4 Error! Reference source not
found. the results of the assessment has suggested the need for minor changes to the
surrounding road network and these are recommended to be undertaken in order to
mitigate the associated effects.
Pedestrian Safety: Road A and Road B provide linkages from the internal road network
into the site. Road A intersects with Panama Road and Road B with Hillside Road in two
locations. All three intersections are proposed to be give-way controlled. The detailed
design of these intersections and agreement with Auckland Transport is something that
can be considered as part of the Engineering Plan Approval process. It is recommended
that every attempt be made to ensure the footprint of these intersections is minimised as
much as possible through tightening of kerb radii and narrowing the widths of the internal
roads where they intersect with the existing road network.
Traffic Volumes have been underestimated: The trip generation rates assumed by Beca
and used in the assessment of the proposal are considered to be an appropriate, if not
conservative, for this development type.’
I am agreement with the consideration which Mr Hancock has given these submissions.
In summation with respect to traffic, parking and access matters it is considered that the
application will result in:
32
Refer page 10 of Mr Karl Hancock’s report at Attachment 4.2.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 40
ƒ
An acceptable increase in traffic generation, which is comparable to what would
otherwise be envisaged from this residentially zoned site, and the effects of which will
be avoided or mitigated through the above measures;
ƒ
Acceptable levels of visitor and resident parking, which will not have adverse impact
on the neighbouring street network, but which will need to be controlled through a
Parking Management Plan as a condition of any approval;
ƒ
Provision of appropriate cycle facilities, which can be ensured through conditions of
any consent;
ƒ
Acceptable access and design, which could be further improved upon through:
-
the measures as set out above, which would improve inter-visibility for
pedestrians; and
-
through further design within the Engineering Plan Approval stage.
Given the above it is considered that any adverse effects with regard to transportation
matters will be minor and can be satisfactorily mitigated through the applicant’s proposed
mitigation measures and through conditions of consent.
J.
Construction traffic
The three stages of construction will generate traffic impacts associated with the demolition
of existing buildings on site, breaking up of existing concrete surfaces, earthworks, and
construction of the buildings themselves.
The applicant has proposed to provide a construction management plan. This would
consider the potential adverse effects which might arise, and then detail the ways in which
these effects can be managed.
Overall, it is considered that the potential adverse effects arising from construction traffic can
be managed and avoided through the preparation and implementation of construction
management plans.
K.
Construction Noise and Vibration
Given the scale of the development and site, there is potential for adverse noise effects to
arise from the construction of the proposed development. The application is proposed to be
‘staged’ over three years, each of which stage will have resultant impacts on neighbouring
properties.
The application has been accompanied by a detailed discussion of noise and vibration within
the agent’s report and within the acoustic and vibration report prepared by Styles Group33.
It is noted that the application material refers only to noise and vibration effects as a result of
the proposed construction and does not address noise effects as a result of the proposed
commercial activities on site.
The reports note that acoustic and vibration effects are likely to be experienced as a result of
the initial breaking up of the concrete surfaces on site, concrete crushing, earthworks,
paving, and concrete pouring. The construction period is expected to be somewhat lengthy,
as it will take place over a three year staged timeframe with the gradual withdrawal of the
nursery activities on site.
33
Refer to the agent’s AEE section 8.3.14, pages 43 to 44, and Appendix 12 of the AEE.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 41
The Styles report concludes that the construction activities will be able to comply with the
relevant noise and vibration standards. However, a preliminary draft Construction Noise
Vibration Management Plan has been prepared in order to manage the construction activities
on site. They also recommend that a construction management plan be prepared which will
manage potential adverse effects.
This material has been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer Mr Daniel Winter,
who requested further details with respect to the required heights of the acoustic screening
around the perimeter of the site, particularly due to the existence of two-storey dwellings
around the site, which would necessitate higher acoustic screening.
Further details of the proposed acoustic barriers were provided by Styles Group Consultants
on 1 July 2013. It was noted that the acoustic barriers are proposed to be no less than 2
metres in height (as measured from within the subject site) and are proposed to have no
gaps. The barriers are to be regularly inspected and maintained to ensure that they are
acoustically effective for the duration of the construction phase.
It was further noted that the south-west of the site has two storey dwellings which may
require acoustic barriers up to 3 metres in height to block ‘line of sight’ to the upper floor
windows.
Mr Winter considered that this additional information was sufficient to ensure that the
construction noise will be minimised. Bearing in mind the agent’s report, Styles Group report,
and assessment by Mr Winter, I consider that the construction noise and vibration effects will
be minor in nature. While there will be noticeable noise and disruption around the site for
three years (or more) it is noted that this is not dissimilar to what would otherwise reasonably
be expected upon this residentially zoned site, and that any noise and vibration effects upon
abutting properties would be linked to one particular stage or year of this development.
I expect that there will be matters in relation to construction noise and vibration which
submitters may wish to discuss at the hearing.
L.
Operational Noise from Commercial Activities
It is noted that the application did not include assessment of the likely anticipated operational
noise as a result of the commercial activities (comprising 439m2 of floorspace) to be sited on
Panama Road.
Any receivers of this noise would be located upon the site itself, located across Panama
Road, or (more unlikely) to the west at 25 Panama Road.
Given the limited scale and nature of this commercial activity, it is considered that the effects
can be satisfactorily avoided through conditions of consent in relation to hours of operation of
any commercial activity on the site and hours of deliveries. It is considered that these
measures would satisfactorily avoid any negative effect as a result of the commercial
activities being sited within a residential environment.
M.
Infrastructure
The application has been accompanied by an Infrastructure report and supplementary
memos by Harrison Grierson which have been considered by Council Officers, Consultant
Specialists and Watercare Services Limited as follows:
ƒ
Scott Paton, Senior Development Engineer, Natural Resources and Specialist Input
(refer Attachment 4.4);
ƒ
Mark Iszard, Senior Stormwater Engineer, Infrastructure and Environmental Services
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 42
(refer Attachment 4.5);
ƒ
Parviz Namjou, Hydrogeologist, Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd (refer Attachment 4.6);
ƒ
Aru Chelliah, Developments Engineer, Watercare Services Limited (refer Attachment
4.18);
Their findings are detailed as follows:
Water Supply
Watercare Services Ltd have provided a review of the proposed development with regard to
water supply. They have considered the application relative to their forward network planning
and modelling. Watercare have approved the additional water supply loadings created by the
development through a series of proposed public watermain extensions. The proposed layout
of public water reticulation connects to existing 100mm diameter public water supply mains
located in Panama Road, Hillside Road and Ryburn Road.
Engineering approvals will be required for detailed design of the extended network34.
Waste Water
The applicant has proposed a new 225mmø sewer line which crosses Panama Road and
runs through two private properties before connecting to the public 300mmø sewer line at 8
George Bourke Drive.
Watercare Services Ltd have provided a review the proposed development and have
approved the additional wastewater discharge from the development through a series of
proposed public drain extensions. The proposed layout of public wastewater extensions
would connect to the existing 300m diameter network located on the northern side of
Panama Road. The route is proposed through the road reserve and private land. Council’s
engineers have advised that engineering approvals will be required for detailed design of the
extended network35.
Stormwater - discharge
The development intends to discharge stormwater to a large onsite soakhole that presently
exists on site. This is intended to be upgraded to cater for the development. The following
specialists have considered this matter:
ƒ
Mark Iszard, Senior Stormwater Engineer, Infrastructure and Environmental Services
(refer Attachment 4.5);
ƒ
Parviz Namjou, Hydrogeologist, Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd (refer Attachment 4.6).
After an extensive series of further information and borehole testing on the part of the
applicant, Mr Iszard summarises their findings as follows:
‘…while substantial stormwater disposal rates can be achieved within the existing
soakage chamber there is a risk that this is only being achieved due to an artificially
lowered ground water level caused by the historical and ongoing abstraction of ground
water on the site from the Abattoirs at Westfield and the ongoing commercial nursery
operation.
Due to the geography of the site being an existing volcanic cone that has been
extensively quarried, the ground water levels of this site are likely to be controlled by the
lowest height of the Tuff Ring surrounding the volcanic cone and rely the continuity of the
34
35
Refer Attachment 4.18 and Watercare’s emails from A Chelliah dated 13/8/2013 and 30/7/2013.
Refer Attachment 4.18 and Watercare’s emails from A. Chelliah dated 13/8/2013 and 30/7/2013.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 43
fractured basalt rock between the cone and the surrounding low lying areas to the east or
the south west of the site to drain the ground water away.
It is important to be able to establish the connectivity between the basalt formations within
and outside the site as if the tuff ring breaches are above the height of the proposed SW
disposal chamber, then SW will not be able to be discharged to this soakage chamber
without it possibly surcharging and causing flooding within the site.
After reviewing the information provided by the applicant for the SW disposal from the
site, there are still significant concerns that the basalt found on the site is not
interconnected to the basalt flows on the eastern side of SH1, and that the Tuff ring will
impede these flows once ground water pumping has stopped. As such any significant
rise in groundwater level will cause a reduction in the soakage availability on the site
thereby making the current proposal unsustainable in the long term.
This has been the case recently with the 3 Kings quarry where significant GWL rises have
been recorded once GW abstraction stopped and as such the proposed development of
the site is having to reconsider its proposals and extensive investigations have now been
undertaken to determine the predicted final GWL and the extent of the tuff cone heights.
While Council is generally supportive of these types of systems that help to reduce the
reliance on significant public infrastructure, at the present time there is insufficient
information and analysis available to give sufficient confidence to recommend acceptance
of the proposal.
As such based on the current level of information and understanding we do not support
the application and recommend further investigations.
We recommend further and more intensive geological investigations along the eastern
boundary of the site including boreholes on the eastern side of the SH1 to gain a clearer
picture of how (or if) the basalt flows within the cone are connected to the basalt flows
outside the cone as it is these flows that will provide for the groundwater flows from the
site.
We would also recommend that the applicant investigate and develop a alternative
solution which could be a piped system to a existing (and suitably sized) public
reticulation system, or a directionally drilled stormwater pipe line under SH1 discharging
to the Tamaki Estuary.
Based on the above summary, it is evident that there continue to be concerns with respect to
the current proposed stormwater disposal solution for the development.
Further testing and monitoring of the site is expected to be undertaken within the coming
month, with resolution of the disposal method anticipated before or during the hearing.
Should the proposed on-site disposal system not prove feasible then alternative methods of
disposal will have to be sought. The applicant has advised that there are alternative methods
available, and that one of these will be able to be utilised.
Stormwater – overland flow
Council’s Senior Development Engineer has advised that the final contours of the
development site may alter or create the potential for stormwater overland flow. Therefore,
details would need to be provided prior to any occupancy of the buildings that the
development complies with Part 5D.6 of the Operative District Plan in regard to freeboards
from floodwaters. This would also be required for the properties immediately up and
downstream of the development site to confirm no worsening of freeboards. The reporting
would also need to provide a plan of the final configuration of overland flowpaths across the
completed development site.
Given the above considerations, and the recommended imposition of a condition, I consider
that any potential flooding effects as a result of overland flow can be effectively avoided.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 44
Power/Gas/Telecommunications
The applicant has noted that there have been discussions with Vector and Chorus regarding
supply of power, gas and telecommunications networks. No issues are foreseen with
provision of these services.
Infrastructure Staging/Vesting
The applicant has indicated a staged development approach with provision of infrastructure
to match. Engineering Approval applications will be required to be lodged for all public works.
Building consents will be required for all private servicing connections. Details of staging and
vesting of public services and any sequencing of private service connections has not yet
been finalised or agreed with Council’s Engineering Approval and Building Consent Teams.
N.
Positive Effects
I am of the opinion that the proposal would have the positive effect of providing for additional
housing which is anticipated to be ‘affordable’.
I am also of the opinion that the proposal would result in the development of a site that poses
challenges for residential development in terms of contamination.
Further, the proposed development would remove an existing nursery use which can be
considered something of an anomaly within this existing residential area, and which currently
presents a range of effects, including truck movements and potential for adverse health
effects through large earth stockpiles, which would be removed from the site and replaced
with a more appropriate residential use.
O.
Summary of Effects
In summary, it is considered that overall the proposal would generate an acceptable level of
minor effects on the environment, which can be further avoided, remedied and mitigated
through conditions of consent. In particular, the proposal would generate the following
effects:
ƒ
less than minor adverse streetscape and character effects;
ƒ
minor bulk and visual dominance effects on the adjoining residential properties, with
such effects acceptably mitigated through separation distances, changes in levels, and
retention of screening along boundaries;
ƒ
less than minor visual and acoustic privacy effects which can be mitigated through
retention of planting; and through appropriate conditions of consent controlling the
commercial activities upon Panama Road;
ƒ
acceptable earthworks and contamination effects which are able to be controlled
through a variety of measures, including a Construction Management Plan,
Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan, and Site Management Plan
including dust control measures;
ƒ
negligible stability effects, due to the measures which can be put in place to ensure
acceptable slope stability hazard and reduction of subsidence/settlement hazard to an
acceptable engineering level;
ƒ
negligible geological effects, as a result of previous modifications to the site and
likelihood of discovery of any geological features of merit;
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 45
ƒ
acceptable vegetation and landscape effects, based on the replanting proposed, and
the measures which can be taken to ensure the health of the scheduled tree;
ƒ
avoidance of any effect upon archaeological remnants;
ƒ
acceptable safety effects which can be remedied if need requires;
ƒ
adverse effects with regard to transportation matters which will be minor and can be
satisfactorily mitigated through the applicant’s proposed mitigation measures and
through conditions of consent;
ƒ
minor adverse effects arising from construction traffic, noise and vibration, which can
be managed and avoided through the preparation and implementation of construction
management plans;
ƒ
acceptable infrastructure effects, which (with the aside of stormwater disposal) appear
to be able to be readily provided;
ƒ
positive effects, most particularly the provision of affordable housing which provides a
diversity of housing typologies not currently offered in the Mt Wellington area.
The one effect which remains fully unresolved at the time of writing this report is that in
relation to stormwater disposal. It is anticipated that there will be further discussion around
this matter, at or prior to the hearing, in addition to updates with regard to iwi consultation.
6.4
Section 104(1)(b)(i) and (ii) Relevant Provisions of National Environmental Standards
and Other Regulations
The NES Soil Contamination is relevant to the subject application and has been considered
by Council, with Sharon Tang, Environmental Health Specialist, assessing the application in
relation to the relevant provisions of the NES.
Ms Tang has noted that the site is on Council’s contaminated site register due to its recent
commercial garden activity and its historical quarry activity involving use and storage of
explosives that are identified on the Ministry for Environment’s Hazardous Activities and
Industries List (HAIL).
The applicant has undertaken a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) with limited soil testing
from the site. The PSI has identified potential hot spots for soil contamination. However,
although fill materials were found up to 15.9m, the applicants information did not show
significant contamination in the fill materials. While a large portion of the site is to be covered
by buildings or hardstand, additional sampling will be required for landscape areas and
excavated fill materials that are required to be disposed of off-site.
Ms Tang further considers that the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and Site Management Plan
(SMP) have provided an appropriate health and safety plan and contingency procedures for
unexpected soil contamination.
Ms Tang recommends the imposition of conditions to avoid or minimise impacts associated
with the development’s construction phase, with particular regard to potential human health
impacts.
It is considered that the proposed measures represent an appropriate approach and
therefore any risk to human health is likely to be low. The recommended conditions and
measures are concurred with as being appropriate for the scale of development and level of
risk associated with the development.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 46
6.5
Section 104(1)(b)(iii) Relevant Provisions of National Policy Statements
National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011
The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 is relevant as a result of
the proposal requiring consent under the Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land &
Water), in that the site is contaminated, and the application will involve remediation. In
particular, the following objectives are relevant:
Chapter A – Water Quality, Objective A1:
‘To safeguard the life-supporting capacity, ecosystem processes and indigenous
species including their associated ecosystems of fresh water, in sustainably
managing the use and development of land, and of discharges of contaminants.’
As concluded within Mr Samuel Woolley’s report (Attachment 4.12), it is considered that the
proposed activity is consistent with the relevant provisions of the plans and policy
statements, subject to compliance with the recommended conditions of consent, due to the
proposed measures to mitigate the effects on the receiving environment. It is therefore
considered that the proposal is consistent with the transitional provisions of the
aforementioned NPS.
6.6
Section 104(1)(b)(iv) Relevant Provisions of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
(NZCPS)36
The purpose of the NZCPS is to state policies in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA, in
relation to the coastal environment of New Zealand.
The relevant objectives and policies of the NZCPS 2010 include:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
safeguarding the integrity, form and functioning of the coastal environment and
sustaining its ecosystems;
the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment, with policies
protecting natural features, natural landscapes, historic heritage from inappropriate
subdivision, use and development;
taking into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi – Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and
kaitiakitanga;
maintaining and enhancing public open space qualities and recreation opportunities
along the coastal environment, and providing public access to it, with walking access
emphasised;
ensuring coastal hazard risks, including from climate change and tsunami, are
managed;
managing the use, subdivision and development within the coastal environment, with
regard to - the location and form of coastal settlement / urban areas.
Ms Priya Nair-Mudalier has considered the above objectives and policies within her regional
consent earthworks assessment and considers that in the context of the nature of the
proposed activity, the site and locality characteristics, and her assessment as to the effects,
the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of the NZCPS. I concur with Ms NairMudalier’s assessment, and consider that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of
the NZCPS.
