RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL - Auckland Council

RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL 

MINUTES: of a meeting of the Resource Consents Hearings Panel which commenced at 

9.00 a.m. in the Council Chamber, Centreway Road, Orewa on Friday, 

28 November 2008. 

PRESENT: Chair Harry Bhana 

Crs Ross Craig 

Zane Taylor 

IN ATTENDANCE: Reporting Planner Sarah Gardner 

Team Leader Carl Jenkins 

Manager Urban Design and Development Andrew Trevelyan 

Traffic Engineer David Mitchell 

Development Engineer Ross Green 

Project Manager – Western Sector Gavin Flynn 

Democracy Services Officer Raewyn Morrison 

* * * * * *

2 

28 November 2008 

Resource Consents Hearings Panel 

Minutes 

1489/11/08 APOLOGIES 

AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 

There were no apologies. 

1490/11/08 A NOTIFIED RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 

88 OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 

AN APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 

NEW COMMERCIAL COMPLEX WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING 

SPACES, ONSITE DISPOSAL AND LANDSCAPING AT 1A TAPU 

ROAD, HUAPAI 

FILE REF L54342 

WARD Western 

AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 

FURTHER, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT THE CONSENT BE 

GRANTED FOR A TEN YEAR PERIOD 

Address: 1A Tapu Road, Huapai 

APPLICANTS: REM DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED 

9.00 a.m. The applicant seeks consent to develop the site at 1A Tapu Road, Huapai to establish and 

operate commercial buildings on the property. The applicant proposes to undertake the work in two 

stages. The first stage involves the construction and use of a two storey commercial building in the 

south-western corner of the site adjacent to both Tapu Road and State Highway 16. This building will 

contain three shops, a GJ Gardner office and a café. Due to the inability to connect to the public 

wastewater system the development has been designed to dispose of all stormwater and wastewater 

on site for Stage 1. The second stage will entail construction and use of a second building located 

towards the eastern side of the site adjacent to State Highway 16. The two storey building will contain 

some 315m 2 of ground floor area at each level. It is proposed that Stage 2 will commence once a 

public wastewater system is available and Stage 1 has been connected to it. 

The applicant, Mr Ross Morley (REM Developments Ltd), and the applicant’s representatives, Mr 

Graham Parfitt (Planning Consultant), Mr Peter Eising (Architect - Pacific Environments) and his 

assistant Lutz Kreissler (Architect/Designer), Ms Sally Peake (Landscape Architect), Mr Joshua 

Hyland (Traffic Engineer), Ms Sarah Jones (Landscape Designer), Mr Duncan Elliott (Civil and 

Structural Engineer), and Mr Paul Riethmaier (Engineer and proprietor of Reflection Treatment 

Systems), present. 

None of the submitters attended the hearing. 

9.03 a.m. The Chairperson opened the hearing and outlined the meeting procedure. 

Mr Maddren of Maddren Property Limited had contacted a Resource Consent Administrator the 

previous day to request that his submission be considered by the Panel. He advised that he would not 

be attending the hearing, but that he had read the planner’s report and he considered the planner had 

covered his original concerns.

3 



Minutes 

Mr Parfitt introduced the applicant and the applicant’s representatives. 

Mr Peter Eising, an Architect with Pacific Environments NZ Ltd, distributed and read written evidence. 

The following was noted: 

Mr Eising outlined the background of the proposal. He said that the development had been split into 

two stages to satisfy the minimum requirements for irrigation fields for the sewerage system, until the 

integrated public system came on line, when the second stage could be built. He noted that it was 

REM’s belief that quality office space would be in demand, as too would supporting retail premises. 

Their research recognised the site as a potential ‘gateway’ to Huapai and perhaps the limit of the 

commercial spread to the west, in part guided by the existing reserve/recreational area. Generally 

land use surrounding the site was of commercial or industrial nature, with some residential. Mr Eising 

described the architectural concept in detail. 

In summary, Mr Eising said that the proposed retail and commercial office use was complementary to 

the adjacent sites’ uses – recreation, residential, industrial, religious, etc. The subject site was really 

the first to take advantage of the natural growth that the various reports have suggested as 

appropriate to Huapai’s future. The successful outcome of this application and submission would be 

recognition that Huapai would grow in a controlled and recognised fashion and be a village centre to 

be proud of. 

In response to questions from the Panel, Mr Eising said that: 

• Most town centres have more than one gateway; this development would be the gateway 

from Helensville. 

• This site created an opportunity for growth on the sites in between. 

• The development would provide a buffer from the residential area beyond. For a multiplicity of 

reasons the site was not appropriate for residential development ultimately because of the 

acoustic issue, i.e. the noisy road. If the site was mixed use there would be serious issues in 

regard to controls for access and acoustics. 

Mr Morley said that he had designs produced for a mixed use development but had discounted these 

because he wanted a clean upmarket looking building. He didn’t want buildings where there would be 

washing hanging out as this would undermine the prestige of a building. 

Mr Morley gave verbal evidence. The following was noted: 

Mr Morley said that when he purchased the site a few years ago his purchase was heavily based on 

the Kumeu Huapai Structure Plan and that the site was nominated as a potential commercial site. He 

realised that the structure plan offered no guarantee but nonetheless the Council did put out these 

documents which he believed offered people a guide so people could make decisions, and as the site 

was zoned future commercial in the plan the purchase seemed like a logical choice. Mr Morley 

reiterated that he relied heavily on the structure plan. He intended to complete a top quality 

development and that the building would be something really nice for the area. Mr Morley said that 

when he purchased the property the rates were based on a land value of $240,000, the rates were 

now based on a valuation of $1.5m; it appeared that he was being rated commercially. Mr Morley said 

that he bought the first New Zealand franchise for GJ Gardner homes 12 years ago. He considered 

the site to be a prime location for a development such as what he proposed. 

In response to questions from the Panel, Mr Morley said that he wanted to attract smaller 

professional practices, such as accountants, engineers, doctors etc. He noted that a lot of these 

practices were currently located in older houses on the main road. He believed in the long term that 

the stretch of road to where his site was would be effectively one town and that one by one people 

would “pick off sites” to convert to commercial use. With regard to conditions of consent, Mr Morley 

said that he would agree to be held tightly to design elements so long as there was a certain amount 

of flexibility, for instance with the screening. He intended to keep fairly closely to the design he tabled 

and exhibited at the hearing.

4 



Minutes 

Ms Peake distributed and read written evidence. Ms Peake’s evidence included photographs. The 

following was noted: 

Ms Peake summarised the existing landscape character, described the key elements of the proposal 

in relation to the existing landscape, and gave a summary of the findings of the report in relation to 

landscape and visual effects. Ms Peake said that based on the results of the landscape and visual 

effects, she concluded that the proposal was an appropriate mixed use activity for the location and the 

design would have positive landscape effects. The development would result in limited visual and 

amenity effects for neighbours, and these were able to be mitigated to an acceptable level. An 

assessment of effects of the statutory framework and the planning documents found that the proposal 

was generally consistent with the objectives and policies of both the Operative District Plan and the 

Proposed District Plan in relation to landscape and visual amenity matters and she disagreed with the 

reporting planner in these matters. She concluded that the proposal should not be refused on the 

basis of landscape or visual effects. 

In response to questions from the Panel, Ms Peake said that: 

• The artist’s impression of the building would essentially reflect the landscape plan. 

• She considered there was some infill occurring now between the town centre and the 

applicant’s site. 

• She believed that the town centre should be the main focus of development, however, the 

proposal was a quality development which could have a point of difference from the town 

centre and it would serve local residents and people using the reserve. 

• In her opinion the proposal didn’t necessarily have to be in conflict with the town centre. With 

regard to the spread of commercial activities, this would depend on design and attractive 

roadside treatment. Big box type buildings with limited planting were not desirable and the 

proposal was an opportunity to create mixed use which could be attractive. 

