RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL - Auckland Council

10
28 November 2008
Resource Consents Hearings Panel
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.