36
A copy of all relevant objectives and policies are included at Attachment 5.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 47
6.7
Section 104(1)(b)(v) Relevant Provisions of the Auckland Council Regional Policy
Statement
The Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement ("ACRPS") is a strategic document which
sets out the direction of managing the use, development and protection of the natural and
physical resources of the Auckland region. This document became operative in 1999.
The strategic objectives and policies of the ACRPS provide a framework to achieve the
integrated, consistent and co-ordinated management of the Region’s resources.
Under the ACRPS, matters related to environmental protection, such as the coastal
environment, water quality, water conservation and allocation and air quality have specific
objectives, policies and methods to achieve sustainable and integrated management of
major natural and physical resources in the Region.
The relevant provisions of the ACRPS have been considered and it is concluded the
proposal is consistent with the ACRPS because the proposal:
6.8
a)
does not have any significant effect on major natural and physical resources;
b)
can, subject to resolution of stormwater disposal, be accommodated by existing and
proposed infrastructure (both public and private);
c)
can be constructed and operated in a manner that minimises the transfer of sediment
and contaminants to waterways and aquifers; and
d)
provides for a built environment which has a sense of identity and character, maintains
or enhances amenity values, and is visually pleasant and functionally efficient.
Section 104(1)(b)(vi) Relevant Provisions of the Relevant Regional and District Plan(s)
Objectives, Policies and Rules
The Plans applying to this proposal are:
-
The Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section);
-
Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land & Water);
-
Auckland Council Regional Plan (Sediment Control).
6.8.1 Relevant Objectives and Policies
Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section)
The following objectives and policies of the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City
Isthmus Section) are considered relevant.
Resource management
Part 2 of the District Plan identifies eleven issues for the city and District Plan to address.
These essentially involve accommodating future growth while maintaining the existing
environment. These issues lead to a number of overarching objectives and policies which
include the following relevant objectives:
•
To achieve a healthy and safe living environment for the citizens of the district;
•
To protect and enhance residential amenities; and
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 48
•
To manage urban growth by encouraging higher density development in specified
areas.
Having regard to the above broad objectives, it is considered that the proposal would accord
with them due to the design and layout of the proposed development, which provides for a
healthy and safe living environment, and which enhances residential amenities. While the
development does not provide for this higher density development in a specified growth area,
it is considered that the provision of this much-needed housing, which has minor adverse
impact on adjoining residents, is of benefit and meets with the general intent of the District
Plan.
General Objectives (Clauses 2.3.1 - 2.3.5)
It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the general District Plan objectives and
policies for the following reasons:
•
The development will not significantly adversely affect the surrounding / wider natural
environment and / or significant landscapes, including volcanic features;
•
The development provides for a healthy and safe living environment, in a form that
provides for a different offer of accommodation to that currently experienced within
the immediate neighbourhood;
•
The development incorporates an appropriate re-use of brownfield land which has
been significantly compromised by previous development, with an appropriate level of
consideration of the visual amenity of the adjoining residential environment.
Artificial Lighting Objectives and Policies (Clause 4.6.1)
The objective in the District Plan for artificial lighting is to ensure that artificial lighting does
not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and on the amenity values of the
surrounding area.
A lighting plan has been provided for the application for each of the stages. As the plans are
conceptual only, it is envisaged that these will need to be reviewed and refined to ensure that
they provide for an acceptable level of lighting which does not compromise the amenity of the
intended residents or surrounding area. This would include a lighting strategy for the retail
units. A condition to this effect is proposed37.
As such, on the basis of the above and what has been provided within the application to
date, it is considered that lighting, and the effects arising, would be able to meet with the
above objective and policy
Trees Objectives and Policies (Clause 5C.7.3)
The objectives and policies as they relate to trees seek to protect trees and groups of trees
that significantly contribute to the district’s amenity, through identifying and protecting notable
trees in public and private ownership. Protection of mature trees and groups of trees is an
important character element in maintaining and enhancing the environment of the district.
The policies include continuing the practice of planting trees in the road reserve and on
37
Refer to Conditions requiring a revised detailed lighting scheme.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 49
public reserves and protecting these from unnecessary interference or destruction and
protecting and promoting trees as a food source to attract valued wildlife back into our
environment.
I have assessed the effects of the proposed tree removals and works within the dripline of a
scheduled tree at section 6.3.3.F above. Replacement planting of street trees will ensure the
amenity of the local streetscape, and the proposed landscaping plan will ensure that any
adverse visual amenity effects brought about by removal of trees on the site are less than
minor. Further, conditions of consent are proposed to ensure that works around the
Scheduled Golden Poplar tree will not have adverse effects38.
Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the proposal is not contrary to the above objectives and
policies.
Natural Hazards (Clause 5D.3)
The redevelopment of the site (both earthworks and new buildings) have been designed in a
manner that appropriately responds to the site’s potential soil instability issues arising from
the former quarry use and subsequent fill.
Further, Council’s Senior Development Engineer has considered the development with
respect to overland flow paths. Comment is provided above at section 6.3.3M where it is
noted that details would need to be provided prior to occupancy that the development
complies with Part 5D.6 of the Operative District Plan in regard to freeboards from
floodwaters, and that the overland flow paths will not have impact on adjoining properties.
Given the above considerations, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the
objectives and policies relating to Natural Hazards.
Contamination (Clause 5E.4.3)
Issues with respect to contamination have been assessed and a remediation action plan and
management plan has been developed for the site. These measures will ensure that the site
can be safely developed. These matters are further addressed in section 6.3.3.C above.
Safety Objectives and Policies (Clause 6.2.10.2)
The specific objectives and policies for safety seek to enhance public and personal safety
through reducing opportunities for crime to occur. This is achieved by ensuring that certain
people-generating activities (such as larger scale business and residential developments as
well as public facilities such as parks, transportation and car parking facilities) are designed
to encourage the natural surveillance of public and semi-public spaces from surrounding
activities and buildings; ensure that there is a clear distinction between public, semi-public
and private areas through the use of design techniques; and encourage a sense of
community guardianship of public areas so that these areas are well-used and maintained.
The application has been subject to considerable review by Council’s Urban Design
Specialists Peter Joyce and Anna Wood, who have undertaken a brief review of safety
issues and comment as follows in this regard:
Several conditions exist within the master plan that are not typical conditions within
successful development and which raise the potential for safety concerns.
38
Refer to Conditions in relation to the Scheduled tree at 11 Ryburn Road.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 50
Two conditions require considerations. Firstly, the safety of the pocket parks, due to the
potential for conflict between the public/private nature of the park and the ‘back’ yards of
surrounding houses, as described above. If the use and integration of the park and
surrounding houses envisaged by the applicant does not eventuate as intended, there is a
risk of the pocket parks becoming spaces where anti-social behaviour could occur.
The second non-typical condition is the ‘service lanes’ that run between many properties in
order to provide access to the related backyards. The lanes are designed to fulfil a
functional requirement, providing residents with access to their rear gardens, to take in/out
rubbish bins and garden furniture etc. The lanes are intended to be private, with locked
gated access at each end. To offer some surveillance over the lanes, the fence heights
are set at 1700mm, with the top 300mm at 50% transparency. This is furthered by views
possible from upper floors of the bounding dwellings.
However, such lanes are typically sought to be avoided due to the safety concerns that
they raise – both for personal safety and the security of dwellings and contents. In the
worst instance, the lanes may be used to facilitate crime and anti-social behaviour.
On reflection, the applicant has utilised a land ownership pattern that could facilitate the
removal of the service lanes if required, reallocating these spaces back to private
ownership39.
Having regard to the relevant objectives and policies outlined above, and the views of
Council’s Urban Design Specialists, in my opinion the proposal will achieve a high level of
internal passive surveillance and few potential entrapments spots.
Residential Activity - Resource Management Strategy Objectives and Policies (Clauses
7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, 7.3.4, 7.3.5)
-
7.3.1 To provide opportunities for residential growth in Auckland by encouraging suitable
intensification of housing in appropriate locations.
It is noted that the application does not propose intensification of housing within what is
envisaged as a high density area under the current Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland
City Isthmus Section), in that it is zoned for Residential 6a and Residential 5. However,
when considered ‘in the round’ against the below objectives and policies the proposal is
considered to be acceptable.
-
7.3.2 To identify, maintain and enhance the recognised character and amenity of residential
environments.
This matter has been considered in depth by Council’s Urban Design Specialist Mr Peter
Joyce, who comments that the site presents as a clean slate due to its current use, and its
separation from the surrounds due to level changes.
He further comments that the site would present its own residential character through terrace
and apartments buildings, which will present a far greater building scale, mass and height to
that typical to the area. However, they will read as residential buildings, and will be
contained within the site due to the level changes across the site’s boundary.
-
7.3.3 To provide for a broad and flexible range of residential development while offering
reasonable protection to the amenities of neighbouring properties and the local environment.
The proposed development provides for a range of typologies which will accommodate
people at various ages, and which provides a type of accommodation that is currently not
available within the immediate area.
39
Refer Peter Joyce’s report Attachment 4.1 section 4.3.1.2.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 51
-
7.3.4 To recognise that certain non-residential activities can be located in residential areas in a
way which maintains and enhances the amenities of the area and enables people to provide for
their social, economic and cultural well-being, and for their health and safety.
The proposed development provides for a limited amount of commercial activity at the
Panama Road entrance (439m2) which will provide for local goods and services for intended
residents, will be an entrance marker for the site, and the effects of which will be able to be
conditioned to ensure limited effects upon the surrounding (and upper storey) residents.
-
7.3.5 To promote high quality distinctively Auckland urban design within specified residential
areas of the city.
All details of the site design, from street hierarchy through to rubbish bin storage areas, have
been carefully considered within the design process. Particular attention has been given to
the qualities of the public spaces – streets, public parks and pocket parks – which are
anticipated to set the identity and quality of the development.
The proposed development is, as noted by Council’s Urban Design Specialist Mr Peter
Joyce, considered to present an innovative response to the site which will, on balance,
provide for the amenity of the inhabitants. While there are some issues that Mr Joyce
considers have not been resolved fully, on balance the application is considered to respond
to the site and surrounding neighbourhood.
Residential 5 and 6 Zone Objectives and Policies (Clause 7.6.5 and 7.6.6)
The subject site is zoned Residential 5 (in part) and 6a (in majority) under the Auckland
Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section). The overall resource management
objectives and policies for sites zoned residential (Clause 8.3 of the District Plan) place
emphasis on providing for residential growth by encouraging suitable intensification of
housing in appropriate areas and on maintaining and enhancing the character and amenity of
existing residential environments. The Plan also seeks to recognise that provision can be
made for certain non-residential activities so long as the amenity of the area is maintained
and enhanced and that people are able to provide for their social, economic and cultural well
being.
The specific objectives and policies of the Residential 5 zone seek to protect and maintain
the low intensity character of certain areas by limiting densities, and by limiting the range of
permitted activities in this zone to ensure that the residential qualities and characteristics of
the neighbourhood are not eroded. In addition, the protection and maintenance of the low
intensity character of this zone in selected locations is provided to assist in preserving the
overall integrity of the special character zones by ensuring developments occurring in
adjacent residential neighbourhoods are sympathetic.
The specific objectives and policies of the Residential 6 zone seek to provide for medium
intensity residential neighbourhoods in appropriate locations through directing these zones to
areas where the environment is able to sustain residential development at a medium
intensity and by imposing controls on developments which protect the external environment
of the site while achieving a reasonable level of amenity for multi unit residential
development.
The application provides for a density over and above what is anticipated within the
Residential 5 and 6a Zones, and also provides for commercial activity (439m2) to be located
beneath apartments upon the Panama Road frontage.
The agent has undertaken an assessment against the above relevant objectives and policies
on pages 49 to 50 of the AEE. For ease of reference, I note the following in particular:
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 52
•
A group of local shops are to be provided that will provide an important amenity for the
residents of the development as well as the wider community.
•
The character and amenity of the existing nursery, although lawfully established, is
discordant with the surrounding residential neighbourhood. The proposed
development will be much more in keeping with the predominant activity in the area.
•
The development has been designed in such a way that the majority of potential
adverse effects are able to be internalised. Where there are infringements to the
District Plan controls, it is not considered that these will have a significant impact on
adjoining properties or the surrounding streets.
•
Whilst the proposed development involves a density that exceeds that of the
surrounding area, the terraced housing and apartment typologies create a built form
that is less intensive than is otherwise provided for in the zone (i.e. only 20% building
coverage is proposed). Paved areas are broken up with extensive landscaping which
will provide a high level of amenity for the site overall.
Taking into account the above considerations, I am of the opinion that the proposal, while not
entirely consistent, nevertheless on balance meets with the relevant objectives and policies
for development within the Residential 5 and 6a zone of the Isthmus.
Transportation (Clause 12.6.1)
Having regard to the Applicants AEE, the applicants’ specialist reports, and the reports of
specialists Karl Hancock and Pragati Vasisht, it is considered that the proposal is consistent
with the objectives and policies relating to transportation for the following reasons:
•
The design and layout of the development is acceptable from a traffic engineering
perspective;
•
The development’s traffic generation, together with the proposed package of
mitigation measures, is considered to be acceptable and without detriment to the
surrounding road network.
Parking Objectives and Policies (Clause 12.7)
The specific objectives and policies for parking seek to ensure that the impact of activities on
the capacity and safety of the road system are adequately catered for, to avoid adverse
impacts on the environment. This is achieved by requiring activities to provide adequate offstreet parking and loading facilities, and by providing opportunities to alleviate parking
deficiencies within existing commercial centres.
Having regard to the relevant objectives and policies outlined above and contained in clause
12.7 of the District Plan, I make the following comments:
•
The proposed development incorporates a level of parking space provision (778
spaces) that is justified in this instance to be appropriate for the activity proposed and
the location of the application.
For the reasons outlined above, I am of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the
relevant objectives and policies for parking.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 53
Having regard to the assessment of effects undertaken in section 6.3 above, and the agent’s
comments on pages 48 to 51 of the AEE, I am of the opinion that the proposal is consistent
with the relevant objectives and policies of the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City
Isthmus Section).
Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land & Water)
The following objectives and policies of the Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land &
Water) (‘RP:ALW’) are considered relevant.
Discharges to Land, Water and Land Management – General Objectives (Clause 5.3)
•
Objective 5.3.1 – Protect, maintain or enhance land and water quality.
•
Objective 5.3.15A – Ensure remediation and management of contaminated land is
undertaken to protect the environment and human health.
•
Objective 5.3.16 – Support the sustainable use of contaminated land in a manner
that provides for the community’s economic and social well being.
General Policies
•
Policy 5.4.1 – Avoid, remedy or mitigate effects on specific environments.
Contaminated Land
•
Policy 5.4.36 – facilitate the remediation or management of contaminated land
•
Policy 5.4.37 – contaminants may remain in the ground where they do not pose a
risk to the environment or public health
•
Policy 5.4.37A – have regard to the actual and potential effects, site constraints,
operational practicalities, and financial implications of the option proposed.
It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the above objectives and policies relating
to discharges to land for the following reasons:
The application has been fully considered by Council officer Mr Samuel Woolley, who
concludes that the potential effects (that arising from sediment and contaminated sediment,
and inappropriate disposal of soil) will be less than minor. He has based this assessment on
the applicant’s undertaking proposed measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects in
accordance with the application documents and proposed conditions of consent40.
Auckland Council Regional Plan (Sediment Control)
The following objectives and policies of the Auckland Council Regional Plan (Sediment
Control) (‘RP:SC’) are considered relevant. These objectives and policies can be found at
Attachment 5.
40
Refer Samuel Woolley’s report at Attachment 4.12.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 54
-
Regulation Objectives (Clause 5.1)
It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies relating
to general sediment control for the following reasons:
-
•
The proposed erosion and sediment control measures will ensure that all
disturbed sediment is appropriately detained on site and therefore will not enter
any nearby waterbodies and/or ultimately the coastal environment;
•
The mauri of waterbodies and coastal waters is therefore not impacted on.
Policies
Policies 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 seek to ensure that the loss of natural and aquatic habitats is
appropriately mitigated. In regards to these policies, Ms Nair-Mudalier has commented
in her report that:
‘The applicant has proposed what is considered to be the best practicable option for
managing potential sediment discharges from the site and the measures proposed are in
general accordance with TP90, the relevant technical document which provides guidance
on erosion and sediment control.
Furthermore, the timing and duration of the earthworks is considered appropriate
because the applicant has proposed to carry out the earthworks in the earthworks season
i.e. between October and April of any given year.
Consequently earthworks undertaken in accordance with the proposed methodology and
the timing of the earthworks is considered consistent with the objectives and policies of
the ACRP:SC.
-
Minimum Earthworks Strategies Objectives and Policies (Clause 7.1 and 7.2)
It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies relating
to earthworks strategies for the following reasons:
•
The proposed earthworks are to be carried out in accordance with accepted best
practice and will ensure that sediment discharge to sensitive receiving
environments does not occur.
Summary
Overall, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with, and/or not contrary to, the
provisions of the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section), the
Auckland Regional Plan (Air, Land & Water) and the Auckland Regional Plan (Sediment
Control).
6.8.2 Relevant Rules and Assessment Criteria
To avoid repetition of the assessment of actual and potential effects undertaken in section
6.3 above, the following assessment (where relevant) will direct the reader to the foregoing
assessment of effects and the comprehensive assessment undertaken by the agent on
pages 54 to 68 of the AEE. Copies of the relevant assessment criteria referenced below are
included in Attachment 3 to this report.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 55
Having reviewed the proposal and undertaken an assessment of effects in section 6.3 above,
as well as a review of the issues raised by submitters, I am of the opinion that the relevant
general assessment criteria for earthworks, trees, commercial activities in residential zones,
traffic/parking/access, contamination, public safety, and development control modifications
are the fundamental criteria relevant to the proposal. Accordingly, these are addressed
below.