• She considered there needed to be a point of difference so facilities weren’t duplicated in 

Huapai, Kumeu and Waimauku. 

During the course of the hearing a letter dated 27 November 2008 from New Zealand Transport 

Agency (NZTA) and addressed to Mr Parfiitt was emailed to the Democracy Services Officer. This 

letter was tabled and circulated. The letter stated NZTA wished to advise the applicant that agreement 

in principle to the proposed development was based on the requested improvements to the safety of 

the intersection. NZTA would not be in a position to withdraw the submission until such time that the 

conditions of consent had been circulated and approved and in particular, this was subject to the 

preparation of detailed engineering plans. 

Mr Hyland distributed and read written evidence. The following was noted: 

Mr Hyland said that it was his view that the traffic effects associated with the proposed development 

could be accommodated on the existing road network with no more than a minor impact. Mr Hyland 

described the existing traffic environment and traffic flow. He spoke with regard to traffic safety and 

the proposed preliminary draft of an upgrade proposal for the SH16 – Tapu Road intersection in 

consultation with NZTA. The proposed intersection upgrade featured a formal right turn pocket in the 

centre of SH16 that provided a safe area for right turning traffic to wait if necessary when turning into 

Tapu Road. Mr Hyland discussed traffic generation, parking and loading and servicing. He described 

the access to the site, the traffic impacts of the proposal and the impacts of traffic generated by the 

proposal. 

10.27 a.m. - 10.46 a.m. Morning tea adjournment. 

Mr Hyland continued to read written evidence. 

Mr Hyland discussed impacts of revised on-street parking, impacts on Tapu Road/SH16 intersection 

and the impacts during construction. In conclusion he said that the traffic and parking effects of the 

proposal could be accommodated on the road network without compromise of its function, capacity or 

safety.

5 



Minutes 

In response to questions from the Panel, Mr Hyland said that: 

• He was comfortable with the 90 o parking on Tapu Road; in terms of sight lines there was not 

a traffic concern and there shouldn’t be any conflict when backing out. Tapu Road had 

relatively low flows in any case and when approaching the intersection vehicles were not 

travelling at high speed. 

• He was not aware of any proposal for a bypass and he did not see that a designation for 

widening would be needed in the perceived future. 

• Gateways can have a calming effect upon entry to a town; he believed there was benefit in 

having a gateway at this point as it signalled entry to a commercial zone. 

Ms Jones distributed and read written evidence. 

Ms Jones discussed the landscape design proposed for the development. She said that the design 

response stemmed from a combination of local influences and a desire to use the site sustainability. 

The most strongly expressed was the viticultural nature of some of the surrounding land use, and 

other factors included references to the native bush in the wider West Coast environment. Ms Jones 

confirmed that the landscaping proposed would be of a similar type to that shown in the completed 

drawing (artist’s impression). She noted that the existing Poplar tree appeared to be healthy and that 

she had widened the area so that the root zone was protected. 

Mr Riethmaier, proprietor of Reflection Treatment Systems distributed and read written evidence. 

Mr Riethmaier addressed the wastewater treatment and disposal for both Stage 1 and 2 of the 

development. 

Mr Elliott (Civil and Structural Engineer) distributed and read written evidence. 

Mr Elliott’s evidence focused on Infrastructure i.e. Water Supply, Stormwater Discharge and 

StormwaterTreatment. 

In response to questions from the Panel, Mr Elliott said that the Poplar tree would affect an area about 

one and a half times its height and he was of the opinion that there was enough separation from the 

building at this stage so that the Poplar roots wouldn’t actually affect it. In this regard he confirmed he 

was satisfied that the building foundations would not be affected by the Poplar roots. 

Mr Parfitt distributed and read written evidence. The following was noted: 

Mr Parfitt drew the Panel’s attention to the fact that the building complied with the height in relation to 

boundary rules. This had been confirmed by the architects, however there may be a shutter screen 

that did not comply and if that was an issue it could be designed to comply. The existing Poplar tree 

was the only significant tree on the site but it could be removed if necessary and replaced with a more 

appropriate specimen. 

Mr Parfitt discussed the site and locality and the District Plan provisions. He said that the applicant 

proposed an attractive two building complex with each building containing retail or a café/restaurant 

on the ground floor and retail above. The buildings were to be built with sustainability being an 

important feature. He noted that the site was zoned Medium Intensity Residential in the Proposed 

District Plan 2000 (PDP). In the Huapai Kumeu Waimauku Structure Plan it was shown as retail 

service. This zoning had never proceeded into any approved statutory document, but when one 

considered the location, size and past uses of the land, it was in town planning terms probably the 

most appropriate zoning of the land. He believed the only reason these provisions were not included 

in the PDP was due to a lack of capacity of the sewerage system. The site did not take over an 

existing residential building so that the residential coherence of the street (Tapu Road and SH16) was 

not broken by non-residential activity in the centre of what was a coherent residential street. The site 

had not been used for residential purposes for a very long time, if ever. The proposed activities were 

not noisy, did not generate dust, fumes or vibrations and would be mostly occupied during normal 

work hours. To avoid unnecessary night time activities the carparking area would be locked at night.

6 



Minutes 

Mr Parfitt addressed traffic and carparking, visual effects, landscaping, wastewater and stormwater 

and other services. He requested a resource consent period of 10 years rather than the usual five 

years. He commented on the submissions and the planning report. In conclusion, he said that 

resource consent should be granted for the two stage development. The suggested conditions in Mr 

Green’s report were accepted as forming the basis of consent and Stage 2 could only proceed once 

there was an alternative wastewater system available, whenever that occurred. It was his view that 

the proposal was not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the District Plan and the 

proposal did not generate any adverse effects that could not be avoided, remedied or mitigated. 

In response to questions from the Panel, Mr Parfitt said that: 

• The applicant would consider removing the Poplar tree and replacing it with another 

substantial tree, although the applicant didn’t want to cover the place with trees. 

• If necessary people could work in the offices on weekends, obtaining access with a control 

device. 

• He thought the Huapai and Kumeu town centres were in need of revitalisation. Kumeu, 

Huapai and this proposal should be able to thrive. 

• He did not think the development proposed would conflict with Kumeu and Huapai. 

Council Officers: 

Mr Green, Council’s Development Engineer addressed the Panel. The following was noted: 

Mr Green thought that it would be prudent to make minor changes to make sure the detention worked. 

There were two storage tanks, and his concern related to the situation when tanks were full and it 

continued to rain – he didn’t believe this had been sufficiently dealt with. He suggested converting one 

of the tanks to be a proper stormwater detention tank with storage in place to cope with those storm 

events or that an additional tank be provided for that purpose. In terms of run off from car parking 

areas, he believed it would be prudent to provide detention for the car park water and that this could 

be done by deepening the swales. Mr Green said that at Stage 2 it would be good to have a specific 

condition saying that detention should be provided to limit post development flows to those of predevelopment 

in up to, and including, the 10 year storm event. The reason for this being that 

deficiencies had been identified in the downstream pipe network. 

Mr Trevelyan, Council’s Manager of Urban Design addressed the Panel. 

Mr Trevelyan said he thought the proposal was a high quality product with a high quality of design. In 

his opinion there was no reason why the development proposed couldn’t co-exist with the existing 

township and he agreed with what the applicant said about there being some pockets of infill in due 

course. Mr Trevelyan said that if an environment was attractive people would walk rather than drive 

short distances. In his opinion the area would become one of more mixed use over time. 

