RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL - Auckland Council

14
28 November 2008
Resource Consents Hearings Panel
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.