The following comments provide an assessment against the relevant rules/assessment
criteria in the Regional/District Plans:
A)
Earthworks/Use of Land subject to Soil Instability
-
Regional Plan: Sediment Control – Activity: Earthworks (Clause 5.4.3.1);
District Plan – Activity: Earthworks (Clause 4A.2B);
District Plan – Activity: Use/Development of Land subject to Soil Instability (Clause
5D.6.1);
Priya Nair-Mudalier, Consents and Compliance Advisor NRSI has reviewed the earthworks
consent application made in relation to the Auckland Regional Plan: Sediment Control. In
addition, consultant Paul Carter, Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Coffey Geotechnics (NZ)
Limited has made assessment of the stability of the site. Further to the assessments above
at section 6.3.3 the following comments are also made:
•
The applicant has proposed what is considered to be the best practicable option for
managing sediment discharges from the site and the measures proposed are in
general accordance with TP90, the relevant technical document which provides
guidance on erosion and sediment control;
•
The timing and duration of the earthworks is considered appropriate because the
applicant has proposed to carry out earthworks within the earthworks season (ie
October to April of any given year);
•
Construction management (CMP) and construction noise and vibration management
plans (CNVMP) are proposed by the applicant, which will adequately ensure the
construction phase can be carried out without undue detriment to resident amenity;
•
Dust suppression measures are recommended to be implemented for the duration of
the earthworks / construction phase, and can be conditioned as such;
•
Geotechnical issues associated with the site’s former quarry nature have been
appropriately considered.
On this basis it is considered that the proposed earthworks meet with the relevant earthworks
and instability criteria of the District and Regional Plans.
B)
Trees
-
District Plan – Removal of street trees and trees upon the site (Rule 5C.7.3.3B and C)
District Plan – Works within the dripline of a scheduled golden poplar tree (Rule
5C.7.3.3A)
These matters have been considered within the assessment of effects above at section
6.3.3, and have also been comprehensively assessed within the applicant’s Assessment of
Environmental Effects, provided here as follows:
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 56
-
‘The perimeter of the site was extensively planted out to provide screening from
residential properties for the nursery activities. With the development of the site for
residential activities, this screen planting is no longer required.
-
Where possible the groves of pohutukawa trees will be maintained, including along
the eastern boundary, the south-eastern corner of the site, and along the Ryburn
Road frontage.
-
The pohutukawa trees along the Panama Road frontage will be removed in order to
create a more urban edge to this street. The proposed buildings, along with front yard
landscaping, will provide amenity to the street.
-
The street trees proposed to be removed from Hillside Road and Ryburn Road are
necessary to obtain accesses to the development.
-
Elsewhere trees are to be removed because they are either poor specimens or
because there removal is required to facilitate the proposed development.
-
Additional works are likely to be required with respect to pruning trees but all such
works will be carried out in accordance with accepted arboriculture practice.
-
Extensive re-landscaping is proposed, as outlined in the landscaping drawings
submitted with the application. It is considered that the proposed replanting will
adequately mitigate the loss of trees that are to be removed.
-
Works are required within the dripline of a schedule golden poplar tree located on the
property at 11 Ryburn Road. The Specimen Tree Company has recommended a
preliminary methodology to ensure that construction activities can be carried out
without unreasonably compromising the health of this tree.
It is considered, the proposed tree removals and other works meet the relevant
assessment criteria outlined in Section 5C.7.3.3C of the District Plan
I concur with this assessment, and the assessments as provided by colleagues above at
section 6.3.3F, and consider that the effects of tree removals and disturbance as a result of
works in the dripline of the scheduled tree can be effectively avoided or mitigated.
C)
Commercial Activity within the Residential 6a Zone
The application proposes commercial activity on Panama Road, which is zoned as
Residential 6a.
It is intended that the retail activity will comprise three tenancies, which could potentially be
joined to make for one larger (295.5m2) and one smaller (143.6m2) tenancy, the latter of
which would likely be utilised as a café. As noted within the applicant’s assessment:
-
‘It is considered that these are of a scale and character that is appropriate for a
residential neighbourhood.
-
They are similar to other neighbourhood shops found in other residential areas and
will provide an important amenity to the residents of the development and the
surrounding area.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 57
-
Subject to the restrictions on the use of the tenancies (as set out in the Residents’
Society bylaws), it is considered that this aspect of the proposal will not be contrary to
the objectives and policies for the zone’.41
Should the application be approved, it is considered that conditions of consent could
adequately control the effects arising from such development. These would include
conditions relating to hours of operation, lighting, and noise.
D)
Traffic/Parking/Access
-
District Plan - Parking Space Shortfalls (Clause 12.9.1.1);
District Plan – Dimensions for Car Parking Spaces (Clause 12.9.1.1);
District Plan – Vehicular Access over Footpaths (Clause 12.9.1.1);
District Plan – Reverse Manoeuvring (Clause 12.9.1.1).
Mr Karl Hancock, Flow Transportation Specialists, and Ms Pragati Vasisht of Auckland
Transport have reviewed the application on Council’s behalf and the comments made in
section 6.3.3.I regarding traffic generation and parking matters are re-iterated here.
E)
Contamination
-
Auckland Council Operative Regional Plan (Air, Land & Water): Remediation of
Contaminated site (5.5.44A);
The application has been considered by Mr Samuel Woolley in respect of contamination
issues. Matters for consideration under 5.5.44A are as follows:
(a)
The particular matter of non-compliance with the standards and terms of Rule 5.5.43 or
Rule 5.5.44;
(b)
Methods to avoid adverse effects on potable water supplies;
(c)
Methods to control vapour migration;
(d)
The preparation, adequacy and implementation of an (Intrusive) Site Investigation
Report (SIR), an environmental and human health risk assessment, a Remedial Action
Plan (RAP), a Monitoring and Management Plan (MMP), and a Site Validation Report
(SVR) for the land prepared in accordance with the requirements of Rules 5.5.43 and
5.5.44;
(e)
The duration of the consent; and
(f)
The timing and nature of reviews of consent conditions.
Mr Woolley, considers that the potential effects (that arising from sediment and contaminated
sediment, and inappropriate disposal of soil) will be less than minor. He has based this
assessment on the applicant’s undertaking proposed measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate
effects in accordance with the application documents and proposed conditions of consent42.
41
42
Refer section 11.3.10 of the applicant’s Assessment of Environmental Effects.
Refer Samuel Woolley’s report at Attachment 4.12.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 58
F)
Public safety
The assessment criteria for public safety are contained in clause 6.2.10.5. These seek to
prevent crime through design and management. The criteria cover issues such as informal
surveillance, visibility, lighting, boundary definition, entrapment spots and public access.
This matter is considered at length within section 6.8.1 above, in which the remaining
concerns of Council’s Urban Design Specialists were discussed.
On balance, it is considered that the development provides for an acceptable level of public
safety and surveillance, which, should issues arise, can be overcome through an alteration to
include the rear lanes within private ownership.
G)
Development Control Modifications
As noted in section 4 of this report the proposal infringes the following residential zone
development controls of the District Plan:
-
Maximum 8m height control (rule 7.8.1.2);
Building in relation to boundary controls (rule 7.8.1.3b);
Minimum 40% permeable surface (rule 7.8.1.5);
Maximum 25% paved-impermeable surface (rule 7.8.1.6);
Front yard setback control (rule 7.8.1.7);
Minimum front yard landscaping control (rule 7.8.1.7A);
Private Open Space control (rule 7.8.1.8B and C)
Parking within the front yard (rule 7.8.1.9).
Clause 4.3.1.2B of the District Plan sets out the matters for consideration when assessing
modification of the above development controls.
I am of the opinion that the effects of these infringements are fully assessed within section
6.3 of this report and by the agent on pages 54 to 65 of the AEE. In summary, I make the
following comments in relation to the specific assessment criteria:
-
As assessed in section 6.3 of this report, the overall adverse effects of the above
infringements are no more than minor.
-
The proposed infringements which are comprised within the development are not on the
whole contrary to the objectives and policies of the District Plan as discussed in section
6.8.1 of this report.
-
Council experts have recommended conditions (should consent be granted) in the
preceding sections of this report to ensure development is undertaken in accordance
with the recommendations of the various expert reports submitted by the applicant in
support of the proposal. In addition, I recommend that a condition be imposed (should
consent be granted) requiring the applicant to obtain surveyors certification that the
proposal building in relation to boundary, maximum height and coverage infringements
are accurate and that works are undertaken in accordance with the proposed plans.
H)
Design
Residential Design Guide (Appendix 10 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City
Isthmus Section);
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 59
A comprehensive assessment of the development has been carried out by Mr Peter Joyce
against the Residential Design Guide (Appendix 10 of the Auckland Council District Plan
(Auckland City Isthmus Section). This is provided at Attachment 4.1 Section 4.3.2.
Mr Joyce considers, in summation, that there are several factors of the development
proposal that lack adherence to established design principles and best practice. They are as
follows:
a) ‘the dominance of garage doors / parking areas on the front face and / or front yard
of all dwellings;
b) safety concerns related to the pedestrian-only service lanes; and
c) safety concerns relating to the occurrence of properties ‘backing onto’ the pocket
parks’.43
However, My Joyce is of the opinion that the potential negative effects of these matters are
not enough to outweigh the positive effects arising:
‘It is my conclusion that the comprehensive development proposed by the consent
application effectively responds to the four qualities of good design as defined by the
Auckland Plan (Identity, Diversity, Integration and Efficiency (Chapter 10)) and illustrates
an innovative response to the site and the development’s objectives; which results in the
spatial amenity required for residential living being provided in a unique way.’44
Mr Joyce has made a comprehensive and balanced assessment of the application. I concur
with Mr Joyce’s findings, in that whilst the proposed development does not perhaps address
all design matters raised in Appendix 10 Residential Design Guide, it sufficiently responds to
the majority of these requirements.
Summary
Overall, it is considered that the proposal measures favourably against the relevant rules and
assessment criteria of the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section),
the Auckland Regional Plan (Air, Land & Water) and the Auckland Regional Plan (Sediment
Control).
6.9
Section 104(1)(c): Any Other Matters Considered Relevant and Reasonably Necessary
to Determine the Application
Section 104(1)(c) requires that any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and
reasonably necessary to determine the application be considered. In this case the following
matters are considered relevant.
6.9.1 Submissions
All of the submissions received by Council in the processing of this application have been
reviewed and considered in the overall assessment of effects in this report.
Council’s specialists have also reviewed the relevant submissions as required and
incorporated comments into their assessments accordingly. Many of these submissions
raised similar issues and have been dealt with generically in the body of this report. Those
that have raised specific resource management matters and points of clarification have been
specifically addressed in the assessment of actual and potential effects contained above.
43
44
Refer Mr Peter Joyce’s report Attachment 4.1 page 25.
Refer Mr Peter Joyce’s report Attachment 4.1 page 25.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 60
The following additional comments are made in response to submissions:
•
That earthworks will spill over on to adjacent properties
As noted at page 9 of the applicants AEE, no earthworks are proposed to occur over private
neighbouring properties.
•
That the Mt Wellington Highway walkways will be utilised
As noted at page 12 of the applicants AEE, it is not proposed to utilise the two existing rights
of way from Mt Wellington Highway as part of the proposal.
•
Council Error in Limited Notification Determination (Public Notification Preferred)
The appropriate avenue for seeking reconsideration of Council determination is through a
judicial review. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the decision to process the application
on a limited notified basis was robust and involved an appropriate level of independence
from Council officers involved in the assessment of the application.
•
Density/Overcrowding/Pollution
The effects arising from the increase in density have been considered at section 6.3.3 above,
where it was considered that the effects as a result of increased density (including
dominance and shading, aural and visual privacy, traffic and parking, infrastructural
constraints) could be adequately avoided, remedied and mitigated.
It is further noted that the development will be subject to a Residents Society set of rules,
which will be able to control the development in regards to maintenance of vegetation,
fencing and so forth. It is envisaged that in this way the development will be able to maintain
standards in perpetuity, and that the increase in density would not result in poor
environmental outcomes.
•
Additional potential for crime due to additional population
There will always be potential for additional crime due to additional population, and this is a
reality of urban living. However, conversely the additional population will also allow for
increased levels of surveillance to the neighbourhood.
•
Loss of local work source
The site has been zoned for residential use for some time. The retail stores proposed on
Panama Road will also offer some form of employment.
•
Disruption to, and loss of, existing tenants disturbed by construction effects; Proposed
hours of construction, duration of construction (three years), and anticipated level of
noise and vibration is excessive; Noise, traffic, construction traffic from the new road
into Hillside Road (south)
As above, the construction effects are an unfortunate reality of living in an urban
environment.
The potential construction effects (noise/vibration/construction traffic) have been discussed
above within the assessment of effects at section 6.3.3, where it was considered that the
mitigation measures would be sufficient to ensure limited effect. Further, it needs to also be
remembered that the development will be staged, so that each individual property will not
have development occurring next to them for the entire three years.
•
Rats. Need for poisoning prior to commencement of work
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 61
This is not within the realm of considerations within this report, however, it is considered
sensible to carry this out prior to demolition of structures to ensure no resultant effect on
neighbouring properties.
•
The Pohutukawas and other trees on site should be protected and required due to noncompliances with permeable/impermeable requirements.
A number of trees are to be removed as part of the development due to their either their
being in conflict with the proposed development, or their condition.
The development offers retention of trees in sections of the site (around the amphitheatre to
the south-east, around the east adjacent to Hillside Road properties, and around the western
terraces). This, in combination with planting proposed to be undertaken, is considered to be
sufficient mitigation for the loss of trees on site.
•
Height of trees on site needs to be controlled to ensure views are retained
It is understood that there is a current arrangement between the site owners and adjoining
occupiers to keep the height of the Pohutukawa trees in the south-eastern corner at a lower
height. There would also need to be private agreement on this matter with the Residents
Society.
•
Fencing around perimeter of the site needs to be ensured to avoid short-cuts by
residents;
The applicant has advised that 1800mm high fences are proposed to be built between the
development site and neighbouring properties where a fence does not exist. This would be
sufficient to ensure that neighbouring sites are not used as short-cuts by pedestrians.
•
Recognition of the significant history of the land should be provided for in
commemorative plaques or park/street/place names;
This is a matter that the applicant has expressed an interest in. However, street names
would be a matter for consideration and decision by the Local Board.
•
Monotonous building design with little variation in housing type and design;
Refer to the Urban Design Specialist Report contained at Attachment 4.1
•
Pedestrian safety – particularly for schoolchildren walking along Panama and Hillside;
A construction management plan is required as a condition of consent, which includes the
need to identify if detour routes for pedestrians are required. Additional comment is provided
above at 6.3.3.I.
•
Damage to neighbouring property through additional stormwater run-off, and damage
to neighbouring trees;
The proposed earthworks will provide for overland flowpaths to pass over the site to
proposed Road B2 and then out towards Hillside Road. It is not expected that there would
be resultant stormwater run-off on adjacent properties. Further, it is not anticipated that any
adjacent trees are to be affected by the development.
•
Contamination of the environment through discharge of stormwater into the tomo. Need
to ensure disposal will have no effect on the quality of the water in the aquifer;
Stormwater from the site is proposed to be treated prior to disposal to remove at least 75% of
suspended solids (the design is intended to achieve 80-90%).
•
Height of blocks TA-2 and TA-3 exceeds 8m and should be reduced
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 62
Refer to section 6.3.3A above
•
Dust, grime, odour, asbestos and other contaminants from construction earthworks.
Are the dust suppression measures effective, practical and realistic? Firm assurance
has not been given in Appendix 8 (Groundwater and Environmental Services Report)
with regard to protection from contaminant hazards;
Council officer Ms Sharon Tang has assessed the application, including the Remedial Action
Plan (RAP) and Site Management Plan (SMP) and determined that:
The SMP has set up appropriate health and safety measures to manage potential health
risks. It has also discussed appropriate measures to control dust and potential discharge
of contaminated water to the environment.
A number of conditions were also recommended to be imposed by Ms Tang, including the
need to control dust in accordance with Ministry for the Environment requirements. I
consider that these measures will be effective and realistic.
•
Commercial activity within a residential area is not appropriate;
This matter is addressed above at section 6.8.2 (c). Whilst it is noted that a commercial
activity is a non-complying activity in this location, it is considered that they are of a scale
which would be of benefit to a residential area. Further, they can be controlled through
conditions of any consent to ensure no effect upon the adjoining residential area .
•
Type of development appears prone to building quality issues;
The proposed buildings appear of robust design. This will be a matter for consideration under
the Building Act.
•
Cultural assessment currently being undertaken;
Noted – cultural assessments are currently being undertaken by a number of Iwi.
•
Insufficient consultation has been undertaken with Iwi;
The applicant has carried out a range of consultation which is noted at section 6.3.3G above.
•
Four areas remain historically intact. 11 Ryburn and 98 & 100 Hillside should remain as
they are. If not, then archaeological discovery conditions should be required;
Archaeological discovery conditions are included as recommended conditions of consent.
Further to this, the applicant has indicated that they may wish to remove the four residential
unit development at Ryburn Road from the application. It is expected that there may be an
update from the applicant about this matter at the hearing.
•
Vegetation should be native and naturally occurring rather than hybrids;
The applicant has noted that:
At present a mixture of native, fruiting, and exotic trees are proposed in order to provide
some deciduous trees and a variety of colour. Following discussions with iwi, however,
this mix is being reviewed with a view to maximising the proportion of natives to be
used45.