Ms Gardner, the Reporting Planner addressed the Panel. The following was noted: 

Ms Gardner said that she stood by her recommendation to decline consent. In particular her concern 

related to the vitality and viability of Huapai’s retail area. Ms Gardner stressed the non residential 

objectives and policies in the planning documents and her opinion that the development would 

generate more noise and traffic. In regard to the Kumeu Huapai Central Area Plan and the Kumeu 

Huapai Waimauku Structure Plan, Ms Gardner said that from her discussions with Policy Planners 

there had been a clawback from a linear type pattern of development and the focus was now more on 

a town centre hub. She noted that the asterisk points on the Central Area Plan were not stated as 

gateway points, but rather they denoted where one entered and exited the township. 

In response to questions from the Panel, Ms Gardner said that the site had qualities not consistent 

with the medium intensity of the area. She assumed a potential owner of the site wouldn’t use it for 

residential purposes; however she felt that the intensity of this proposal was beyond the character of 

the area. Her concerns were not so much to do with the residential zoning but the intensity of the 

development.

7 



Minutes 

Mr Parfitt presented the right of reply. The following was noted: 

Mr Parfitt pointed out the reference to the gateway concept in the Kumeu Huapai Central Area Plan. 

He considered that plan offered fairly strong guidelines and that it hinted extensively to the elements 

picked up by the applicant’s architects. 

In regard to comments from the reporting planner, Mr Morley said that the town was not contained; it 

was too late to attempt to contain it. Mr Morley said that as part of the proposal the intersection would 

be improved for all the people who used the road and that it would be safer than what was currently 

there. He noted that vehicular activity at the site would not clash with that of vehicle movement in 

association with the sports ground. Mr Morley said that the site had been used in the past as a 

Council work depot and that his development proposal was a great improvement on that previous use. 

He noted that there would be double glazing on the south side of the building to shield the occupiers 

from road noise. Mr Morley also considered that the building would aid in shielding those residents 

who lived further up the street (Tahu Road) from road noise. He didn’t believe the comments from the 

reporting planner about the scale being wrong; he didn’t want to see a small low-profile type building 

which would under-utilise such a prime site. 

12.54 p.m. The Chairperson adjourned the hearing subject to a site visit. 

2.30 p.m. The Chairperson closed the hearing at the conclusion of the site visit. 

The Panel resolved: 

Craig/Taylor 

DECISION OF THE RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL 

That pursuant to Sections 104, 104B, 104D & 108 of the Resource Management Act 

1991, the notified resource consent application by REM Developments Ltd to 

construct and operate a new commercial complex at 1A Tapu Road, Huapai is 

granted consent for the following reasons: 

REASONS FOR DECISION 

1. The Panel is satisfied that any potential adverse effects arising from the intensity of vehicle 

movements will be satisfactorily avoided, remedied or mitigated through the intersection 

upgrading proposed and the relatively limited extent of the Tapu Road frontage affected by 

vehicle movements generated by the proposal. We are satisfied that the bulk of the development 

will not have any effects on landscape or visual amenities that are more than minor and that 

commercial activity generated by the site will have no more than minor adverse effects on 

neighbouring residential properties. 

2. We consider that the proposed development will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of 

either the Operative District Plan ("ODP") or Proposed District Plan 2000 ("PDP"). Both Plans 

make provision for non-residential activities to occur subject to various assessment criteria. The 

focus of the objectives and policies in respect of non-residential activities is towards ensuring that 

there are no significant adverse effects on the amenities of adjacent residential properties and 

these concerns are satisfied in this case. 

3. For these reasons we are satisfied that the application passes the gateway tests of section 104D 

of the Resource Management Act 1991 ("RMA") and can accordingly be considered under section 

104 of that Act. In that regard our findings in respect of the limited extent of any adverse effects 

on the environment and the broad consistency with District Plan provisions, does not preclude the 

grant of consent. In more positive terms we consider that the proposed development will provide 

a sustainable use of this land resource, an outcome that would be unlikely if its development was 

confined to permitted activities under the relevant zone provisions of the District Plans.

8 



Minutes 

4. We do not consider that the grant of consent to this application would create any precedent or 

give rise to concerns regarding the integrity of the District Plans, or their consistent administration, 

because the site has characteristics which distinguish it from other residential zoned land in the 

vicinity. 

5. The grant of consent to the application will be consistent with the provisions of the Auckland 

Regional Policy Statement because the land concerned is contained within an area in which 

urban growth is expected to be accommodated. 

6. The grant of consent would be consistent with Vision Rodney because it provides further 

opportunities for local employment, does not create sprawling development and does not 

adversely affect the amenity values of the District. 

7. We are satisfied that the purpose of the RMA will be better served by granting consent rather than 

refusing it because the grant of consent will enable the sustainable management of the resources 

of this area (as represented by the subject site) while avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse 

effects on the environment and does not prejudice the availability of resources required to meet 

the likely needs of future generations. 

THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS THAT WERE CONSIDERED: 

Overall this application was considered to be a non-complying activity and was considered in terms of 

sections 104, 104B, 104D and Part 2 of the RMA. 

OTHER RELEVANT PROVISIONS THAT WERE CONSIDERED: 

The provisions of the following documents were considered by the Hearings Panel in reaching this 

decision. 

National Policy Statement Provisions 

None applicable 

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement Provisions 


Auckland Regional Policy Statement Provisions 

Broadly consistent with 2.5.2.3 (iii) 

Proposed Regional Policy Statements Provisions 

None relevant 

Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal Provisions 


Auckland Regional Plan: Air Land and Water Provisions 

None applicable

9 



Minutes 

Plan Provisions 

Operative District Plan Plan Change Number 26 Residential Provisions 

Objectives 3D (1)(a) & (b);3H (1); 3I(1). 

Policies 3D (2)(a)(ii);3H(2)(d)(i) & (iv); 3I (a), (b) & (c). 

Proposed Plan Provisions 

Proposed District Plan 2000 

Objectives 8.3.1; 8.3.2; 8.3.4; 8.3.5; 8.8.3.1.1; 8.8.3.1.2; 18.3.1. 

Policies 8.4.1; 8.4.2; 8.4.3; 8.4.4; 8.4.5; 8.8.3.2.1; 8.8.3.2.2; 8.8.3.2.3; 8.8.3.2.4; 18.4.1 & 18.4.4. 

PREAMBLE 

This was an application to use a 4430 m² site at the intersection of State Highway 16 and Tapu Road, 

zoned Medium Intensity Residential under the OPD, and Residential Medium Intensity under the PDP, 

for a commercial complex comprising office, retail and restaurant uses in two buildings with 

associated car parking and landscaping. The site the subject of the application had previously been 

used as a "Works Depot" and more recently for the exhibition of a show home. Because connection 

to external sewage disposal was not available, the application was proposed in 2 stages, with Stage 1 

being serviced by an on-site sewage disposal package system. The area of the site used for the onsite 

sewage system was to be made available for the development of Stage 2 at such time as a 

municipal piped sewage disposal system became available. The application was publicly notified and 

there were 7 submissions in opposition to the application and one neutral submission. None of the 

submitters attended the hearing to give evidence but an e-mail from the New Zealand Transport 

Agency to the applicant was tabled indicating that the traffic related concerns of the Agency were 

likely to be satisfied by the applicant's proposal for the upgrading of the Tapu Road/State Highway 16 

intersection. 

SITE VISIT 

The Hearing Panel visited the site on 28 November 2008 following the hearing. 

THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES THAT WERE IN CONTENTION: 

The principal issues that were in contention were as follows: 

1. Whether adverse effects on the environment of neighbouring residential properties as a result 

of the intensity of the development proposed, including traffic noise and movement and the 

scale of the proposed buildings, would be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated. 

2. Whether the proposed development was contrary to the objectives and policies of the 

Operative District Plan and Proposed District Plan 2000. 

3. Whether the grant of consent to the application would result in a perception that the District 

Plans were being administered inconsistently and as a consequence public confidence in the 

integrity of the District Plans might be diminished. 

