RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL - Auckland Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 28 November 2008 Resource Consents Hearings Panel 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.
Page 1: RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL MI
Page 5 and 6: 5 28 November 2008 Resource Consent
Page 11 and 12: 11 28 November 2008 Resource Consen

RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL - Auckland Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?