•
45
Sustainable design features should be utilised (solar water heating, re-use of roof
water);
Refer section 4.5 of the applicant’s Assessment of Environmental Effects.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 63
The applicant is proposing green building specifications higher than Building Code
Standards, however, the features above are not to be utilised. Further consideration of this
matter is provided within Mr Peter Joyce’s report at Attachment 4.1.
•
Units are likely to be rentals, which causes concern as we do not know who will live
there.
This is not a matter for consideration under the Resource Management Act.
6.9.2 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, ensuring further details are submitted
in accordance with the relevant recommended conditions and that certain measures are
implemented prior to and further the duration of the construction phase. It is therefore
anticipated that a monitoring fee of $2000.00 (exclusive of GST) will be appropriate in this
case. A condition requiring payment of this fee is recommended.
6.9.3 Local Government Act 2002 – Development Contributions
Under the Local Government Act 2002, Councils are permitted to take development
contributions towards the costs that capital growth imposes on the community. The financial
contribution policy of the Council’s Long Term Council Community Plan incorporates a
development contribution based on the capital expenditure for infrastructure and community
facilities for that ten-year period. If this application were to be approved, a development
contribution would be payable and the development contributions team will send out a notice
of assessment to the applicant if that were to occur.
6.9.4 Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) - Financial Contributions
Clauses 4B.6.3 and 4B.6.4 of the District Plan allow for, and provide a framework for, Council
to seek direct financial contributions by way of:
‘a condition of a resource consent to provide for or remedy or mitigate:
i)
effects generated by the permitted activities on the lots comprising a subdivision; or
ii)
effects generated by a development;
to the extent that such effects give rise to additional demand or requirements for network
utility services.’
The proposal provides for 424 additional household units/residential lots. The application
was received on 20 May 2013, therefore a development contribution is applicable under the
Auckland Council Development Contributions Policy. The contributions team have been
advised and a notice of assessment will be sent out in due course. It is noted that a nonresidential use credit will be applicable to the development contribution due to the current
activities on site.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 64
6.9.5 Other relevant legislation
-
Historic Places Act 1993
All archaeological sites are protected by the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993 and
may not be destroyed, damaged or modified without an authority issued by the New Zealand
Historic Places Trust.
As the site was associated with human activity prior to 1900 an application for authority to
modify the site has been made with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. This is a
separate legal matter to those requirements under the Resource Management Act, however,
a number of conditions have also been proposed through the archaeological assessment
which are recommended to be included on any approved consent.
6.9.6 The Auckland Plan
The Auckland Plan was prepared by Auckland Council in accordance with sections 79 and
80 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. Section 80 of that Act obliged the
Council to involve central government, infrastructure providers, the communities of Auckland,
the private sector, the rural sector, and other parties throughout the preparation and
development of the Plan, and to adopt the Plan in accordance with the special consultative
procedure. That procedure, as set out in the Local Government Act 2002, involved public
notification and the calling and hearing of submissions. No appeals against Council decisions
on submissions are provided for under the procedure.
The Auckland Plan was adopted by the Council on 29 March 2012 and formally launched on
29 May 2012. The Auckland Plan sets a 30 year strategic direction for Auckland. It outlines a
high-level strategy to guide future development and investment in infrastructure and services.
It also identifies nationally and regionally significant recreational areas and open-space
areas, ecological areas that should be protected from development, environmental
constraints on development, and landscapes, areas of historic heritage value, and natural
features. The direction that the Auckland Plan provides will find expression in the Unitary
Plan, which is being prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991, and which is
expected to be notified in September 2013. In any case, and on their own terms, the
provisions of the Auckland Plan are potentially a relevant matter for consideration under
section 104(1)(c).
Although it is a generally ‘high level’ document, the provisions in chapters 10 (Urban
Auckland) and 11 (Auckland’s Housing) are relevant to the assessment of this proposal.
While chapter 10 focuses on urban intensification and a compact city, it is clear that such
development is to be directed to specific areas which are in close proximity to services and
public transport (Directive 10.3). In this case, the site is marked for some change, and is
located close to Sylvia Park, which is identified as an ‘Emergent Centre’. This is illustrated
within map D.2 beneath.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 65
Figure 6.3: Extract from Auckland Plan Map D.2 – Development Strategy Map (Urban Core)
Aside from the location of the development, of more relevance is its amenity and design as
assessed previously in this report. Priority 2 of the Auckland Plan is to ‘Demand good design
in all development’ and it states that ‘no area should be compromised by poor design quality
or inappropriate density”. Directive 10.5 requires that all development proposals be
considered against a set of design principles (box 10.1). These principles require that
development responds to its natural and urban context, encourages and embeds flexibility,
as well as ‘optimises the full potential of a site’s intrinsic qualities’.
As previously assessed, the proposal is considered to be able to achieve a good design
standard. The development responds to its context and the basin in which it is sited. It
represents a development which does not significantly impact streetscape character or
residential amenity.
For these reasons, the proposal is considered to be reasonably consistent with the priority of
the Auckland Plan to provide for the intensification of residential activity within Auckland
whilst achieving good design outcomes.
6.9.7 Certificate of Title Limitations
It is noted that the site is subject to an encumbrance in favour of Auckland Council which
relates to site stability. These matters have been addressed above as part of this application.
It is also noted that there is a building line restriction that applies to the site. This appears to
relate only to Mt Wellington Highway and has not been carried through to the District Plan.
No works are proposed within close proximity to Mt Wellington Highway. Auckland Transport
have not raised this matter as being an issue with respect to the development.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 66
The are no other interests recorded on the certificates of titles that would have an impact on
the development from an RMA perspective.
6.10 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.
A full assessment of environmental effects has been carried out above. This assessment will
be referred to, where relevant, beneath.
6.10.1 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, the permitted baseline was discussed at
length at section 6.3.2 above, where it was considered that there is comparatively little that
can be carried out on the site, as any new residential development involving four or more
units requires a restricted discretionary activity consent. However, the existing nursery
activities and associated buildings and hardstand areas have been consented and therefore
form part of the legally established existing environment. In assessing the effects of this
proposal, regard has been had to this existing environment as a 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. No persons have give their written approval to the application.
Having regard to the above, the adverse effects on the environment of allowing the activity
for which resource consent is sought have been identified and addressed at section 6.3.3
above, where it was concluded that the effects of the development would be minor.
6.10.2 Section 104D(1)(b) – Proposal will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the
District and Regional Plans
An assessment of the relevant objectives and policies has been carried out above at section
6.8.1, where it was found that the proposal was consistent with the relevant objectives and
policies.
6.10.3 Section 104D Recommendation
It is considered that subject to appropriate conditions of consent the proposal satisfies the
threshold test of s104D because as demonstrated in section(s) 6.3.3 above of this report the
adverse effects on the environment will be no more than minor and the proposal will not be
contrary to the objectives and policies of the Auckland Council Operative Regional Plan
(Sediment Control), the Auckland Council Operative Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water),
and the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) as concluded in
section 6.8 above of this report. From the above section 104D assessment it can be
concluded that the application meets both of the tests of s104D of the RMA.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 67
6.11 Section 105 Matters relevant to Discharge or Coastal Permits
Section 105 of the RMA requires the consent authority to have regard to additional matters in
relation to a discharge permit that would contravene s15 or s15B of the RMA. It is considered
that the provisions of Section 105 have been met as it has been determined that there are no
significant effects on the receiving environment as concluded in specialist comments
prepared by Samuel Woolley, Consents and Compliance Advisor, Natural Resources
Specialist Input.
6.12 Section 107 Restriction on Grant of Certain Permits
Section 107(1) of the RMA places restrictions on the granting of certain discharge permits
that would contravene Sections 15 or 15A of the RMA. It is considered that the proposal will
not give rise to any of the effects listed in Section 107(1) because of the mitigation methods
proposed.
6.13 Consideration of Part 2 (Purpose and Principles) of the RMA
The purpose of the RMA under s5 is 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. It is considered that the development is consistent with this purpose, in that it
provides for much needed affordable housing whilst not having detrimental effect on the
environment.
Section 6 of the Act sets out a number of matters of national importance which need to be
recognised and provided for, and includes among other things and in no order of priority, the
protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, the protection of areas of
significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, and the
protection of historic heritage. The proposal is not considered to contain any issues of
national importance, as any effects arising from the proposed activity are limited in
significance to the surrounding neighbourhood. Heritage matters, in particular the
disturbance of potential archaeological sites, have been addressed above, where it was
considered that the potential for disturbance was minor, was likely to yield little, and would be
mitigated by condition of consent. Further, this matter is also to be considered as part of the
application to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.
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.
The proposal is considered to be an efficient use of urban brownfield land and has been
summarised elsewhere in the report as anticipated to result in no more than minor adverse
effects on the environment, including adverse residential amenity, noise and character
effects on the neighbouring residential properties.
Section 8 requires a council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is
not considered that the proposal would offend against the Treaty of Waitangi. In particular, it
is noted that the application has been subject to consultation with relevant iwi, and ways are
being explored as to how the principles of kaitiakitanga can be included within the
development.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 68
Overall the application is considered to meet the relevant provisions of Part 2 of the RMA as
the proposal achieves the purpose of the RMA being sustainable management of natural and
physical resources.
6.14 Lapsing of Consent
Section 125 of the RMA provides that if a resource consent is not given effect to within five
years of the date of the commencement (or any other time as specified) it automatically
lapses unless the consent authority has granted an extension. In this case, it is considered
seven years is an appropriate period for the consent holder to implement the consent due to
the nature and scale of the proposal. However, it is considered that the applicant should
provide further elaboration upon this matter at the hearing so that commissioners, and
submitters, have an appreciation of the proposed timing which is anticipated for
development.
6.15 Duration of Consent
The application involves regional plan consenting components that ordinarily and on their
own, would require duration periods to be set down.
Council specialists have recommended that the ‘earthworks’ and ‘contamination’ regional
consenting component of the consent being sought be set a term of 5 years.
As noted above, it is considered that the applicant should provide further elaboration upon
this matter at the hearing so that commissioners, and submitters, have an appreciation of the
proposed timing which is anticipated for development.
6.16 Conclusion
Overall, it is considered that the proposal is considered to measure favourably against the
relevant assessment criteria identified in the District Plan, relevant Regional Plans and NES
Soil Contamination. Measures proposed by the applicant, and additional measures as
identified by Council’s specialists, will ensure that any adverse effects on the environment will
be appropriately avoided, remedied, or mitigated. The proposal is considered to be an
appropriate development of the site.
Further, it is considered that the proposal is broadly consistent with, and not contrary to,
relevant objectives and policies identified in the District Plan and relevant Regional Plans.
At the time of writing this report, the issue which remains to be resolved is that in relation to
the stormwater disposal for the proposed development. There is currently insufficient
information and analysis available to give Council sufficient confidence to accept the
stormwater disposal method. This matter remains to be resolved, and it is anticipated that
investigations over the weeks leading up to the hearing will provide for a solution to this
issue.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 69
7.0
RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITIONS
7.1
Recommendation
That, subject to an acceptable stormwater disposal method being agreed upon, and
subject to new or contrary evidence being presented at the hearing, it is recommended that
under sections 104, 104B, 104D, 105, 107 and 108 of the RMA, consent is granted to the
non-complying activity application by Panama Road Developments Ltd to authorise the
demolition of all structures on site, and carry out a residential development comprising 424
dwellings, 439m2 of commercial floor space, associated parks, roading, footpaths,
infrastructure, landscaping and ancillary works, at 33 Panama Road, 22 and 98-100 Hillside
Road and 11 Ryburn Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062, being Lot 4 DP39188, Lot 1 &
2 DP 86615, Lot 24 DP37754, Lot 2 DP88129, Lot 1 DP194641, Lot 53-55 & Pt Lot 52
DP10490, and being referenced as R/LUC/2013/1686 (Land Use), 41726 (Contaminated
Land); and 41725 (Earthworks).
The reasons for this recommendation are as follows:
a)
In terms of section 104(1)(a) of the RMA, the proposal has the ability to result in actual
and potential effects on the environment. In summary, the proposal results in:
ƒ
less than minor adverse streetscape and character effects;
ƒ
minor adverse bulk and visual dominance effects on the adjoining residential
properties, with such effects acceptably mitigated through separation distances,
changes in levels, and retention of screening along boundaries;
ƒ
less than minor adverse visual and acoustic privacy effects which can be
mitigated through retention of existing trees, and through appropriate conditions
of consent controlling the commercial activities upon Panama Road;
ƒ
acceptable earthworks and contamination effects which are able to be controlled
through a Construction Management Plan, Construction Noise and Vibration
Management Plan, and Site Management Plan including dust control measures;
ƒ
negligible stability effects, due to the measures which can be put in place to
ensure acceptable slope stability hazard and reduction of subsidence/settlement
hazard to an acceptable engineering level;
ƒ
negligible geological effects, as a result of previous modifications to the site;
ƒ
acceptable vegetation and landscape effects, based on the replanting proposed,
and the measures which can be taken to ensure the health of the scheduled Gold
Poplar tree;
ƒ
avoidance of any effect upon archaeological remnants;
ƒ
acceptable safety effects which can be remedied if need requires;
ƒ
minor transportation effects which can be satisfactorily mitigated through the
applicant’s proposed mitigation measures and through conditions of consent;
ƒ
minor adverse effects arising from construction traffic, noise and vibration, which
can be managed and avoided through the preparation and implementation of
construction management plans;
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 70
ƒ
acceptable infrastructure effects, which (with the aside of stormwater disposal)
appear to be able to be readily provided;
ƒ
positive effects, most particularly the provision of affordable housing which
provides a diversity of housing typologies not currently offered in the Mount
Wellington area.
Overall, the applicant has proposed measures that will ensure the adverse effects of
the proposed development will be acceptably accommodated by the surrounding
environment, particularly the adjoining residential environment, and the recommended
conditions will ensure that the development is constructed in an appropriate manner
and is appropriately served by public and private infrastructure
The one effect which remains to be resolved at the time of writing this report is that in
relation to stormwater disposal. It is anticipated that there will be further discussion
around this matter, at or prior to the hearing, in addition to updates with regard to iwi
consultation.
b)
In terms of section 104(1)(b) of the RMA, it is considered that the proposal is consistent
with the relevant National Policy Statements and Auckland Council policy statements
and plans. Specifically, these include:
ƒ
the objectives and policies of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater
Management 2011, in particular objective A1 which relates to management of
discharges of contaminants to fresh water;
ƒ
the objectives and policies of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010,
which requires consideration of development and its effects upon the coastal
environment and ecosystem;
ƒ
The Auckland Regional Policy Statement, relating to urban intensification and the
use of urban brownfield land, significant land disturbance, protection of existing
residential amenity levels and the appropriate provision of associated private and
public infrastructure;
ƒ
the objectives, policies and assessment criteria addressed within Clauses 5.1,
5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.4.3.1, 7.1, 7.2 of the Auckland Council Regional Plan (Sediment
Control) relating to earthworks affecting land with an area in excess of 9.6
hectares;
ƒ
the objectives, policies and assessment criteria addressed within Clauses 5.3.1,
5.3.15A, 5.3.16, 5.4.1, 5.4.36, 5.4.37, 5.4.37A, 5.5.43, 5.5.44, and 5.5.44A of the
Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water) relating to remediation of
contaminated sites.
ƒ
the objectives, policies and assessment criteria addressed within Clauses 2.3.12.3.5, 4A.2B, 4.6.1, 5C.7.3, 5C.7.3.3A, B & C, 5D.3, 5D.6.1, 5E.4.3, 6.2.10.2,
6.2.10.5, 7.3.1-7.3.5, 7.6.5, 7.6.6, 7.8.1.2, 7.8.1.3b, 7.8.1.5, 7.8.1.6, 7.8.1.7,
7.8.1.7A, 7.8.1.8B & C, 7.8.1.9, 12.6.1, 12.7, 12.9.1.1 4A.2B, 4.3.1.2B, 4.3.2.5,
4.3.2.6, 4B.6.1, 5D.6.1, 8.3, 8.6.4, 8.7.3.2, 8.7.3.3.10, 12.6.1, 12.7.1 and 12.9.1.2
of the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section).
The imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure that proposed mitigation measures
are implemented will ensure that the development continues to be consistent with the
aforementioned objectives, policies and assessment criteria. As noted above at (a) the
stormwater disposal method remains to be resolved. This will need to be addressed in
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 71
order for the application to fully meet with the abovementioned Objectives, Policies,
Rules and Assessment Criteria.
7.2
c)
In terms of section 104(1)(c) of the RMA, other relevant matters, including submissions,
monitoring, development contributions, other legislation, the Auckland Plan, and
Certificate of Title limitations have been considered in the determination of the
application.
d)
The proposal is consistent with Part 2 of the Act as it achieves social and economic
wellbeing while adequately avoiding adverse effects on the environment, and by
providing for the efficient use of urban brownfield land for residential use.
e)
Overall, the application is considered to achieve the sustainable management purpose
of the Act, whilst being consistent with the objectives and policies of the relevant
National Policy Statements, Regional and District Plans.
Conditions
GENERAL CONDITIONS THAT APPLY TO R/LUC/2013/1686 (LAND USE), 41726
(CONTAMINATED LAND) AND 41725 (EARTHWORKS)
Activity in Accordance with Plans
1.