4. Whether the Panel should take into account concerns regarding potential effects on the 

viability of the main Huapai retail area, having regard to the express prohibition of section 

104(3)(a).

10 



Minutes 

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE HEARD: 

SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 

PETER EISING ARCHITECT - ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: 

Mr Eising advised that his brief for the design of the proposed development was to provide a 

commercial building to house offices for G J Gardner Homes together with additional offices for other 

businesses with retail premises on the ground floor. An Environmentally Sustainable Design was 

proposed including provision for: 

- stormwater reuse and control; 

- rainwater harvesting and reuse; 

- package sewer treatment with on-site controlled irrigation of treated effluent; 

- energy use reduced through maximising natural lighting, double glazing and sunscreens. 

The development was proposed to be in two stages because part of the site on which Stage 2 would 

eventually be built, was required for the irrigation fields for the sewage treatment system to serve 

Stage 1. The second stage would be built once public sewage disposal system was available. 

He advised that a planner at the Council's Huapai Area Office had provided copies of the "Kumeu- 

Huapai-Waimauku Structure Plan 1998" and the "Kumeu-Huapai Central Area Plan December 2005" 

as background information. The zone provisions applicable to the site were also provided. He 

considered that commercial premises would be preferable and would benefit the community. Double 

glazing to the State Highway 16 frontage would eliminate reverse sensitivity issues with road noise. 

Mr Eising referred to the "Gateway" identification of the site on the Structure Plan and Central Area 

Plan referred to above. He advised that the design proposed reflected the characteristics of the local 

rural area, using vertical timber and horizontal corrugated iron overlaid with screening at the upper 

levels. This approach reflected modern rural building form and elements also reflecting farm 

structures, timber wine barrels and wooden pallets and packaging used in horticultural products. 

"Pixilated" screens over the building were to have varying density and opaqueness and were 

proposed as an interpretation of grapevines hanging ready for harvest. Screens would be perforated 

anodised aluminium of varying metallic earthy tonings, reflecting the variety of colour tonings of grape 

leaves and vines, and the seasonal changes in the openness and density of these vines. 

He considered the site was not naturally a "residential" site because it was busy, noisy and 

compromised by surrounding incompatible activity. He said that the site was unlikely to be developed 

for residential use because superior sites were available nearby. On the other hand he considered 

that it offered an excellent "buffer" to insulate residential sites to the North from the noise and activity 

of the State Highway. He considered the site was the "gateway" to Huapai and defined the entry from 

the North. He noted that Mr Trevelyan, the Council's Urban Design Manager, supported the design 

approach. 

ROSS MORLEY - ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: 

Mr Morley advised the Panel that he had purchased the site a number of years ago and had made 

that decision on the basis of the Structure Plan. He realised the potential for commercial use was not 

guaranteed but considered that his proposal represented a "top-quality development". He referred to 

the change in his rateable value which had moved from $240,000 to $1.5 million in one year. He did 

not consider that the activities proposed on the site would result in a duplication of services. In 

response to questions from the Panel he advised that if consent was granted, he would accept 

conditions of consent that imposed a requirement to ensure that buildings erected on the site reflected 

the standard and quality of design that he, and his architect, were advancing at the hearing.

11 



Minutes 

SALLY PEAKE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT - ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: 

Ms Peake described the existing landscape character noting the mix of residential and commercial 

activity around the site and the mixture of horticulture and rural commercial service and retail activities 

on the opposite side of the road. She said that the design of the buildings and landscape reflects the 

“genius loci”, or characteristic atmosphere of this locality. This had been achieved through building 

elements such as the screen design at first-floor level and grapevine planting within the courtyard 

landscape and on the northern boundary fence and further reinforced with the use of modern 

materials and details relating to local architecture. 

She said that her assessment of the landscape and visual effects arising from the proposed 

development found that there would be positive landscape effects as a result of sites/landscape 

improvement and enhancement through the establishment of a proposed land use which is consistent 

with existing commercial land use in the locality and through the appropriate design response in 

relation to the corner position of the site. She considered that the introduction of two-storey buildings 

would represent a change within the existing environment which is predominantly one-storey 

residential development on this side of the State Highway, but she considered the scale of the 

buildings was compatible with the site and location and similar to the scale of other buildings in the 

neighbourhood. She considered that the development would create a positive entry to Huapai, a 

synergy with the nearby railway station, and would not result in adverse urban design effects. 

Ms Peake considered that the proposed development would have a high visual impact due to the 

significant visual change but would also create an appropriate and attractive use of the site with 

positive visual effects. She considered the effects on the two closest houses could be adequately 

mitigated by the amenity and design of the development however she recommended that signage on 

the building facades facing these residential properties should not be lit. She noted that the reporting 

planner agreed that effects on environmental and landscape values would be no more than minor. 

She considered that the site provided a natural entry to Huapai because it is slightly raised on a slight 

bend and considered the proposed development should be encouraged as a "positive" gateway. She 

considered that in the event of a widening of the State Highway at some future time, the location of 

shopfronts and pedestrians close to the street would be consistent with good urban design practice. 

She considered that the proposal was generally consistent with the objectives and policies of both the 

Operative and Proposed District Plans in relation to landscape and visual amenity matters. 

JOSHUA HYLAND TRAFFIC ENGINEER - ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: 

Mr Hyland gave evidence on the existing traffic environment and provided drawings showing the 

existing road layout in the vicinity of the site. He noted the layout of State Highway 16 provided for 

one traffic lane in each direction with no overtaking for eastbound traffic. He said that no formal 

provision for turning movements was currently provided into or from Tapu Road. On the basis of 

surveys that he had undertaken he found peak hour flows of 1200 vehicles per hour on State Highway 

16 and 100 vehicles per hour on Tapu Road in the morning peak and 1300 vehicles per hour on State 

Highway 16 and 230 vehicles per hour on Tapu Road in the evening peak. He estimated that the 

average daily flow on the State Highway would be around 12,000 vehicles per day. He advised that a 

preliminary proposal had been prepared for the upgrade of the State Highway 16/Tapu Road 

intersection and provided drawings which would be subject to the New Zealand Transport Agency 

approval. He advised that the applicant was prepared to carry out the works associated with the 

proposed new layout which would provide a safe turning area on State Highway 16 and a left turn slip 

lane for eastbound vehicles turning into Tapu Road. He advised that apart from a small amount of 

widening to implement the left turn slip lane the balance of the intersection improvements would 

consist primarily of road marking changes. 

During the course of the hearing a letter dated 27 November 2008 from New Zealand Transport 

Agency (NZTA) addressed to Mr Parfiitt was emailed to the Democracy Services Officer. This letter 

was tabled and circulated. The letter stated NZTA wished to advise the applicant that agreement in 

principle to the proposed development was based on the requested improvements to the safety of the 

intersection. NZTA would not be in a position to withdraw the submission until such time that the 

conditions of consent had been circulated and approved and in particular, this was subject to the 

preparation of detailed engineering plans.

12 



Minutes 

Mr Hyland provided calculations of the likely traffic and parking generation from the proposed 

development including the effects of the additional traffic and taking into account the proposed 

intersection upgrade. He considered that adverse effects would be no more than minor and that the 

proposed upgrade of the intersection would have traffic safety and operational benefits for all road 

users using the intersection. He was of the opinion that the 71 car parking spaces to be provided 

would not have an adverse impact on Tapu Road. He considered construction traffic and determined 

that it could be accommodated with little or no effect on the normal function of either State Highway 

16 or Tapu Road. 

MS SARAH JONES LANDSCAPE DESIGNER - ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 

Ms Jones discussed the landscape design proposed for the development. She said that the design 

response stemmed from a combination of local influences and a desire to use the site sustainability. 

