RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL - Auckland Council

16
28 November 2008
Resource Consents Hearings Panel
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