The proposed development, consisting of demolition of all structures on site, and
carrying out of a residential development comprising 424 dwellings, 439m2 of
commercial floor space, associated parks, roading, footpaths, infrastructure,
landscaping and ancillary works shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and
all information submitted with the application (as detailed in attachment 2 of the Section
42A report), being “Springpark Residential Development, 33 Panama Road, Mt
Wellington”, prepared by Gerard Thompson, Barker and Associates, dated 7 August
2013 and referenced by the Council as R/LUC/2013/1686, Permit 41726
(Contaminated land) & Permit 41725 (Earthworks).
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.
(c)
All development contributions relating to the development authorised by this
consent, unless the Manager Resource Consents has otherwise agreed in writing
to a different payment timing or method.
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
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 72
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.
3.
Pursuant to section 125 of the RMA, this consent lapses seven years after the date it is
granted unless:
(a)
The consent is given effect to; or
(b)
The Council extends the period after which the consent lapses.
Monitoring Charges
4.
The consent holder shall pay the Council an initial consent compliance monitoring
charge of $2000 (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.
Advice Note:
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. 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. Only after all conditions of the resource consent have
been met, will Council issue a letter confirming compliance on request of the consent
holder.
Other Conditions
5.
The servants or agents of Auckland Council shall be permitted access to the relevant
parts of the site at all reasonable times for the purposes of carrying out inspections,
surveys, investigations, tests, measurements or taking of samples whilst adhering to
the consent holder’s health and safety policy.
6.
The relevant parts of this resource consent shall be included in the contract
documentation and all contractors shall be made aware of the conditions of these
resource consents and shall ensure compliance with those conditions. All personnel
working on the site shall be made aware of and have access to the contents of these
consent documents and the associated environmental protection methodologies.
7.
If any works on site are abandoned, adequate preventative and remedial measures
shall be taken to control sediment discharges and shall thereafter be maintained for so
long as necessary to prevent sediment discharges from the site. All such measures
shall be of a type and to a standard that are to the satisfaction of the Manager, Natural
Resources & Specialist Input.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 73
CONDITIONS THAT APPLY TO R/LUC/2013/1686 (LAND USE CONSENT)
ENGINEERING PLAN APPROVALS
Stormwater
8.
Prior to the commencement Stages 1, 2 and 3, engineering plan approval
application(s) shall be submitted to and approved by Auckland Council Development
Engineering Division for the construction of the public stormwater infrastructure
network (including treatment device(s) and disposal method(s). The design of the
discharge and soakage arrangements shall be validated by tests, monitoring and
engineering reporting to the satisfaction of the Auckland Council Team Leader
Compliance and Monitoring – Central on advice from Auckland Council Stormwater
Asset Group.
The development shall treat stormwater to the requirements of ARC Technical
Publication 10. Low impact design shall also be included in the overall stormwater
treatment design. Placement and design of such systems shall be to the satisfaction of
the Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring – Central on advice
from Auckland Council Stormwater Asset Group.
These works shall be completed prior to construction of any dwellings (including the
provision of “as-built” drawings) and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
Auckland Council Team Leader, Compliance Monitoring – Central on advice from
Auckland Council Stormwater Asset Group and Auckland Council Development
Engineering Division.
Wastewater Drainage
9.
Prior to the commencement Stages 1, 2 and 3, engineering plan approval
application(s) shall be submitted to and approved by Auckland Council Development
Engineering Division for the construction of the public wastewater infrastructure
network in accordance with Watercare conceptual approval (detailed in email from A
Chelliah dated 13/8/2013 and 30/7/2013). These works shall be completed prior to
construction of any dwellings (including the provision of “as-built” drawings) and shall
be completed to the satisfaction of the Auckland Council Team Leader, Compliance
Monitoring – Central on advice from Watercare Services Ltd.
Public Water Supply Pipes
10.
Prior to the commencement Stages 1, 2 and 3, engineering plan approval
application(s) shall be submitted to and approved by Auckland Council Development
Engineering Division for the construction of the public wastewater infrastructure
network in accordance with Watercare conceptual approval (detailed in email from A
Chelliah dated 13/8/2013 and 30/7/2013). These works shall be completed prior to
construction of any dwellings (including the provision of “as-built” drawings) and shall
be completed to the satisfaction of the Auckland Council Team Leader, Compliance
Monitoring – Central on advice from Watercare Services Ltd.
Roading
11.
Prior to the commencement Stages 1, 2 and 3, engineering plan approval
application(s) shall be submitted to and approved by Auckland Council Development
Engineering Division for the construction of proposed (future) public road network
(identified as roads A, B and C), changes proposed to the existing public road network
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 74
and the proposed private lanes (identified as Lane D). The engineering plan
approval(s) shall include the following details for approval:
(a)
A Parking Management Plan shall accompany each respective engineering plan
approval. This shall identify how ‘co-located’ parking spaces shall be managed
such that each residential dwelling has adequate access to parking resource and
unlawful parking behaviour on the public road is minimised.
(b)
A Road Safety Audit undertaken by a qualified Traffic Engineer shall be
submitted for the design of any shared zones proposed as part of the design of
Road C.
(c)
Clear distinction between the public (vested) and private (non–vested)
components of the proposed internal road network by use of paving and/or any
other appropriate visual cues. At the intersections of any Lane D with the public
road network, entrance and exit points shall be designed as driveways in
accordance with Council’s Traffic and Roading Standards.
(d)
Road layouts, intersection designs, speed management techniques, parking bay
dimensions, resolutions, signage and road markings.
(f)
Pedestrian refuge island on Panama Road within the frontage of the subject site.
(g)
Right turn bay at Hillside Road/Mt Wellington Highway.
Ryburn Road Pedestrian Connection
12.
Prior to the commencement of Stage 3, the consent holder shall provide details of the
Ryburn Road pedestrian connection. This information shall be submitted to the
Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring – Central for approval in
liaison with Urban Design specialists.
13.
Prior to the construction of the Ryburn Road Pedestrian Connection, engineering plan
approval application(s) shall be submitted to and approved by Auckland Council
Development Engineering Division for the construction of connection. Details shall
include signage, cycle barriers and fencing requirements. These works shall be
completed prior to occupation of the units within Stage 3 (including the provision of “asbuilt” drawings) and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Auckland Council
Team Leader, Compliance Monitoring – Central on advice from Auckland Council
Development Engineering Division.
PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
Design and finish of the Residential Units
14.
Prior to the commencement of any work on Stages 1, 2 and 3 respectively (prior to
submitting a Building Consent for the units on any respective stage other than
earthworks and foundations), the consent holder shall provide:
(a)
Final elevation design drawings illustrating the external wall and roof claddings
and window and door joinery.
(b)
A schedule, specifications and sample palette of materials, surface finishes, and
colour schemes for all cladding and glazing. Materials selected must be highly
durable and be consistent with details illustrated in the design concepts submitted
with the resource consent.
This Condition is to ensure that the design concept, standards and quality of
development approved at each stage is consistently maintained throughout the project.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 75
This information shall be submitted to the Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance
Monitoring – Central for approval in liaison with Urban Design specialists.
15.
Prior to commencement of construction of Type A and/or Type B terrace house units
and in relation to the Typical Front Cluster Elevations on architectural drawings RC-353
and RC-357, the consent holder shall provide scaled elevation drawings with
associated cross-sections specifying and illustrating that the top of the glazing to the
kitchen window which faces the street is no less than 1650mm above finished floor
level.
16.
With respect to the terrace edge apartments, screening the entrance or providing
glazing about the corner is required to ensure adequate visibility between a reversing
vehicle and pedestrians exiting the complex. Details of the modification shall be
submitted and approved by the Auckland Council Team Leader Consent Monitoring –
Central prior to the commencement of construction.
17.
Prior to application for building consents on Stages 1, 2 and 3 respectively, the consent
holder shall provide detailed and dimensioned legal survey plans for the subdivision of
the development stage for the proposed units, roads and parks. The drawings shall be
submitted to the Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central in
liaison with Urban Design specialists to confirm that:
18.
19.
(a)
The number and location of all groups of the various unit typologies are in
accordance with the site layout illustrated on the architect’s drawing RC-400 Site
Coverage Diagram; and
(b)
The minimum dimensions for the length and width of the lot, front yard and rear
yard for each terrace unit typology are no less than those shown on the
architect’s drawing RC-401 Housing Coverage Diagram; and
(c)
The common rear boundary of terrace units that back onto a shared pedestrian
service lane are positioned as illustrated on the architect’s drawings RC-318.1,
RC-319.1 and RC-320.1 Stage1-3 Masterplans.
Prior to the commencement of any work on the mixed use apartment block RA-1 for
commercial/retail tenancies within Stage 1 (prior to submitting a Building Consent for
the units on any respective stage other than earthworks and foundations), the consent
holder shall provide:
(a)
Confirmation any commercial/retail activities identified in Clause 1.4 of the
Bylaws of the Springpark Residents Society Incorporated are excluded;
(b)
Design plans to ensure that any required mechanical services are installed to
comply with relevant standards and specifications for the control of noise and/or
odour discharges that could negatively affect the amenity of the residential
apartments above. Assurance of compliance shall be provided by respective
qualified mechanical services engineers or equipment suppliers.
(c)
Details on the hours of operation and deliveries.
Prior to the commencement of any work on Apartment Block PA-4 (prior to submitting a
Building Consent for the units on any respective stage other than earthworks and
foundations), the consent holder shall provide a full set of detailed drawings illustrating
the apartment unit configuration at all levels. At ground level, drawings shall provide
detail the location of apartment entries, access paths, parking, external storage,
rubbish bin enclosures and landscape planting to screen ground floor units and yards
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 76
in general accordance with the PA-4 Apartment Block sketch plan SK-441 provided to
Council by the architect (dated 19 August 2013). Plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the Auckland Council Team Leader Consent Monitoring – Central prior to
the commencement of construction.
Landscape Plans
20.
Prior to the commencement of any work on Stages 1, 2 and 3 respectively (prior to
submitting a Building Consent for the units on any respective stage other than
earthworks and foundations), the consent holder shall provide final detailed landscape
plan with specifications for:
(a)
All tree and plant species, size, number of, locations and spacings within each
respective site and pocket parks;
(b)
The design and materials for all street and park furniture, walls and other formal
landscape elements;
(c)
The design and specification for all external lighting fittings for private lanes,
streets and parks;
(d)
The materials, finishes and colours for hard surfaces/paving in all street and
parks.
(e)
Fencing typologies (height and visual permeability), locations and specifications
of materials, finishes and colour.
(f)
Detailed maintenance programme.
This information shall be submitted to the Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance
Monitoring – Central for approval in liaison with Urban Design specialists. The
approved Landscape Plan(s) as required by this condition must be implemented in full
prior to the occupation of the units within each respective stage to the satisfaction of
Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central.
Lighting Plan
21.
Prior to construction of each respective stage the consent holder shall submit a
Lighting Plan to the Auckland Council Team Leader, Compliance and Monitoring –
Central for approval. This plan shall include proposed locations, lux levels and types of
lighting (i.e. manufacturer’s specifications). The purpose of this plan is to demonstrate
that adequate lighting will be provided throughout the development particularly in
relation to the parking areas, pocket parks, pedestrian entrances to buildings, and
outdoor pedestrian circulation areas to ensure the safety and amenity of residents and
visitors at the site, and to ensures undue light spill onto nearby properties is avoided.
The approved lighting plan shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the units
and maintained at all times thereafter.
Advice Note:
Affiliation details between the lighting designer and a recognised professional body of
the Lighting Industry may negate the need for specialist peer review of lighting plans.
Construction Management Plan
22.
Prior to the commencement of earthworks and construction activity, a finalised
Construction Management Plan (CMP) prepared in accordance with the requirements
of AS2601-1991 Demolition of Structures (or the NZ equivalent standard) and the
Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, Hazardous Substances and New
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 77
Organisms Act 1996 shall be submitted to and approved by Auckland Council Team
Leader, Compliance Monitoring – Central. No construction activity shall commence
until confirmation is provided from council that the CMP satisfactorily meets the
requirements of above mentioned codes, and that all measures identified in that plan
as needing to be put in place prior to commencement of works have been. The
approved CMP as required by this condition must be implemented in full during the
period of earthworks and construction associated with the development hereby
consented. The CMP should address, but not be limited to, the following matters:
(i)
Details of the site project manager and liaison officer, including their contact
details (phone, email, postal address) and a telephone number for after hours
emergencies;
(ii)
The location of a large noticeboard on the site that clearly identifies the name,
telephone number and address for service of the site manager;
(iii)
The name and address of the company/contractor undertaking off-site
remediation/ disposal of excavated materials;
(iv)
Location and method of waste disposal and recycling;
(v)
Procedures to be used to prevent loose or contaminated material, spoil, dust and
litter from being deposited onto the public roads from trucks and associated
equipment and the proposed method of cleaning surrounding roads from such
deposits;
(vi)
A road cleaning plan for removal of any spoil or debris from the public road and
footpath;
(vii) Measures to suppress odours;
(viii) Enclosing and making the site safe;
(ix)
Induction training for on-site workers;
(x)
Disconnection of utilities, if required;
(xi)
Access and egress. (Excavation activity must not cause damage to or adversely
affect the safe access and egress of the subject building/site or any adjacent
buildings/sites);
(xii) Working hours, in accordance with the conditions of this resource consent;
(xiii) Details of a complaints procedure to deal with complaints relating to construction
related activities;
(xiv) Construction and excavation methodology specifically addressing the following
matters:
•
Key inspection stages during excavation, retaining and foundation
construction.
•
Timeframes for exposed excavated ground.
•
Location and timeframes for temporary support of excavations.
•
A plan of action to arrest and remedy any adverse structural effects that may
occur to any adjacent structure at the times they are identified during
construction.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 78
Construction Traffic Management Plan
23.
Prior to the commencement of the earthworks and construction activities on the subject
site, a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall prepared and submitted to and approved
by the Auckland Council Team Leader, Compliance Monitoring - Central. No
earthworks or construction activity shall commence on site until written approval of the
TMP is provided by the Team Leader, Compliance and Monitoring – Central. The
approved TMP shall be implemented at all times during the earthworks / construction
phase to the satisfaction of Council’s Team Leader, Compliance and Monitoring –
Central. Separate construction management plans shall be provided for individual
stages. The CTMP should address, but not be limited to, the following matters:
(i)
the control of vehicle movements to and from the site during the earthworks and
construction phase (including construction vehicle ingress to and egress,
proposed numbers, timings and routes of heavy vehicle movements);
(ii)
measures for maintaining pedestrian access and safety on public footpaths and
roads;
(iii)
any restrictions on hours of vehicle movements to protect the amenity of the
surrounding environment and avoid conflict with peak hour traffic;
(iv)
contractor parking;
(v)
loading and unloading areas;
(vi)
storage areas for construction machinery and materials.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to seek approval for the Traffic Management Plan
from Auckland Transport. Please contact Auckland Transport on (09) 355-3553 and
review www.beforeudig.co.nz before you begin works.
Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan
24.
Prior to the commencement of any excavations and construction activity, a final
Construction Noise Management Plan (“CNVMP”) shall be submitted to and approved
by the Auckland Council Team Leader, Compliance and Monitoring - Central. The
CNVMP shall be in general accordance with the draft CNVMP prepared by SG report
dated 14 May 2013 and shall specify/include provision for the following (as a
minimum):
(i)
Construction noise and vibration limits and criteria;
(ii)
Details of a liaison officer for neighbour contact for the duration of the earthworks
and construction phase;
(iii)
Details of procedures for community liaison and notification of proposed
construction activities and handling of noise/vibration complaints;
(iv)
Identification of the most affected properties where the potential exists for noise
and vibration effects;
(v)
Predicted noise levels for key activities including minimum safe-distances where
compliance with the relevant noise limits is predicted to be approached or has the
potential to be exceeded;
(vi)
Description and duration of the works, anticipated equipment and the processes
to be undertaken;
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 79
(vii) Hours of construction, including specific times and days when construction
activities causing noise and vibration would occur;
(viii) Mitigation options that may be employed to ensure that the construction noise
limits are met at all times. Specific noise and vibration mitigation measures must
be implemented which may include, but not limited to acoustic screening,
alternative equipment/processes and different forms of rock breaking where noise
or vibration levels are predicted or demonstrated to approach or exceed the
relevant limits;
(ix)
Schedule and methods for monitoring and reporting on construction noise and
vibration;
(x)
Construction operator training procedures in noise and vibration reduction;
(xi)
Contact numbers for key construction staff responsible for the implementation of
the CNVMP and complaint investigation;
The approved CNVMP shall be implemented and maintained throughout the entire
period of the earthworks and construction works. In the event of the measured noise
and vibration levels exceeding the relevant standards, the Council must be notified,
works shall cease and further mitigation options shall be investigated and implemented
prior to works re-commencing. Works shall only recommence once agreement has
been provided in writing from the Auckland Council Team Leader, Compliance and
Monitoring – Central. Additional monitoring shall be undertaken by the applicants’
acoustic specialist in the event of any complaints received and the results of such
monitoring shall be submitted to council within one week of receiving the complaint.
Vehicle Access for Existing Activities
25.
Prior to the commencement of any excavations and construction activity, a Truck
Access Strategy shall be prepared shall prepared and submitted to the Auckland
Council Team Leader, Compliance Monitoring – Central to identify how Zealandia will
continue to operate during Stages 1 and 2. The strategy shall identify travel routes to
and from the site, access arrangements and interaction with the Springpark
development. The approved strategy shall be implemented and maintained throughout
the entire period of the earthworks and construction works.
Pre-start Meeting
26.