The most strongly expressed was the viticultural nature of some of the surrounding land use, and 

other factors were references to the native bush in the wider West Coast environment. Ms Jones 

confirmed that the landscaping proposed would be of a similar type to that shown in the completed 

drawing (artist’s impression). She noted that the existing Poplar tree appeared to be healthy and that 

she had widened the space between the proposed buildings to accommodate retention of the tree. 

DUNCAN ELLIOTT STORMWATER ENGINEER - ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: 

Mr Elliott advised the Panel that water supply would be provided from on-site water storage tanks 

which would need to be periodically topped up from an external source. He advised that the 

stormwater discharge after Stage 1 was complete would be less than the amount currently leaving the 

site, but a minor increase would result when Stage 2 was completed. He advised stormwater run-off 

from the car park would be treated through the use of swale drains. 

GRAHAM PARFITT CONSULTANT PLANNER- ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: 

Mr Parfitt described the application, the site and locality. He described the surrounding activities 

including the following: 

- Kumeu chainsaw and mower services, in a two-storey building on the opposite side of the 

road; 

- Huapai Domain entrance and skate bowl on the opposite side of Tapu Road; 

- A house to the north with its garage close to the common boundary and wooden fence on 

that boundary; 

- Immediately adjoining the site to the north, an access way to, and open yard used for, 

used truck sales activity; 

- A house to the east with a 1.8 m high wooden fence adjacent to the common boundary; 

- State Highway 16 on the southern frontage of the site. 

Mr Parfitt described the provisions of the Operative District Plan including the objectives and policies 

relating to the Medium Intensity Residential Activity Area noting that provision was made for a range 

of associated non-residential activities as discretionary activities. He referred to the objectives, 

policies and other provisions of Proposed District Plan 2000. He included reference to Policy 8.4.5 

which provides the non-residential activities. 

Mr Parfitt discussed the Kumeu Huapai Waimauku Structure Plan noting that the structure plan 

showed the site as being zoned “General Retail”. However he believed that little weight should be 

given to this “zoning” since these provisions were not carried through into the PDP. He also drew 

attention to the Huapai North Structure Plan which provided for further residential development to the 

north and west of the subject site. He considered that the Kumeu Huapai Central Area Plan which 

had been adopted by the Rodney District Council in December 2005 was also relevant.

13 



Minutes 

Having considered all these provisions Mr Parfitt acknowledged that the application required 

consideration as a non-complying activity. He then set out the relevant provisions of the Resource 

Management Act and provided an assessment in relation to those provisions. He expressed the view 

that it was not realistic to assess the application against the objectives and policies for the residential 

zones which were necessarily focused on residential activities other than those issues, objectives and 

policies that dealt with the amenities of the zone for residential activities. He then proceeded to 

assess the development having regard to those objectives and policies. He noted that there were no 

residential buildings close to the proposed development except a resident immediately to the east and 

he considered that that building was sufficiently screened by the fence and planting on the common 

boundary. He noted there were no residential dwellings facing the proposed buildings across either 

road. He said the proposed activities would not be noisy, would not generate dust fumes or vibrations 

and would be mostly unoccupied outside normal working hours. He stated that the car parking area 

would be locked at night. Overall he concluded that the general residential amenities and coherence 

of the residential area would be maintained with the proposed development. He noted and adopted 

the evidence of Joshua Hyland, Sally Peake, Sarah Jones, Peter Riethmaier, and Duncan Elliott and 

on that basis considered that the effects that they have assessed illustrated that effects of the 

proposed development would be no more than minor. 

Mr Parfitt advised that a significant amount of asphalt and gravel previously deposited on the site 

would have to be removed and replaced with topsoil but he considered that overall this would be a 

short-term activity and that the adverse effects could be appropriately managed by the use of mufflers 

on machines, dust control measures and similar standard techniques for earthworks activities. He 

drew the Panel's attention to be request for a 10 year lapse period for the Resource Consent to allow 

for potential delays in the provision of an external wastewater disposal system. 

In assessing the application against the gateway tests of section 104D of the RMA he considered that 

while the grant of consent to the application would not be consistent with the objectives and policies of 

the Residential Zone he did not consider that it would be "contrary" to those objectives and policies. 

In any event he considered that the potential adverse effects could be satisfactorily managed to 

ensure they were no more than minor. Accordingly he considered that at least one of the tests of 

section 104D was satisfied. He was of the view that the grant of consent to the application would 

accord with section 5 of the RMA because it would provide for the social and economic well-being of 

people and the community while safeguarding the life supporting capacity of air, water, soil and 

ecosystems and through mitigation of any adverse effects of the activity on the environment. He also 

considered that the amenity values and quality of the environment would be maintained and 

enhanced through the proposed quality development. In commenting on the planning report he noted 

that the applicant is a company owned by the present landowner who is also the franchise holder for 

G J Gardner who will be the anchor tenant in the new complex. 

Mr Parfitt was critical of the reporting planner's reliance on the Property Economics Report which 

estimated the demand for future retail floor space. He did not consider that this report provided a 

reliable basis for limiting the extent of retail floor space on the subject site. 

In response to the comments from the reporting planner, Mr Parfitt pointed out the reference to the 

gateway concept in the Kumeu Huapai Central Area Plan. He considered that plan offered fairly 

strong guidelines and that it gave a strong direction towards the elements picked up by the applicant’s 

architects. 

THE EVIDENCE OF COUNCIL OFFICERS 

REPORT OF SARAH GARDNER- COUNCIL PLANNER 

Ms Gardner's report described the proposal and the reasons for the application. She noted that the 

application required consent as a non-complying activity and that additional consents were required in 

relation to the parking requirements, earthworks and development controls under the ODP and under 

PDP 2000. She described the site and the surrounding activities and advised the Panel that the 

Residential Chapter of the Proposed Plan had only two outstanding appeals neither of which were 

relevant to this application. Accordingly she considered the Proposed District Plan should be given 

greater weight in consideration of the application. The report advised that 8 submissions had been 

received, 7 in opposition and one which neither opposed nor supported the application. She noted 

that the New Zealand Transport Agency requested deferral of consideration of the application until

14 



Minutes 

satisfactory measures to mitigate adverse effects on State Highway 16 and Tapu Road had been 

provided. 

Ms Gardner provided assessment against the existing environment noting that the area was not solely 

defined by residential activity, with varying scales of commercial premises cited to the south of the 

property and Huapai Reserve to the west. She assessed the effects on environmental and landscape 

values as no more than minor but was concerned that the proposed introduction of 2 two-storey 

commercial buildings was not consistent with the current or intended future character of the area. 

She otherwise considered that effects on the following matters would be no more than minor: 

- streetscape; 

- outlook of adjacent properties; 

- shading and sunlight of adjoining properties; 

- privacy of adjoining properties; 

- noise generated from the site; 

- visual dominance; 

- engineering matters including provision of stormwater and wastewater disposal. 

However she considered that the volume of vehicle trips generated would be likely to have adverse 

noise and disturbance effects on residential properties. 

Ms Gardner noted that the Council's Urban Design Manager, Mr Andrew Trevelyan, was satisfied as 

to the urban design component of the application. She referred to a report from the Council's Policy 

Planner - Environmental Planning, Ms Angela Goodwin, and Ms Goodwin's concern (based on an 

assessment undertaken by Property Economics Ltd in June 2008, entitled "Retail, Office & Industrial 

Land Demand Forecasts - Kumeu - Huapai") that the development would have more than minor 

effects on the anticipated growth of the region as a result of economic sustainability effects. 

Essentially Ms Goodwin was concerned that the 355 m² of retail floor space in Stage 1 would exceed 

by 44 m² the level considered sustainable by the Property Economics Ltd report. 

In regard to public infrastructure Ms Gardner was satisfied that adverse effects on infrastructure could 

be mitigated in part through the imposition of financial contributions and in part through consent 

conditions. She concluded that overall the effects on the environment in respect of character, 

amenity, streetscape and economic sustainability would be more than minor. 

