RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL - Auckland Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

12 28 November 2008 Resource Consents Hearings Panel 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 <strong>Council</strong> in December 2005 was also relevant.
13 28 November 2008 Resource Consents Hearings Panel 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
Page 1 and 2: RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL MI
Page 3 and 4: 3 28 November 2008 Resource Consent
Page 11: 11 28 November 2008 Resource Consen
Page 15 and 16: 15 28 November 2008 Resource Consen

RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL - Auckland Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?