Prior to the commencement of any construction and earthworks activities, the consent
holder shall hold a pre-start meeting that:
(a)
is located on the subject site.
(b)
is scheduled not less than 5 days before the anticipated commencement of
earthworks.
(c)
the consent holder (or their appointed representative), the project manager,
Council’s Monitoring Officer, and Council’s Senior Compliance & Consents
Advisor, Earthworks and Contaminated Lands, Natural Resources and Specialist
Input.
(d)
includes representation from the contractors who will undertake the works [and
any suitably qualified professionals if required by other conditions].
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 80
The following matters shall be discussed at the meeting include the proposed works,
how it is to be done, conditions of consent, erosion and sediment control measures,
installation of acoustic walls and general construction management measures.
The following information shall be made available at the pre-start meeting:
•
Resource consent conditions
•
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
•
Construction Traffic Management Plan
•
Construction Management Plan;
Advice Note:
To arrange the pre-start meeting please contact the Auckland Council Team Leader,
Compliance Monitoring – Central Area, on 301-0101. The conditions of consent should
be discussed at this meeting. All additional information required by the Council should
be provided two days prior to the meeting.
Notice of Commencement of Earthworks
27.
The Auckland Council Team Leader, Compliance Monitoring – Central Area, shall be
notified at least five working days prior to earthwork activities commencing on the
subject site.
Scheduled tree – 11 Ryburn Road
28.
Prior to the commencement of any excavations and construction activity at 11 Ryburn
Road, the consent holder shall submit a detailed Scheduled Tree Management Plan for
all works associated with new driveway and vehicle crossing access into the site,
together with reticulated infrastructure installation, detailed landscaping and boundary
treatments. The Management Plan shall be submitted to the Auckland Council Team
Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for approval in liaison with Council’s Heritage
and Resource Consents Arborists. The Scheduled Tree Management Plan should
address, but not be limited to, the following requirements:
(a)
The location of the new driveway shall extend no closer to the root-collar of the
Scheduled Poplar tree than exists presently and shall be constructed at existing
grade without excavation. The cross-fall of the driveway shall be directed
towards the Poplar tree ensuring that there is no concentration of overland flow
that might adversely affect the tree.
(b)
To facilitate driveway construction, the existing driveway surface shall be lifted
carefully in one direction ensuring that the excavator remains on the existing
sealed surface at all times. Care shall also be taken to avoid physical contact
between the excavator and the above/below ground structures of the Scheduled
Poplar tree.
(c)
Engineering drawings for the new driveway structure shall be submitted as part of
the Management Plan.
(d)
Tree protection measures and protective fencing requirements and installation.
Temporary protective fencing (incorporating appropriate silt-control measures
where appropriate) shall be installed to the maximum extent possible to isolate
the scheduled Poplar tree on the site from excavations and construction activity.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 81
(e)
A pre-commencement site-meeting shall be held with the consent holder, the
project manager/site foreman, the consent holder’s appointed arborist, the
council’s monitoring officer, and heritage and resource consents arborists.
Council officers shall be given five working days written notice of the meeting.
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the proposed works methodology, how
it is to be undertaken, conditions of consent, tree protection measures and
protective fencing requirements and installation. A copy of the minutes from this
meeting shall be forwarded to Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance
Monitoring – Central on the day of the meeting.
(f)
A copy of the report entitled “Panama Road Developments Tree Survey at 33
Panama Road, Mt Wellington, Auckland” from The Specimen Tree Company
dated 16 May 2013, this consent and its conditions shall be kept on site at all
times and all contractors and sub-contractors shall be aware of and work in
accordance with them.
(g)
Prior to works commencing, the consent holder is responsible for explaining the
conditions of consent to all contractors, sub-contractors and work site supervisory
staff carrying out any works associated with the project.
(h)
All works within the root zone of the scheduled Poplar tree shall be carried out
under the on-site direction and supervision of a qualified arborist experienced in
such activities (hereafter called the appointed arborist), retained by the consent
holder at the consent holder’s expense and in accordance with the report entitled
“Panama Road Developments Tree Survey at 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington,
Auckland” from The Specimen Tree Company dated 16 May 2013.
(i)
The consent holder shall submit the name(s) of the appointed arborist.
(j)
The appointed arborist shall assume responsibility for all tree protection,
preservation, excavation and construction activity supervision within the root zone
of the scheduled Poplar tree and maintenance and monitoring during
construction of the project.
(k)
The appointed arborist shall provide monthly compliance reports throughout the
duration of works, including a digital photographic record of the tree works
undertaken. Within one month of completion of the development, the appointed
arborist shall provide a written statement confirming (or otherwise) that the impact
of the works and activity associated with the project on the scheduled Poplar tree
has been no greater than that afforded under the conditions of this consent.
(l)
Construction vehicle access to the property shall remain as is noting that the
existing concrete surface shall be reinforced with timber planking wired together
as support for the driveway.
(m)
All reticulated services from the carriageway shall be located outside of the
protected root zone area of the scheduled Poplar tree. Where there is no
alternative, such infrastructure shall be installed by way of directional drilling
(trenchless technology) with all opening/connection pits located to avoid the root
zone area.
The approved Scheduled Tree Management Plan shall be implemented and
maintained throughout the entire period of the earthworks and construction works at 11
Ryburn Road.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 82
Planting Works within Roads and Public Reserves
29.
Prior to the commencement of any works, the consent holder shall submit a detailed
Street Tree and Public Reserve Planting Management Plan. The Management Plan
shall be submitted to the Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance Monitoring –
Central for approval in liaison with Council’s Parks department (Arborist and
Landscape Advisor, Local Sports Parks). The Street Tree and Public Reserve Planting
Management Plan should address, but not be limited to, the following requirements and
specifications:
Design Detailing
(a)
The consent holder shall liaise directly with the councils arborist and landscape
advisor, pertaining to landscape treatments, planting specifications, and the final
species selection.
(b)
The final design of the planter pits in the road carriageway shall be carried out in
consultation with the councils arborist advisor. This may require a number of onsite meetings to assess the tree planter pit and to ensure that the design detail is
practical, achievable and maintainable once handover to the council.
(c)
On-site changes may be requested to minimise the effect of construction work on
newly planted trees where they have been installed prior to the completion of all
construction activities. On-site amendments shall be discussed and agreed to
where practical solutions are available that result in a lesser effect on the newly
planted tree. This will be site specific and as works progress across the site.
(d)
The installation of lighting shall take account of the position of all new tree
planting in the road corridor areas. The final design layout and placement of
lighting columns shall be reviewed on-site with the councils arborist advisor to
ensure major conflict with tree canopies is avoided wherever possible.
(e)
The design shall minimise future conflict with any new structures, seating, art
work, litter bins, and signage within the dripline of any new trees.
(f)
The placement of drainage, utilities and any other structures within close
proximity to the positions of any new trees shall ensure that best practice
principles are incorporated to minimise any potential future conflict with utilities.
Landscape selection
(g)
New large grade trees (minimum container size of 160 litre) shall be locally
sourced, with the size form and quality of the tree, to be approved by the
councils’ arborist and landscape advisor.
(h)
New low level planting shall be locally sourced with the size form and quality of
the planting stock to be approved by council’s arborist and landscape advisor.
The plants should have a minimum bag size of Pb 3-5 depending on the species.
(i)
Prior to planting works for Stages 1, 2 and 3, new specimen trees shall be preordered by the consent holder in consultation with the council arborist and
Landscape advisor. A quality audit of the specimen trees is required prior to the
stock being accepted for use in the project. All specimens shall be inspected
council arborist and Landscape advisor and in a satisfactory healthy condition.
(h) Council reserves the right to reject any trees that are of poor form or
exhibiting inherent structural problems within the branch framework. Any trees
reject shall be replaced with an appropriate equivalent.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 83
Implementation
(j)
The consent holder shall engage an experienced and qualified planting
contractor, approved by the council parks department to deliver, orientate and
plant the new specimen trees and low level plants, shrubs using recognised
horticultural techniques.
(k)
All new planting works shall be carried out in accordance with approved planting
plans and the planting methodology prepared by the consent holder in
consultation with the council arborist and landscape advisor.
(l)
All new planting holes shall be backfilled with drainage material (if required), root
barrier where deemed necessary and a high quality, nutrient rich soil mix to the
satisfaction of the council arborist and landscape advisor.
(m)
All newly planted trees in soft landscape areas shall be mulched with an aged
nutrient rich material to a minimum depth of 150mm, with the ‘mulch ring’ being
no small than 1 metre in diameter. This shall be maintained for a minimum period
of at least 24 months. All newly planted trees shall be irrigated as required during
the 24 month maintenance period.
(n)
New low level planting shall only be implemented once all construction works,
around individual planting beds are completed. If construction work is not
complete, soil media in the planting area shall be covered and protected to
prevent any contamination until such time as the area is ready for planting.
(o)
All garden beds shall be covered with a mature well aged organic mulch material
to a minimum depth of 100mm.
(p)
No equipment or materials shall be positioned, stored, within the planter pit at any
time once it has been backfilled with the planting media. No washing of
equipment or machinery shall occur within the dripline of the trees. Special
attention shall be paid to concrete and petrol/diesel operated machinery to avoid
contaminating the soil within the dripline of any tree.
Completion and Maintenance
(q)
Upon completion of the planting works, the consent holder shall arrange for a
works completion walkover with a representative of council parks department
(Arborist and Landscape Advisor, Local Sports Parks) to ensure that all works
have been completed to a satisfactory standard.
Once this has been
documented by both parties the two year maintenance period shall commence
(r)
If works are not to an acceptable standard, the consent holder shall be
responsible for remedial works as instructed by the council representative.
Should the consent holder fail to comply, the landscape bond or part of will be
used by council to remediate any sub standard works;
(s)
The consent holder shall detail a two year aftercare tree maintenance programme
in consultation with the councils arborist and landscape advisor to ensure
successful establishment. Should the tree die during this period the consent
holder shall be responsible for its replacement.
(t)
The consent holder shall supply annually a record to council parks department; of
all aftercare maintenance that has been undertaken by the landscape contractor.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 84
(u)
Upon completion of two year maintenance programme, the consent holder shall
contact the council arborist advisor to arrange a site meeting for a final inspection
to arrange for the handover of trees to council. The tree shall be healthy vigorous
and well maintained. The council reserves the right to ask for replacement should
the new specimen tree not be healthy and well maintained. If all of the new trees
are in a good condition and all associated materials (tree surround, tree stakes
and ties, mulch) are satisfactory to council the landscape bond for this part of the
works shall be released
(v)
If works are not to an acceptable standard, the consent holder shall be
responsible for remedial works as instructed by the council representative.
Should the consent holder fail to comply, the landscape bond or part of will be
used by council to remediate any sub standard works;
Erosion and Sediment Control Measures
30.
Prior to bulk earthworks commencing, a certificate signed by an appropriately qualified
and experienced person shall be submitted by the consent holder to the Auckland
Council Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central to certify that the erosion and
sediment controls have been constructed in accordance with the erosion and sediment
control plans as specified in Condition 1 of this consent (or in accordance with modified
details agreed by the Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance Monitoring –
Central). The consent holder is advised that the Team Leader - Earthworks and
Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input will be consulted as part of
any approval process. No earthworks shall commence until council has confirmed in
writing that the required erosion and sediment control measures have been constructed
and implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Advice Note:
Certified controls shall include cleanwater and sediment laden diversions, sediment
retention pond, chemical treatment system and silt fences. The certification for these
subsequent measures shall be supplied immediately upon completion of construction
of those measures. Information supplied if applicable shall include:
a) Contributing catchment area;
b) Shape of structure (dimensions of structure);
c) Position of inlets/outlets; and
d) Stabilisation of the structure.
DEVELOPMENT IN PROGRESS CONDITIONS
Construction Noise / Vibration
31.
The consent holder shall ensure that (except for any rock-breaking activities provided
for under the approved CNVMP) all earthworks and construction activities on the
subject site complies with the New Zealand Standard 6803:1999 for Acoustics –
Construction Noise. Construction noise shall be measured and assessed in
accordance with NZS 6803:1999 ‘Acoustics – Construction Noise’ and shall, as far as
practicable, comply with the criteria in Table 2 – Recommended upper limits for
construction received in residential zones and dwellings in rural areas and Table 3 –
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 85
Recommended upper limits for construction noise received in industrial or commercial
areas for all days of the year.
32.
The consent holder shall ensure that all work, including earthworks, building and
construction works, and activities in the vicinity of the site generating noise associated
with preparation for the commencement of work including deliveries, loading and
unloading of goods, transferring of tools etc, associated with the proposed
development, shall only be carried out between the hours of:
• 7.30a.m. and 6.00p.m. Monday to Friday
• 8.00am to 1.00pm, Saturday.
No such work must be carried out on Sundays or public holidays. These restrictions
shall not preclude quiet activities (such as electrical fit out or interior painting) taking
place outside of these hours.
33.
Vibration levels arising from any activity on the site shall at all times comply with the
DIN 4150:1999 Part 3, Structural Vibration - Effects of Vibration on Structures criteria,
when measured and assessed in accordance with that standard to the satisfaction of
the Council Team Leader, Compliance and Monitoring (Central).
34.
All noise and vibration monitoring shall be undertaken by a suitable qualified and
experience person. All measurements and assessments shall be carried out in
accordance with NZS 6803:1999 Construction Noise and NZS 6802: 2008
Measurement of Environmental Sound. The results of noise and vibration monitoring,
and a report detailing any corrective action measures, shall be submitted to the
Auckland Council Team Leader, Consent Monitoring – Central.
35.
The type of plant and machinery used shall be the selected so as ensure the best
practicable option of minimising noise and vibration.
36.
An acoustic screen shall be erected around the work site for each respective stage.
The acoustic screens shall be at least 2m, extending higher to block line of site to the
two storey dwellings to the south and east. The screens should have no gaps along
their length or at their base. The surface mass of the barriers will be a minimum of 10
kg/m2 (e.g. 20 mm timber or similar) with any palings overlapped or battened to
prevent gaps appearing when the timber dries. The barriers will be regularly inspected
and maintained so as to be acoustically effective for the duration of the construction
phase with mass of at least 10kg/m2. Additional acoustic screens and temporary
barriers shall be erected where required and identified in the CNVMP.
37.
The concrete crusher is to be positioned as far as possible from the residential
boundaries and screened by a bund constructed of crushed concrete and/or temporary
hoardings which shall be constructed prior to any rock crushing taking place.
Obstruction of Access
38.
There shall be no obstruction of access to public footpaths, berms, private properties,
or public services/utilities resulting from the construction and earthworks activities. All
materials and equipment shall be stored within the boundary of the subject site.
Dust Control
39.
There shall be no airborne or deposited dust beyond the subject site as a result of the
earthworks and construction activities, that in the opinion of the Auckland Council
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 86
Team Leader, Compliance Monitoring – Central Area, is noxious, offensive or
objectionable.
Earthworks
40.
All earthworks shall be managed to ensure that they do not lead to any uncontrolled
instability or collapse affecting either the site or adversely affecting any neighbouring
properties. In the event that such collapse or instability does occur, it shall immediately
be rectified.
41.
The Consent Holder shall engage an engineer to supervise all earthworks, retaining
and foundation construction. The supervising engineer’s contact details shall be
provided in writing to Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring –
Central at least two weeks prior to earthworks commencing on site.
42.
Engineering monitoring and reporting shall be provided as detailed in Coffey
Geotechnics Ltd memorandum dated 8 August. This shall be provided to the Auckland
Council Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring – Central. This shall be provided and
approved prior to construction of dwellings, roads and services. All details shall be to
the satisfaction of Council via advice from a specialist geotechnical engineering
advisor/reviewer. All costs associated with this work/review shall be met by the
Consent Holder.
Protection of Roads from sediment
43.
There shall be no deposition of earth, mud, dirt or other debris on any public road or
footpath resulting from earthworks activity on the subject site. In the event that such
deposition does occur, it shall immediately be removed. In no instance shall roads or
footpaths be washed down with water without appropriate erosion and sediment control
measures in place to prevent contamination of the stormwater drainage system,
watercourses or receiving waters.
Erosion and Sediment Control
44.
All earthworks shall be managed to minimise any discharge of debris, soil, silt,
sediment or sediment-laden water beyond the subject site to either land, stormwater
drainage systems, watercourses or receiving waters. In the event that a discharge
occurs, works shall cease immediately and the discharge shall be mitigated and/or
rectified to the satisfaction of the Auckland Council Team Leader, Compliance
Monitoring – Central Area.
45.
The consent holder shall ensure that any amendments to the erosion and sediment
control plans and/or methodology referred to in condition 1 are approved in writing by
the Auckland Council Team Leader, Compliance and Monitoring – Central prior to any
amendment being implemented on site. The consent holder is advised that the Team
Leader - Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input
will be consulted as part of any approval process. Written notice (no less than five
working days) shall be given to the Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance
Monitoring – Central prior to any erosion and sediment control measures being
removed and completion of the operation.
46.
The consent holder shall ensure that the erosion and sediment controls at the site of
the works is inspected on a regular basis by a suitably qualified person, and within 24
hours of each rainstorm event that is likely to impair the function or performance of the
controls. A record shall be maintained of the date, time and any maintenance
undertaken in association with this condition, and the details shall be made available to
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 87
the Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central upon request.
The consent holder is advised that the Team Leader - Earthworks and Contaminated
Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input will be consulted as part of any request
process.
47.
The consent holder shall ensure that accumulated sediment is to be removed from
sediment retention devices before the sediment reaches 20% of the live storage
capacity of the devices.
48.