Ms Gardner assessed the application against the objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan 

noting that it was consistent with some and "contrary" to others; in particular she was concerned that 

the development would not constitute "residential development of a medium scale". She expressed 

similar concerns in regard to the objectives and policies of PDP 2000. The report included an 

assessment of the activity against the assessment criteria contained in Rule 8.13 for assessing 

discretionary activities. She was of the view that it did not satisfy criteria relating to character, scale 

and design and the noise and nuisance effects arising from traffic. She was also concerned about the 

issues raised by NZTA regarding the State Highway and Tapu Road intersection. 

The reporting officer considered that the proposed development was inconsistent with the Regional 

Policy Statement because Huapai was outside the Metropolitan Urban Limits. She was also 

concerned that the policies contained in Proposed Plan Change 6 to the RPS intended that urban 

growth would be focused round high-density centres and corridors. She considered the intensification 

of the site in the manner proposed was inconsistent with these Policies. 

The report gave consideration to relevant Council documents including Vision Rodney and the 

Structure Plans relating to the area. In considering the integrity and consistent administration of the 

District Plan Ms Gardner decided the site was subject to unusual circumstances which would 

differentiate it from other residentially zoned sites but nevertheless considered a commercial complex 

on the site proposed would create effects beyond those capable of being contained within a site of 

this kind.

15 



Minutes 

Having considered the above matters Ms Gardner concluded that the proposal failed to meet either of 

the gateway tests of section 104D and therefore should not be considered for consent. Furthermore 

she considered that the purpose of the RMA was not promoted mainly because of the adverse effects 

which would be generated. However she noted that in the context of the site's location and the 

neighbourhood's natural and physical features that as the landscaping matured the development 

would align itself more closely with the adjacent commercial development. Nevertheless she 

remained concerned that the traffic generation would exceed the level anticipated by the Plan and 

might adversely affect the amenity values of surrounding properties and the quality of environment 

anticipated by the Plans. 

After hearing the evidence and submissions on behalf of the applicant, Ms Gardner said that she 

stood by her recommendation to decline consent. In particular her concern related to the vitality and 

viability of Huapai’s retail area. Ms Gardner emphasised the non residential objectives and policies in 

the planning documents and her opinion that the development would generate more noise and traffic. 

In regard to the Kumeu Huapai Central Area Plan and the Kumeu Huapai Waimauku Structure Plan, 

Ms Gardner said that from her discussions with Policy Planners there had been a withdrawal from a 

linear type pattern of development and the focus was now more on a town centre hub. She noted that 

the asterisk points on the Central Area Plan were not stated as gateway points, but rather they 

denoted where one entered and exited the township. 

In response to questions from the Panel, Ms Gardner said that the site had qualities not consistent 

with the medium intensity of the area. She assumed a potential owner of the site would not use it for 

residential purposes; however she felt that the intensity of this proposal was beyond the character of 

the area. Her concerns were not so much to do with the residential zoning but the intensity of the 

development proposed. 

EVIDENCE OF ROSS GREEN – DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER 

After hearing the submissions and evidence on behalf of the applicant Mr Green addressed the Panel. 

He considered that it would be prudent to make minor changes to make sure the detention worked. 

There were two storage tanks, and his concern related to the situation when tanks were full and it 

continued to rain. He suggested converting one of the tanks to function as a stormwater detention 

tank (i.e. allowed to empty at a controlled rate after each storm event) or that an additional tank be 

provided for that purpose. In terms of run off from car parking areas, he believed it would be prudent 

to provide detention for the car park water and that this could be done by deepening the swales. Mr 

Green said that when Stage 2 was implemented, it would be advisable to have a specific condition 

requiring that detention be provided to limit post development flows to a pre-development level, up to 

and including the 10 year storm event. The reason for this recommendation was that deficiencies had 

been identified in the downstream pipe network. 

EVIDENCE OF ANDREW TREVELYAN – COUNCIL URBAN DESIGN MANAGER 

Mr Trevelyan said he thought the proposal was for a high quality product with a high quality of design. 

In his opinion there was no reason why the development proposed could not co-exist with the existing 

township and he agreed with what the applicant said about potential future pockets of infill. Mr 

Trevelyan said that if an environment was attractive people would walk rather than drive short 

distances. In his opinion the area would develop more of a mixed use character over time. 

THE MAIN FINDINGS OF FACT: 

BASIS 

The main findings of fact determined by the Hearing Panel that have led to the above decision and the 

reasons for that decision are as follows. They have been reached after visiting the site, considering 

the application, the evidence and submissions heard at the hearing, the report prepared by the 

reporting planner, all the relevant statutory and planning provisions, as well as the principal issues 

that were in contention.

16 



Minutes 

EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT 

Having considered the evidence of Ms Gardner and Mr Parfitt and having carried out a careful 

inspection during the site visit, the Panel is satisfied that any potential adverse effects arising from the 

intensity of vehicle movements will be satisfactorily avoided, remedied or mitigated. We note that the 

intersection upgrading proposed by the applicant will provide benefits to all of the residents in Tapu 

Road who use the intersection and that in itself provides a form of offset mitigation. We note that the 

frontage of Tapu Road that will be impacted by vehicles visiting the site is limited to a relatively short 

distance affecting only the properties at 6 and 8 Tapu Road. We find that the evidence of Ms 

Gardner, Mr Parfitt and Ms Peake established that the bulk of the development and its placement on 

the site would not have any effects on landscape or visual amenities that are more than minor. We 

are satisfied that the intensity of human activity generated by the proposed commercial activities on 

the site, would not have more than minor adverse effects on neighbouring properties because it is 

focused away from nearby residential dwellings. 

THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE DISTRICT PLANS. 

The evidence of Ms Gardner and Mr Parfitt established that both of the District Plans made provision 

for non-residential activities to take place within residential zones. We note that the ODP (under 

3H(2)(d)(iv) ) emphasises that the control of non-residential activities within residential zones is to be 

defined on the basis of limiting the range of effects and protecting residential amenity. Similarly Policy 

8.4.5 of the PDP provides that non-residential activities are to be controlled on the basis of limiting the 

extent of adverse effects so as to ensure that such effects are not incompatible with the environment 

of residential areas. Having considered these matters we are satisfied that the proposed development 

would not be significantly incompatible with the amenities of this residential area and any adverse 

effects on the amenity of adjacent residential properties would be satisfactorily avoided, remedied or 

mitigated. On this basis we do not consider that the grant of consent to the application would be 

contrary to the objectives and policies of the District Plans. 

THE INTEGRITY OF THE DISTRICT PLANS 

Both Ms Gardner and Mr Parfitt were of the view that the site, including its context within the 

immediate neighbourhood, had unusual characteristics which together made it less suitable for 

residential development and unlikely to be used for residential purposes in the foreseeable future. We 

agree with those assessments and accept that the site would be more appropriately developed for the 

purposes proposed rather than maintained in its current state provided that: 

- the development is constructed in accordance with the applicant’s intention of providing a 

quality development reflecting sustainable development principles; 

- the development continues to be based on an architectural style that would reflect and 

have appropriate regard to significant local rural characteristics. 

We do not consider that the alternative approach of refusing consent, in the hope that the site might 

eventually be used for some residential activities, is justified in these circumstances. We particularly 

rely on the evidence of Mr Trevelyan in regard to the assessment of the quality of the proposed 

development. We were also satisfied that the residential development further to the east on this side 

of State Highway 16 presented a more consistent residential neighbourhood pattern with a further 

benefit of a slip road providing separation of the frontage of these properties from the State Highway 

and vegetative screening at the edge of the Highway. Consequently we consider that the grant of 

consent to this application would have sufficient distinguishing characteristics to avoid the creation of 

a precedent for other similar development in the medium intensity residential area of Huapai. 

POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE VIABILITY OF THE HUAPAI RETAIL CENTRE 

Consideration of the potential effect of the establishment of retail activities at the site, and on the 

viability of the main Retail Centre at Huapai (as a consequence on the ability of that centre to continue 

to serve the needs of the community) is not able to be assessed directly. Rather it is a question of the 

probability of effects that might arise. Accordingly the question the Panel had to consider was whether 

the level of risk was high or low, and whether the effects would have a high or low impact. We 

considered that the risk of an effect on the Huapai Retail Centre such as to significantly affect its

17 



Minutes 

ability to continue to serve the needs of the community was very low and any impacts that might arise 

would also be low. In this regard it is our view that any retail activities that develop on the site would 

have the effect of creating a minor local shopping centre of a kind commonly found in residential 

neighbourhoods. We did not consider that the range of goods likely to be offered would be sufficient 

to attract a significant number of shoppers who would normally use the main centre. 

CONSENT CONDITIONS 

LAPSING OF CONSENT 

Pursuant to Section 125 of the Resource Management Act 1991, this resource consent in respect of 

Stage 1 will expire 5 years after the date of commencement of consent unless, before the consent 

lapses; 

the consent is given effect to; or 

an application is made to the Council to extend the period of consent, and the Council decides to 

grant an extension after taking into account the statutory considerations, set out in section 

125(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991. 

Pursuant to Section 125 of the Resource Management Act 1991, this resource consent in respect of 

Stage 2 will expire 10 years after the date of commencement of consent unless, before the consent 

lapses; 

the consent is given effect to; or 

an application is made to the Council to extend the period of consent, and the Council decides to 

grant an extension after taking into account the statutory considerations, set out in section 

125(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991. 

CONDITIONS OF CONSENT: 

Pursuant to Section 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991, this consent is subject to the 

following conditions: 

1. (general) The development shall proceed in general accordance with the application 

submitted, and the plans drawn by Pacific Environments Architects NZ Ltd, dated June 2008, 

numbered (0)01-05, (1)01-03, (2)01-04, (A)01-03. 

Note: (building consent) The granting of this resource consent does not preclude the 

consent holder from the need to obtain a building consent prior to construction 

commencing. 

2. (resource consent and monitoring charges) The resource consent holder shall pay to the 

Council within one month of the issue of this consent or prior to the activity commencing 

(whichever is earlier) the cost, including specialist services, staff time and administration for 

the processing of this application together with initial charges for the following inspections: 

Engineering 2 x site visit; 

Environmental protection 2 x site visit. 

Monitoring deposits will be invoiced by the Council together with the consent processing 

charges. 

Should further monitoring be required to ensure compliance, the Council will recover the 

actual and reasonable costs that are incurred for this monitoring as set out in the Council’s 

Schedule of Fees and Charges.

18 



Minutes 

3. (operating hours) The activity shall be restricted to operating between the hours of: 

Monday to Saturday 7.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m., 

Sundays and all public holidays 7.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. 

4. (parking) Appropriate mechanisms shall be employed to lock the on-site parking area outside 

of working hours. Full details of these mechanisms shall be submitted to and approved by 

the Team Leader, Resource Management prior to any works commencing on the site. 

5. (landscape plan) A detailed landscape plan, in accordance with the evidence from Sarah 

Jones (Room Outside Landscaping and Design), including an implementation and 

maintenance programme for a minimum of three years, shall be submitted to and approved 

by the Team Leader, Resource Management or equivalent position prior to any works 

commencing on the site. 

(i) The plan shall include details of the plant sizes (Pb Grade) at the time of planting and 

intended species (predominantly native and reflecting the local native biodiversity). 

Such a plan is to include appropriate measures for the screening of, but not limited to, 

the dwelling and/or ancillary structures; and 

(ii) In particular the plan shall also include the specific landscape treatment of new 

retaining walls that have been erected as part of the development. This shall include 

appropriate measures to mitigate the visual effects of the structures by effectively 

integrating them into the environment; and 

The landscaping shall be implemented in accordance with the approved landscaping plan 

within the first planting season following the completion of the works on the site at each 

respective Stage 1 and Stage 2. Landscaping shall be maintained thereafter. 

6. (building design) A detailed design of the proposed development shall closely follow the 

design proposal as described in the evidence and drawings produced by Peter Eising, Pacific 

Environment Architects NZ Ltd dated June 2008, numbered (0)01-05, (1)01-03, (2)01-04, 

(A)01-03. To ensure that this condition is implemented while providing for reasonable 

flexibility, the consent holder shall prepare a Design Protocol which addresses the design of 

the development and as a minimum this shall include: 

a. Applications of sustainable development principle of the kind described in 

Mr Eising’s evidence; 

b. The use of quality building materials; 

c. The adoption of overall design principles that provide a unique design outcome 

which reflects the iconic features of the Huapai architectural landscape in a similar 

fashion to the approach set out in Mr Eising’s evidence. 

This Design Protocol shall be approved by the Team Leader Resource Consents (in a 

certifying capacity) prior to the consent holder applying for building consent s for any part of 

the development. 

7. (acoustic protection) The consent holder shall provide double glazing on all windows on the 

southern elevation of the building. 

8. (signage) Any signs on the northern and eastern elevations of the buildings (both Stage 1 

and Stage 2) shall not be illuminated. 

9. (lighting-daytime) No part of the building shall employ and/or use artificial lighting between 

the hours of 7 am to 10 pm in such a manner that the use of such lighting causes an added 

illuminance in excess of 100 lux, measured horizontally or vertically at any point on or directly 

above the boundary of any adjacent land which is zoned residential.

19 



Minutes 

Stage 1 

10. (lighting – night‐time) 

No part of the building shall employ and/or use artificial lighting between the hours of 10 pm 

on one day to 7 am on the next day in such a manner that the use of such lighting causes 

an added illuminance in excess of 10 lux measured horizontally or vertically at any point on 

or directly above any adjacent boundary of any adjacent land which is zoned residential. 

11. (developer’s representative) Prior to the commencement of engineering design, the Consent 

Holder shall nominate, in writing, its Developer’s Representative in terms of Council’s 

“Standards for Engineering Design and Construction” to be the first point of contact for all 

engineering matters. Any subsequent change to the nominated Developer’s Representative 

shall be immediately notified in writing to the Consents Engineer. 

12. (insurance and warranties for engineering works) Prior to the commencement of engineering 

design for the works required by these conditions, the Consent Holder and the Developer’s 

Representative shall provide to the Council proof of Professional Indemnity Insurance and 

Warranties in full satisfaction of section 102 of the “Standards for Engineering Design and 

Construction”. 

13. (engineering plans) The engineering works required by this consent shall comply with the 

Council's “Standards for Engineering Design and Construction” as may be amended from 

time to time. Engineering Plans, as specified in the “Standards”, shall be submitted to the 

Consents Engineer, and approval thereto received in writing, prior to the commencement of 

any works on the site. 

Any variation or changes to the approved engineering plans shall be submitted for approval 

as an Amendment and approval received thereto prior to construction of the varied works. 

The term 'engineering works' includes, but is not limited to: 

• Earthworks; 

• The formation of roads, the laying of pipes and other ancillary equipment to be vested 

in the Council for water supply, drainage or sewage disposal; 

• Street lights, landscaping or structures on land vested, or to be vested, in the Council; 

• The installation of gas, electrical or telecommunication reticulation including ancillary 

equipment; and 

• Any other works required by conditions of this consent. 

Note: Structures such as retaining walls, in-ground walls and bridges will require a separate 

Building Consent. 

Note: The plans required under this condition are separate to, and do not form part of, any 

Building Consent that may be required on the subject site. 