The site shall be progressively stabilised against erosion as soon as practicable as
earthworks are finished over various areas of the site. Site stabilisation shall mean
when the site is covered by a permanent erosion proof ground cover such as
aggregate and includes vegetative cover which has obtained a density of more than
80% of a normal pasture sward.
49.
The consent holder shall ensure that no vegetation removal or earthworks on the site
shall be undertaken between 30 April and 1 October in any year, without the prior
written approval of the Team Leader – Earthworks and Contaminated Land at least two
weeks prior to 30 April of any year. Earthworks in this regard refers to bulk earthworks
(cut/fill/waste) associated with the site.
Advice Notes:
•
The consent holder is advised that, in the event of archaeological site evidence
(e.g. shells, middens, hangi or ovens, pit depressions, defensive ditches,
artifactual material or human bones) being uncovered during construction,
operations should cease in the vicinity of the discovery and Auckland Council’s
archaeologist is contacted so that the appropriate action can be taken before any
work may recommence there.
•
All archaeological sites are protected under the provisions of the Historic Places
Act 1993 (HPA). It is an offence under this Act to destroy, damage or modify any
archaeological site, whether or not the site is entered on the New Zealand
Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) Register of historic places, historic areas, wahi
tapu and wahi tapu areas. Under sections 11 and 12 of the Act, applications
must be made to the NZHPT for an authority to destroy, damage or modify an
archaeological site(s) where avoidance of effect is not practicable. It is the
responsibility of the applicant (consent holder) to consult with the NZHPT about
the requirements of the HPA and to obtain the necessary Authorities under the
HPA should these become necessary as a result of any activity associated with
the proposed development.
Lava Caves
50.
If any lava cave is discovered during works, the consent holder shall contact the
Auckland Council Team Leader, Compliance Monitoring – Central so that the cave can
be inspected and documented. Long term access to any significant cave may be
required.
Contamination
51.
The consent holder shall adhere to the Remedial Action Plan and the Site Management
Plan prepared by Groundwater and Environmental Services dated 19 June 2013, and
any changes to the plan shall be approved in writing by the Auckland Council Team
Leader, Compliance Monitoring - Central prior to commencement of the earthwork.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 88
52.
The consent holder shall engage an experienced contaminated land specialist to carry
out further sampling and validation sampling as specified in the Remedial Action Plan
and the Site Management Plan prepared by Groundwater and Environmental Services
dated 19 June 2013. If contaminants levels are over the applicable standards in the
National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to
Protect Human Health 2011, the consent holder shall prior to any further earthworks
prepare a detailed site investigation report and a remediation action plan to the
satisfactory of the Auckland Council, Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central.
53.
If evidence of contamination, which has not been previously identified, is discovered
during excavation, the consent holder shall immediately cease the works and notify the
Auckland Council Team Leader, Compliance Monitoring - Central and provide a site
contamination report and a remedial action plan if necessary to the satisfaction of the
Auckland Council Team Leader, Compliance Monitoring – Central.
54.
The consent holder must ensure that the contamination level of any imported soil
complies with Auckland Council’s clean fill criteria;
55.
The consent holder shall at all times control any dust in accordance with the Good
Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing the Environmental Effects of Dust
Emissions, Ministry for the Environment (2001) to the satisfaction of Auckland Council
Team Leader, Compliance and Monitoring – Central.
56.
The consent holder shall, within three months following completion of remediation
works, provide to the satisfaction of the Auckland Council Team Leader, Compliance
Monitoring - Central a Site Validation Report to confirm the performance of the
remediation works and to identify residual contamination at the site.
57.
The Site Validation Report shall include, but not be limited to:
(a)
further test results carried out on the site;
(b)
the volume of contaminated soil disposed offsite;
(c)
evidence of landfill disposal;
(d)
test results of remaining soil;
(e)
conditions of the final site ground surface;
(f)
scaled plans (plan and elevation views) showing the locations and containment
details of any contaminated materials remaining on site (if any);
(g)
an ongoing monitoring and management plan if necessary detailing procedures
and requirements for any future works on the site that may penetrate the
containment covers or otherwise create a potential for human exposure to
potential contaminated soils.
PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
58.
Prior to occupation of any units within the development, the Resource Consent holder
shall provide a schedule setting out the range, extent and description of the site
management and maintenance works (including building and landscape) intended to
be included under the role and responsibilities of the proposed on-site manager.
Flooding
59.
Engineering reporting shall be provided prior to any occupancy of buildings that the
development complies with Part 5D.6 of the Operative District Plan. This shall be with
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 89
regard to freeboards from floodwaters. This shall also be required for the properties
immediately up and downstream of the development site to confirm no worsening of
freeboards. The reporting shall also include a plan of the final configuration of overland
flowpaths across the completed development site. All details provided shall be to the
satisfaction of Council.
Water Supply – Fire Fighting
60.
The Consent Holder shall be required to confirm the adequacy of the public water
supply to provide for fire fighting as required by SNZ PAS 4509:2008. Confirmation of
meeting this condition shall be in the form of a written report from the NZ Fire Service.
This shall be provided to the Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance and
Monitoring – Central prior to any occupancy of dwellings. Any shortfalls in the
adequacy of the public supply shall also be mitigated by the Consent Holder to the
satisfaction of the Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring –
Central.
61.
Cycle parking shall be provided as follows:
(a)
1 visitor cycle parking space per 20 apartments
(b)
4 cycle parking spaces are provided per neighbourhood/pocket park
(c)
ATCOP standards are to be referred to with respect to recommended cycle
stands.
Details of the above shall be prepared to the satisfaction of Auckland Council prior to
occupation.
Formation of Roads and Driveways
62.
All common Lane D non-vested driveways shall be formed, paved and drained to
Auckland Council specifications including the provision of stormwater catchpits and/or
slot drains within the boundaries of the common accessways (or elsewhere within the
site, if appropriate). Where necessary the provision of kerbing or similar to prevent
water flowing on to other property (including the footpath) shall be provided.
An Engineering Common Accessway application for construction for this work is
required to be submitted and approved by Development Engineering prior to the works
commencing. A building consent will be required for any drainage work required on the
drive.
Licensed Cadastral Surveyor’s Certificate
63.
64.
No building works on the apartment blocks on the external western boundaries of the
site shall proceed beyond the foundation stage until a registered surveyor or licensed
cadastral surveyor, engaged by the consent holder, has provided written certification to
the Auckland Council Team Leader, Compliance Monitoring – Central Area, that the
works completed:
•
have been completed in accordance with the approved plans as referred to in
Condition 1 of this consent, or
•
do not exceed the vertical or horizontal extent of any breach, infringement, or noncompliance approved under this consent.
No building works on the apartment blocks on the external western boundaries of the
site shall proceed beyond the framing stage until a registered surveyor or licensed
cadastral surveyor, engaged by the consent holder, has provided written certification to
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 90
the Auckland Council Team Leader, Compliance Monitoring – Central Area, that the
works completed:
•
have been completed in accordance with the approved plans as referred to in
Condition 1 of this consent, or
•
do not exceed the vertical or horizontal extent of any breach, infringement, or noncompliance approved under this consent.
Advice Note:
The person providing the written certification should ensure that the finished floor level
is clearly marked on the subject site before the foundations are put in place.
The purposes of certification at the foundation and roof framing stage of construction
are to:
•
provide assurance that the building works, to that point, have been undertaken in
accordance with the consent
•
reduce the risk of non-compliance as the works continue.
Written certification should include the following:
•
the finished ground level is clearly marked on the subject site
•
the relevant consent reference number and site address
•
levels, calculations, plans and drawings of the structure(s) that are the subject of
certification
•
the quantification of the extent of any breach, infringement or non-compliance
identified at the time of survey, where this has occurred.
Written certification is to be provided directly to the officer specified in this condition.
Waste Management
65.
Prior to the occupation of the units at each respective stage, the consent holder shall
submit a Waste Management Plan that shall include details of designated location for
refuse bins for the collection and storage of glass, paper, plastic and metal cans and
details of collection (e.g. private contractors) for the respective waste elements, for the
approval of the Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring – Central
Area. The plan shall be implemented at all times following approval unless otherwise
approved in writing by the Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring
– Central Area.
Removal of Redundant Vehicle Crossings
66.
Prior to the occupation of units for each respective stage any existing redundant
vehicle crossing not utilised shall be removed and reinstated to the original state of
road kerb, berm and footpath. A Vehicle Crossing Permit is required for these works.
Public Roads and Reserves
67.
Upon the completion of each respective stage and prior to the occupation of the units,
Roads A, B and C shall be vested in the Council as public road.
68.
A Right of Way (pedestrian) easement in gross in favour of Auckland Council over all
Lane Ds (non-vested driveways) within each respective stage be created, granted or
reserved.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 91
69.
A Right of Way (pedestrian) easement in gross in favour of Auckland Council shall be
created, granted or reserved on all public pedestrian lanes (including that connecting
Land D1 with Panama Road) and the pedestrian stairs connecting the site with Ryburn
Road.
70.
Upon the completion of Stage 2 and prior to the occupation of the units within Stage 2,
the neighbourhood park/reserve shall be vested in the Council as reserve.
Residents Society
71.
A Residents Society Incorporated shall be formed and maintained to administer shared
responsibility of the management and maintenance of the private common open space
areas (pocket parks), private lanes service lanes, and all associated on-going costs.
This includes all landscaping (hard and soft), furniture, lighting and stormwater
drainage. At the time of subdivision of the site, the administration of the Residents
Society Incorporated shall be the shared responsibility of all lot owners.
Loading and Deliveries for the Commercial Tenancies
72.
Deliveries and refuse collections from the commercial tenancies located directly off
Panama Road are restricted to between 7am – 10pm, Monday - Sunday.
OTHER CONDITIONS
Review Condition
73.
Six months following the completion of Stage 2 and Stage 3 a review of on street
parking usage shall be undertaken to ascertain any adverse effects arising from any
unlawfully parked vehicles. If, following consultation with Auckland Transport, these
are deemed to affect the safe operation the applicant shall be responsible for the
marking of appropriate line markings (“no stopping at all times” markings) and
preparing the resolution report as necessary.
74.
Pursuant to section 128 of the RMA the conditions of this consent may be reviewed by
the Manager Resource Consents at the consent holder’s cost:
(i)
Annually for five years following commencement of consent in order to deal with
any adverse effect on the environment which may arise or potentially arise from
the exercise of this consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later
stage, in particular adverse effects of construction and parking.
(ii)
At any time, if it is found that the information made available to the Council in the
application contained inaccuracies which materially influenced the decision and
the effects of the exercise of the consent are such that it is necessary to apply
more appropriate conditions.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT APPLY TO PERMIT 41726 (CONTAMINATED SITE
DISCHARGE)
1.
The Contaminated Site Discharge activity shall be carried out in accordance with the
plans and all information submitted with the application, detailed below, subject to such
amendments as may be required or allowed by the following conditions of this consent.
Where there is a conflict between the plans and information submitted with the
application and these conditions, the conditions shall have precedence.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 92
• Application Form, and Application Report titled Assessment of Environmental
Effects and Statutory Analysis, Springpark Residential Development, 33 Panama
Road, Mt Wellington’, dated May 2013 prepared by Barker and Associates
Limited and Additional Information as detailed below:
Reference
number
Rev
133012-230
R1
Title
Sediment and
Erosion Control
Plan
Specialist Report Title
2.
3.
Architect/Author
Harrison
Grierson
Limited
Dated
17/05/13
Prepared by
Rev
Dated
Preliminary Site Investigation: 33
Panama Road, Otahuhu
Groundwater and
Environmental
Services
-
15/05/13
Remedial Action Plan: 33 Panama
Road, Otahuhu
Groundwater and
Environmental
Services
-
15/05/13
Site Management Plan: Proposed
Residential Redevelopment, 33
Panama Road, Otahuhu
Groundwater and
Environmental
Services
-
15/05/13
Other Additional Information
Dated
Email: Andrew MacDonald, Groundwater and Environmental Services,
to Andrew Kalbarczyk, Auckland Council
22/05/13
Any amendments to the documents listed in Condition 1 shall be submitted to the
Team Leader, Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist
Input, Auckland Council, prior to implementation, for confirmation that they comply with
the Contaminated Land Management Guidelines number 5 – Site Investigation and
Analysis of Soils, Ministry for the Environment, revised 2011, and the conditions of this
consent.
(a)
Changes to the documents shall not be implemented until confirmation has been
received;
(b)
Notwithstanding (a), changes may be implemented if 10 working days have
passed since the documents were submitted and no correspondence has been
received from the Auckland Council regarding the changes; and
(c)
All confirmed changes shall be incorporated into respective replacement
documents.
If work on site is abandoned, adequate preventative and remedial measures shall be
taken to control sediment discharge and shall thereafter be maintained for so long as
necessary to prevent sediment discharge from the site. All such measures shall be of
a type and to a standard which are to the satisfaction of the Team Leader, Earthworks
and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input, Auckland Council.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 93
4.
All personnel working on the site shall be made aware of and have access to the
contents of this consent document and the associated erosion and sediment plan and
methodology.
5.
The Team Leader, Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and
Specialist Input, Auckland Council shall be informed in writing about the
commencement of the works at least two (2) working days prior to commencement.
6.
Following the decommissioning and removal of the site structures further
environmental investigation shall be undertaken as prescribed in the Site Management
Plan titled Proposed Residential Redevelopment, 33 Panama Road, Otahuhu dated
May 2013 and prepared by Groundwater and Environmental Services.
7.
Following the further environmental investigation required by Condition 6 and prior to
bulk earthworks at the site, a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) shall be submitted to the
Team Leader, Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist
Input for approval that it complies with the Contaminated Land Management Guidelines
number 5 – Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils, Ministry for the Environment,
revised 2011.
8.
Following the further environmental investigation required by Condition 6 and prior to
bulk earthworks at the site:
(a)
A revised Remedial Action Plan (RAP); or
(b)
Alternatively, if a revision of the RAP is not considered necessary in light of the
findings of the further environmental investigation, confirmation of the suitability of
the RAP titled 33 Panama Road, Otahuhu dated May 2013 and prepared by
Groundwater and Environmental Services for the proposed works:
shall be submitted to the Team Leader, Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural
Resources and Specialist Input by a ‘Suitably Qualified and Experienced Practitioner’
for confirmation that it contains procedures that are appropriate to mitigate the risks to
the receiving environment from the type, concentration and extent of contamination
found during the further environmental investigation. Works shall not commence until
confirmation has been received in accordance with condition 2.
9.
All sampling, testing and analysis carried out in accordance with this consent shall be:
(a)
Undertaken or supervised by a person with a tertiary degree in environmental
science or engineering or a related field and at least five (5) years of work
experience in environmental quality investigations; and
(b)
In accordance with the Contaminated Land Management Guidelines number 5 –
Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils, Ministry for the Environment, revised
2011.
10.
All environmental control measures outlined in the Site Management Plan titled
Proposed Residential Redevelopment, 33 Panama Road, Otahuhu dated May 2013
and prepared by Groundwater and Environmental Services shall be in place prior to
any ground breaking activities.
11.
During any ground-breaking works efficient erosion and sediment controls in
accordance with the Technical Publication TP90: Erosion and Sediment Control,
Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region, Auckland Regional
Council (1999) shall be maintained to minimise sediment laden discharges beyond the
site boundary.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 94
12.
The Team Leader, Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and
Specialist Input, Auckland Council shall be notified as soon as practicable following
identification of any contamination found at the site, including contaminated soil,
perched water or groundwater, which was not identified in the documentation submitted
in support of this application.
Advice note:
If the contamination is significantly different from that identified in the original site
investigations (ie. very different in type of contaminants, extent of the contamination, or
concentrations of contaminants) the handling of this contamination may be outside the
scope of this consent. If the contaminated land specialist considers the contamination
to be significantly different from that originally identified advice should be sought from
Auckland Council prior to carrying out any further work in the area of the unexpected
contamination.
13.
Where possible, soils identified for off-site disposal shall be loaded directly onto trucks.
Any contaminated material removed from the site shall be covered during
transportation.
14.
Any material removed from the site shall be disposed of at a facility which holds a
consent to accept the relevant level of contamination, unless it has been appropriately
demonstrated that the materials removed from the site meet the definition of ‘cleanfill’,
as described in ‘A Guide to the Management of Cleanfills’, Ministry for the Environment
(2002). Copies of the disposal dockets for the material removed from the site shall be
kept and provided to Auckland Council as described in Condition 18.
15.
Stockpiling of excavated topsoil shall be avoided so far as practicable however, if
required, the stockpiles shall be:
16.
17.
(a)
Completely covered with polythene or equivalent impermeable material overnight
and during rainfall events that could mobilise contaminated soil;
(b)
Retained within the area of sediment controls; and
(c)
Placed on an impermeable surface.
Any surface run-off water, perched groundwater or groundwater encountered within the
excavation area shall be:
(a)
Considered as potentially contaminated; and
(b)
Collected in bunds or trenches within the works areas; and
(c)
Either removed and disposed of using a licensed liquid waste contractor or
pumped to sewer, subject to obtaining relevant permits, or allowed to infiltrate
through the site soils.
All imported fill shall:
(a)
Comply with the definition of 'cleanfill', as per 'A Guide to the Management of
Cleanfills’, Ministry for the Environment (2002); and
(b)
Be solid material of an inert nature; and
(c)
Not contain hazardous substances or contaminants above natural background
levels of the receiving site.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 95
Advice note:
Background levels for the Auckland Region can be found in the Auckland Regional
Council technical publication “TP153, Background concentrations of inorganic elements
in soils from the Auckland Region”, (2001).
18.
A Site Validation Report (SVR) shall be submitted to the Team Leader, Earthworks and
Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input, Auckland Council, within
three (3) months of the completion of the excavation works and at least one (1) month
prior to the expiry of this consent. The SVR shall:
(a)
Be prepared in general accordance with Schedule 13(A5) of the Auckland
Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (ACRP:ALW) and the Contaminated
Site Management Guidelines No. 1 Guidelines for Reporting on Contaminated
Sites in New Zealand, Ministry for the Environment, 2011.
(b)
Include, but not be limited to:
i)
A summary of the works undertaken;
ii)
Reports of any complaints and breaches of the procedures set out in the
Remedial Action Plan approved in accordance with condition 8 of this
consent, the Site Management Plan titled Proposed Residential
Redevelopment, 33 Panama Road, Otahuhu dated May 2013 and prepared
by Groundwater and Environmental Services, and the conditions of this
consent;
iii)
An assessment of the contamination remaining on site, following the
redevelopment, against the Contaminated Land rules of the ACRP:ALW;
iv)
A summary of any testing undertaken, tabulated analytical results, and
interpretation of the results in the context of the Contaminated Land rules of
the ACRP:ALW;
v)
Volumes of soil and copies of the disposal dockets for the material removed
from the site;
vi)
Results of testing of any imported fill material to ensure compliance with the
definition of 'cleanfill', as per 'A Guide to the Management of Cleanfills’,
Ministry for the Environment (2002).
Advice note:
If material containing levels of contamination above the Permitted Activity Criteria of the
ACRP:ALW (Schedule 10) remains following works, a long-term passive discharge
consent will be required for the site.
Duration
19.
Permit 41726 shall expire seven (7) years from the commencement of consent unless it
has been surrendered or cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 96
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT APPLY TO PERMIT 41725 (EARTHWORKS)
1.
The proposed activity and erosion and sediment control measures shall be carried out
in accordance with those described in Land Use Consent: Sediment Control
Application No. 41725, the supporting documents and specifications, received by
Auckland Council on 21 May 2013 (Application Report) and the section 92 response
dated 18 July 2013, and as identified in the resource consent conditions below.
2.
If work on site is abandoned, adequate preventative and remedial measures shall be
taken to control sediment discharge and shall thereafter be maintained for so long as
necessary to prevent sediment discharge from the site. All such measures shall be of
a type and to a standard which are to the satisfaction of the Team Leader, Earthworks
and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources & Specialist Input unit.
3.
All personnel working on the site shall be made aware of and have access to the
contents of this consent document and the associated erosion and sediment plan and
methodology.
4.
At least 5 working days prior to the commencement of the earthworks activity as
authorised by this resource consent, the Team Leader, Earthworks and Contaminated
Land, Natural Resources & Specialist Input unit shall be informed in writing of the
proposed start date.
5.
Prior to any earthworks commencing on the site in each period between 1 October and
30 April of any year that this consent is exercised, a pre-construction site meeting
between the Team Leader, Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources &
Specialist Input Auckland Council and all relevant parties, including the primary
contractor shall be arranged and conducted. The pre-commencement meeting shall be
located on site and Auckland Council shall be provided with a minimum 5 working day
notice of the meeting. The following information shall be provided at the preconstruction meeting:
(a)
Details of the earthworks methodology
(b)
Expected timeframe for key stages of the works authorised under this consent;
(c)
Details of the planned operation and maintenance of the erosion and sediment
controls during construction activities
(d)
Contact details of the site contractor, site engineer and consultant.
Erosion and Sediment Control
6.
Any amendments to the erosion and sediment control methodology must be approved
by the Team Leader, Earthworks & Contaminated Land, Natural Resources &
Specialist Input unit in writing prior to any amendment being implemented.
7.
Prior to bulk earthworks commencing, a certificate signed by an appropriately qualified
and experienced person shall be submitted to the Team Leader, Earthworks &
Contaminated Land, Natural Resources & Specialist Input unit to certify that the
erosion and sediment controls have been constructed in accordance with the plans and
documents as specified in condition 1. Certified controls shall include the sediment
retention pond and decanting earth bunds. Information supplied for the certification of
the above sediment retention measures shall include (if applicable):
(a)
contributing catchment area;
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 97
(b)
shape of structure (dimensions of structure);
(c)
position of inlets/outlets; and,
(d)
stabilisation of the structure.
8.
Erosion and sediment control measures shall be constructed in general accordance
with Auckland Council’s Technical Publication Number 90, Erosion and Sediment
Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region (TP90) and
any amendments, except where a higher standard has been detailed in the plans and
documents referred to in condition 1 above, in which case this higher standard shall
apply.
9.
The sediment retention pond shall be constructed in accordance with the Auckland
Council Technical Publication 90 and shall:
10.
11.
(a)
Have a 3% storage capacity (3m3 of storage volume for every 100m2 of
contributing catchment);
(b)
Be equipped with sufficient number of floating t-bars decanting devices to
dewater the impoundment area at a rate of 4.5 litres per second per hectare of
contributing catchment; and
(c)
Be chemically treated using a rainfall activated dosing system in accordance with
the Chemical Treatment Management Plan required under condition 10 below.
Prior to the commencement of bulk earthworks, a Chemical Treatment Management
Plan shall be submitted for the written approval of the Team Leader – Earthworks and
Contaminated Land, Natural Resources & Specialist Input unit. The plan shall be
implemented prior to bulk earthworks commencing at the site and shall include as a
minimum:
(a)
Specific design details of the chemical treatment system based on a rainfall
activated system for the sediment retention pond and batch dosing methodology
for the decanting earth bunds;
(b)
Details of optimum dosage (including assumptions);
(c)
Results of initial chemical treatment trial;
(d)
A spill contingency plan; and
(e)
Details of the person or bodies that will hold responsibility for long term operation
and maintenance of the chemical treatment system and the organisational
structure which will support this system.
Decanting earth bunds shall be constructed in accordance with the Auckland Council’s
Technical Publication 90 Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland
Region and shall:
(a)
Have a 2% storage capacity (2m3 of storage volume for every 100m2 of
contributing catchment);
(b)
Be equipped with sufficient number of floating t-bars to dewater the impoundment
area at a rate of 3 litres per second per hectare; and
(c)
Have a level invert; and
(d)
Have two layers of geotextile securely pinned to the emergency spillway to
prevent erosion; and
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 98
(e)
Be chemically treated using a batch dosing system in accordance with the
Chemical Treatment Management Plan required under condition 10 above.
12.
Silt fences utilised during earthworks shall be constructed in accordance with the
amended Auckland Council’s Technical Publication 90 Guidelines for Land Disturbing
Activities in the Auckland Region drawing dated December 2007 available at
http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/documents/technicalpublications
13.
The site shall be progressively stabilised against erosion as soon as practicable as
earthworks are finished over various areas of the site. Site stabilisation shall mean
when the site is covered by a permanent erosion proof ground cover such as
aggregate and includes vegetative cover which has obtained a density of more than
80% of a normal pasture sward.
14.
All ‘cleanwater’ runoff from stabilised surfaces including catchment areas above the
site shall be diverted away from earthwork areas via a stabilised system, so as to
prevent surface erosion.
15.
A stabilised entrance, constructed in accordance with Auckland Council’s Technical
Publication 90 Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region, shall
be established at the ingress and egress of the earthworks site. This entrance shall be
maintained throughout the duration of the consent.
16.
In the event that any sediment & or soil is deposited onto the site’s surrounding roading
network, immediate action to clean the surrounding roading network shall be
undertaken. Cleaning in this regard shall be to the satisfaction of the Council’s
monitoring officer, or delegated representative.
17.
Notwithstanding condition 16 above, suitable protection in accordance with Auckland
Council’s Technical Publication Number 90, Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines
for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region (TP90), shall be installed and
maintained over the surrounding roading network’s cesspits, at the direction of the
Council’s monitoring officer or delegated representative.
18.
No sediment laden runoff shall leave the site without prior treatment via an approved
sediment control device.
19.
Notice shall be given to the Team Leader, Earthworks & Contaminated Land, Natural
Resources & Specialist Input unit prior to any erosion and sediment control measures
being removed.
Seasonal restriction
20.
Revegetation / stabilisation is to be completed by 30 April in the year of bulk
earthworks in accordance with measures detailed in TP90 and any amendments to this
document, unless a later date is approved in writing by the Team Leader - Earthworks
and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources & Specialist Input unit at least two weeks
before 30 April.
21.
No vegetation removal or earthworks on the site shall be undertaken between 1 May
and 30 September in any year, without the written approval of the Team Leader Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources & Specialist Input unit.
Earthworks in this regard refers to bulk earthworks (cut/fill/waste) associated with the
site.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 99
Monitoring
22.
The sediment and erosion controls at the site of the works shall be inspected on a daily
basis and within 24 hours of each rainstorm event that is likely to impair the function or
performance of the controls. A record shall be maintained of the date, time and any
maintenance undertaken in association with this condition which shall be forwarded to
Auckland Council on request.
23.
Inspection advice notes issued on site by the Auckland Council or its representatives
are to be actioned within the timeframes stipulated. Where there is disagreement as to
the suitability of the action requested, immediate contact with the Team Leader,
Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources & Specialist Input unit is
required.
Duration
24.
This consent shall expire seven (7) years from the commencement of consent unless it
has been surrendered or cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA.
Advice Notes
1.
Watercare Services Ltd shall be responsible for all new connections to the water and
wastewater networks. A service fee will be charged. Please contact Watercare for
details and their connection approval. Please note that CCC will not be issued without
this approval.
2.
Consent shall be required from Watercare Services Ltd for building in proximity to their
wastewater pipes. There written approval shall be required prior to any building
consent application to Council
3.
The Council may require specialist external reviewers (at a cost to the consent Holder)
of engineering reports provided as evidence of meeting engineering conditions of
consent.
4.
The Consent Holder shall be advised of Auckland Council’s standard clearance
requirements in relation to public drains. Details shall be provided with the building
consent application.
5.
The Consent Holder shall be advised that further requirements may be imposed with
respect to accessways/drives/ROWs and drainage/water servicing with any
subsequent subdivision, cross lease or unit titles applications.
6.
Extensions, alterations and diversions to the public infrastructure may require an
“Engineering Approval” consent from Auckland Council Development Engineering
Division. Easements in favour of Council and special property access requirements
may be required as part of this process for public water supply pipes on private land.
7.
Staging of infrastructure works and associated connections via building consent
approvals require prior approval from Auckland council Development Engineering
Division on advice from Council’s Asset Groups
8.
The proposed drainage works may involve works on adjacent properties. These
effected property owners shall be required to give their written consent before any
building consent or engineer approval is issued.
9.
Abandoned private drainage shall be sealed off to the satisfaction of Council. Details
are to be supplied with the building consent application.
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 100
10.
The consent holder shall be advised of Auckland Council’s requirements (currently still
referenced from Metrowater Development and Connection Standards issued Feb
2005), particularly those Sections dealing with:
• Clearance requirements for works in relation to Public Services
• Protection of services in relation to construction activities
• Water supply connections
• Backflow requirements
• Network utility charges
Details shall be provided with the building consent application.
11.
Subject to Section 198 of the Local Government Act 2002 and Auckland Council’s
Policy on Development Contributions, a development contribution is payable on this
proposal. A revised notice of assessment will be sent out which outlines the amount of
the contribution payable for this development. Please contact the Development
Contributions team for any queries in this regard.
12.
The consent holder shall obtain all other necessary consents and permits, including
those under the Building Act 2004, and the Historic Places Trust Act 1993. 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.
13.
The Historic Places Act 1993 provides for the identification, protection, preservation
and conservation of the historic and cultural heritage of New Zealand. Under s.2 of the
HPA, an archaeological site is defined as a place associated with pre-1900 human
activity where there may be evidence relation to history of New Zealand. All
archaeological sites are protected under the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993
(HPA). It is an offence under this Act to destroy, damage or modify any archaeological
site, whether or not the site is entered on the New Zealand Historic Places Trust
(NZHPT) Register of historic places, historic areas, wahi tapu and wahi tapu areas. An
authority is required for such work whether or not the land on which an archaeological
site may be present is designated, or a resource, demolition or building consent has
been granted, or the activity is permitted in a regional or district plan. It is the
responsibility of the applicant (consent holder) to consult with the NZHPT about the
requirements of the HPA and to obtain the necessary Authorities under the HPA should
these become necessary as a result of any activity associated with the proposed
development. For information contact the NZHPT Regional Archaeologist – Greg
Walter (09) 307 9924
14.
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 Team Leader, Compliance &
Monitoring – Central (email: [email protected] or fax: 353 9186) and
include the following details:
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 101
•
•
•
•
name and telephone number of the project manager and the site owner;
site address to which the consent relates;
activity to which the consent relates; and
expected duration of works.
15.
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.
16.
Removal of parking and installation of parking restrictions as a result of the
development (i.e. on the intersection of Road A and Panama Road, in the vicinity of the
proposed pedestrian refuge on Panama Road, and at the intersection of Road B with
Hillside Road south and Hillside Road east) will require Traffic Control Committee
resolutions prepared by a qualified Traffic Engineer. These will need to be passed so
that changes to the road reserve can be legally enforced. This will require public
consultation to be undertaken in accordance with Auckland Transport’s standard
procedures.
17.
Any parking restrictions identified for Roads A, B and C as part of the Engineering Plan
Approvals will require Traffic Control Committee resolutions to be prepared by a
qualified Traffic Engineer. These will need to be passed so that changes to the road
reserve can be legally enforced. This may require public consultation to be undertaken
in accordance with Auckland Transport’s standard procedures.
18.
Any Home Zones proposed as part of Road C design should be accompanied by a
Road Safety Audit undertaken by an independent and suitably qualified Traffic
Engineer. It is noted that the findings of the audit may result in changes to parking
supply and layout, which will affect any consented design. It is further noted that the
design of Home Zones will require Traffic Control Committee resolutions prepared by a
qualified Traffic Engineer. These will need to be passed so that changes to the road
reserve can be legally enforced. This may require consultation with external parties
such as the Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind in accordance with Auckland
Transport’s standard procedures.
Report prepared by:
Kerrin Lithgow
Senior
Planner,
Central
Consenting & Compliance
Signed:
Date:
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 102
Report
reviewed,
and Euan Williams
approved for release by:
Team
Leader,
Central
Consenting & Compliance
Signed:
Date:
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 103
Section E Definitions
COUNCIL:
means The Auckland Council
DISTRICT PLAN:
means any operative or proposed plan administered by any of the
following former Territorial Authorities prior to 1 November 2010:
Rodney District Council
North Shore City Council
Waitakere City Council
Auckland City Council
Manukau City Council
Papakura District Council
Franklin District Council
and now forming the relevant section of the Auckland Council District
Plan
REGIONAL PLAN:
means any regional plan administered by the former Auckland Regional
Council prior to 1 November 2010, now known as:
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (operative in part)
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Farm Dairy Discharges
Transitional Auckland Council Regional Plan
ACRPS:
means Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement
HGMPA:
means Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act
LGAAA:
means Local Government Amendment Act 2004
Manager:
means an Auckland Council Manager or nominated Auckland Council
staff acting on the Manager’s behalf
NZCPS:
means New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010
RMA:
means Resource Management Act 1991 and all amendments
WRHAA:
means Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 104
Attachments
Attachment 1: Masterplan
Attachment 2: Condition 1 Plans and Information
Attachment 3: Height in relation to boundary and height infringements
Attachment 4: Specialist Responses
4.1. Peter Joyce, Principal Specialist Urban Design, Built Environment Unit;
4.2. Karl Hancock, Associate, Flow Transportation Specialists;
4.3. Pragati Vasisht, Principal Consent Specialist West, Auckland Transport;
4.4. Scott Paton, Senior Development Engineer, Natural Resources and Specialist
Input;
4.5. Mark Iszard, Senior Stormwater Engineer, Infrastructure and Environmental
Services;
4.6. Parviz Namjou, Hydrogeologist, Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd;
4.7. Paul Carter, Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Coffey Geotechnics (NZ) Limited;
4.8. Daniel Winter, Environmental Health Specialist
Compliance Services;
– Noise, Licensing &
4.9. Sharon Tang, Environmental Health Specialist – Contaminated Land and
Water Quality;
4.10. Gemma Chuah, Consents and Compliance Advisor – Stormwater, Natural
Resources and Specialist Input;
4.11. Priya Nair-Mudalier, Consents and Compliance Advisor – Earthworks, Natural
Resources and Specialist Input;
4.12. Samuel Woolley, Consents and Compliance Advisor – Contamination, Natural
Resources and Specialist Input;
4.13. Howell Davies, Arboriculture and Landscape Advisor, Local and Sports Parts,
Parks Sports and Recreation;
4.14. Allan Holmes, Arborist, Central Resource Consenting and Compliance;
4.15. Edward Jolly, Principal Specialist Landscape Architect, Built Environment;
4.16. Chris Boucher, Consultant
Implementation, Heritage Unit;
Arborist
4.17. Alastair Jamieson, Biodiversity
Environmental Services;
Team
acting
for
Leader,
Cultural
Heritage
Infrastructure
and
4.18. Aru Chelliah, Developments Engineer, Watercare Services Limited.
Attachment 5: Relevant Objectives and Policies
Attachment 6: Notification Determination Report
Attachment 7: Sites Served Notice
Attachment 8: Submissions
Application Nos: R/LUC/2013/1686, 41725 & 41726; 33 Panama Road, Mt Wellington
Page 105