Note: Engineering Plan approvals, monitoring of construction and processing of As Built 

plans will be subject to charges in terms of the Schedule of Fees and Charges determined 

from time to time by the Council. 

14. (pre-construction meeting) The Developer’s Representative shall give the Consents Field 

Supervisor named in the engineering plan approval at least 5 working days notice of the onsite 

pre-construction site meeting (refer section 103.15 of the “Standards for Engineering 

Design and Construction”). Construction work shall not commence on the site until such 

meeting has been held and all necessary documentation presented. 

Note: Attention is drawn to the requirements of section 103.15.3 “Standards for 

Engineering Design and Construction” for the following documentation to be 

presented at the preconstruction meeting: 

• Approved engineering plans and copy of approval letter;

20 



Minutes 

• Health and Safety Plan; 

• The Signed Road Opening Notice; 

• The written approval of Transit New Zealand; 

• The relevant Resource or Subdivision Consent (and all conditions attached thereto). 

15. (road opening notice) The Consent Holder or his Contractor shall obtain a Road Opening 

Notice from the relevant Network Service Provider prior to the commencement of any works 

within the legal road. 

16. (earthworks management plan) Submit with the engineering plans for approval, and prior to 

any earthworks on site, an Earthworks Management Plan addressing how the removal of 

unsuitable material from the site and its replacement with fill suitable for effluent disposal 

purposes is to be carried out without creating any adverse effects on neighbouring properties 

or the adjacent public roads. 

17. (silt retention) Before commencement of any works, adequate silt retention structures as 

detailed in the Auckland Regional Council Technical Publication No. 90 "Erosion and 

Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region" shall be 

installed. These structures shall be maintained and cleaned out as necessary until such time 

as complete grass cover, or other non-erodible surfacing, has been re-established over the 

site. 

18. (protection of roads) All necessary measures shall be provided or implemented to prevent 

the deposition of any slurry, clay or other materials on the roads by vehicles leaving the site. 

Should any of such material be deposited on the road, the excavation and earthworks shall 

cease immediately until it is removed and adequate measures installed on-site to prevent 

further deposition to the satisfaction of the Consents Engineer. 

19. (dust control) All necessary actions shall be taken to prevent a dust nuisance to neighbouring 

properties and public roads; including, but not limited to: 

• The staging of areas of the works; 

• The retention of any existing shelter belts and vegetation; 

• The installation and maintenance of wind fences and vegetated strips; 

• Watering of all haul roads and manoeuvring areas during dry periods; and 

• Suspension of all operations if necessitated by the prevailing conditions. 

The site, or parts thereof as appropriate, shall be regrassed or otherwise protected 

from wind and water erosion immediately on the completion of bulk earthworks 

whether or not other works are completed. 

20. (access, parking and manoeuvring areas) All access parking and manoeuvring areas shall 

be formed to a sealed or concrete standard and marked to the requirements of the Council’s 

Standards for Engineering Design and Construction. The construction of the carparking 

areas shall include the construction of the stormwater treatment swales as proposed but 

with the swales deepened to provide a level of detention storage in them. 

21. (detention storage) Provide detention storage in the water storage tank for Stage 1 to limit 

the post development flows from the roof of the building to pre development from a similar 

area of the site in up to and including the 1 in 10 year event. Details of the detention being 

provided together with supporting calculations shall be submitted to the Consents Engineer 

for approval prior to construction. 

22. (construction of crossing) The vehicle crossing to the boundary of the development shall be 

constructed/reconstructed to the industrial/commercial standards of the “Standards for 

Engineering Design and Construction”. 

23. (right turn bay) Construct a right turn bay on State Highway 16 at the Tapu Road / State 

Highway intersection in accordance with the requirements of NZTA. The engineering plans 

for the construction of the right turn bay shall be submitted to NZTA and its approval of them 

obtained prior to the submission of engineering plans to the Council for approval. The

21 



Minutes 

Stage 2 

construction and marking of the bay shall be completed prior to the occupation of any of the 

buildings within Stage 1. 

24. (financial contributions) Pursuant to Operative Plan Change 62 (Chapter 22), the financial 

contributions as set out in the “Schedule of Financial Contributions”, RMA 54342, Sequence 

001, attached to this consent shall be paid to the Council in full mitigation of the offsite effects 

of the activity in respect of infrastructure and community facilities. 

25. (reassessment of contributions) Any portion of the contributions remaining unpaid on the 

anniversary of the date of granting the consent shall be adjusted by applying any change in 

the Producer Price Index – Construction between the date of consent and the most recent 

anniversary of the date of consent prior to the payment of the contribution. 

Any portion of the contributions remaining unpaid five years after the date of granting of the 

consent shall be fully reassessed in accordance with Council’s current contributions policy 

immediately before the time of payment. 

26. (timing of payment) Pursuant to Rule 22.8.3.3, all contributions shall be paid in full prior to 

the commencement of the use, unless other arrangements satisfactory to the Council have 

been made pursuant to Rule 22.8.5. 

Note: For the purposes of Rule 22.8.3.3, the issue of a building consent shall be deemed to 

be the commencement of the activity. 

27. (wastewater connection) Connect Stage 1 of the development to the public wastewater 

system and pay any contributions associated with the connection. Stage 2 shall not 

commence until four months after Stage 1 is connected to the public system. 

28. (wastewater connection) Connect Stage 2 of the development to the public wastewater 

system and pay any contributions associated with the connection. 

29. (silt retention) Before commencement of any works, adequate silt retention structures as 

detailed in the Auckland Regional Council Technical Publication No. 90 "Erosion and 

Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region" shall be 

installed. These structures shall be maintained and cleaned out as necessary until such time 

as complete grass cover, or other non-erodible surfacing, has been re-established over the 

site. 

30. (protection of roads) All necessary measures shall be provided or implemented to prevent 

the deposition of any slurry, clay or other materials on the roads by vehicles leaving the site. 

Should any of such material be deposited on the road, the excavation and earthworks shall 

cease immediately until it is removed and adequate measures installed on-site to prevent 

further deposition to the satisfaction of the Consents Engineer. 

31. (access, parking and manoeuvring areas) All access parking and manoeuvring areas shall 

be formed to a sealed or concrete standard and marked to the requirements of the Council’s 

Standards for Engineering Design and Construction. 

32. (stormwater detention) Provide on site detention for Stage 2 to limit post-development flows 

from the footprint of Stage 2 to pre-development flows in up to and including the 1 in 10 year 

return event. Details of the detention system together with supporting calculations shall be 

submitted to the Consents Engineer for approval prior to construction. 

33. (financial contributions) Pursuant to Operative Plan Change 62 (Chapter 22), the financial 

contributions as set out in the “Schedule of Financial Contributions”, RMA 54342, Sequence 

002, attached to this consent shall be paid to the Council in full mitigation of the offsite effects 

of the activity in respect of infrastructure and community facilities.

22 



Minutes 

34. (reassessment of contributions) Any portion of the contributions remaining unpaid on the 

anniversary of the date of granting the consent shall be adjusted by applying any change in 

the Producer Price Index – Construction between the date of consent and the most recent 

anniversary of the date of consent prior to the payment of the contribution. 

Any portion of the contributions remaining unpaid five years after the date of granting of the 

consent, shall be fully reassessed in accordance with Council’s current contributions policy 

immediately before the time of payment. 

35. (timing of payment) Pursuant to Rule 22.8.3.3, all contributions shall be paid in full prior to 

the commencement of the use, unless other arrangements satisfactory to the Council have 

been made pursuant to Rule 22.8.5. 

Note: For the purposes of Rule 22.8.3.3, the issue of a building consent shall be deemed to 

be the commencement of the activity. 

The Chairperson closed the hearing at 2.30 p.m. 

CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009 

MAYOR 

* * * * * 

Carried

RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL - Auckland Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?