RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL - Auckland Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4 28 November 2008 Resource Consents Hearings Panel Minutes Ms Peake distributed and read written evidence. Ms Peake’s evidence included photographs. The following was noted: Ms Peake summarised the existing landscape character, described the key elements of the proposal in relation to the existing landscape, and gave a summary of the findings of the report in relation to landscape and visual effects. Ms Peake said that based on the results of the landscape and visual effects, she concluded that the proposal was an appropriate mixed use activity for the location and the design would have positive landscape effects. The development would result in limited visual and amenity effects for neighbours, and these were able to be mitigated to an acceptable level. An assessment of effects of the statutory framework and the planning documents found that the proposal was generally consistent with the objectives and policies of both the Operative District Plan and the Proposed District Plan in relation to landscape and visual amenity matters and she disagreed with the reporting planner in these matters. She concluded that the proposal should not be refused on the basis of landscape or visual effects. In response to questions from the Panel, Ms Peake said that: • The artist’s impression of the building would essentially reflect the landscape plan. • She considered there was some infill occurring now between the town centre and the applicant’s site. • She believed that the town centre should be the main focus of development, however, the proposal was a quality development which could have a point of difference from the town centre and it would serve local residents and people using the reserve. • In her opinion the proposal didn’t necessarily have to be in conflict with the town centre. With regard to the spread of commercial activities, this would depend on design and attractive roadside treatment. Big box type buildings with limited planting were not desirable and the proposal was an opportunity to create mixed use which could be attractive. • She considered there needed to be a point of difference so facilities weren’t duplicated in Huapai, Kumeu and Waimauku. During the course of the hearing a letter dated 27 November 2008 from New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and addressed to Mr Parfiitt was emailed to the Democracy Services Officer. This letter was tabled and circulated. The letter stated NZTA wished to advise the applicant that agreement in principle to the proposed development was based on the requested improvements to the safety of the intersection. NZTA would not be in a position to withdraw the submission until such time that the conditions of consent had been circulated and approved and in particular, this was subject to the preparation of detailed engineering plans. Mr Hyland distributed and read written evidence. The following was noted: Mr Hyland said that it was his view that the traffic effects associated with the proposed development could be accommodated on the existing road network with no more than a minor impact. Mr Hyland described the existing traffic environment and traffic flow. He spoke with regard to traffic safety and the proposed preliminary draft of an upgrade proposal for the SH16 – Tapu Road intersection in consultation with NZTA. The proposed intersection upgrade featured a formal right turn pocket in the centre of SH16 that provided a safe area for right turning traffic to wait if necessary when turning into Tapu Road. Mr Hyland discussed traffic generation, parking and loading and servicing. He described the access to the site, the traffic impacts of the proposal and the impacts of traffic generated by the proposal. 10.27 a.m. - 10.46 a.m. Morning tea adjournment. Mr Hyland continued to read written evidence. Mr Hyland discussed impacts of revised on-street parking, impacts on Tapu Road/SH16 intersection and the impacts during construction. In conclusion he said that the traffic and parking effects of the proposal could be accommodated on the road network without compromise of its function, capacity or safety.
5 28 November 2008 Resource Consents Hearings Panel Minutes In response to questions from the Panel, Mr Hyland said that: • He was comfortable with the 90 o parking on Tapu Road; in terms of sight lines there was not a traffic concern and there shouldn’t be any conflict when backing out. Tapu Road had relatively low flows in any case and when approaching the intersection vehicles were not travelling at high speed. • He was not aware of any proposal for a bypass and he did not see that a designation for widening would be needed in the perceived future. • Gateways can have a calming effect upon entry to a town; he believed there was benefit in having a gateway at this point as it signalled entry to a commercial zone. Ms Jones distributed and read written evidence. 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 included 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 area so that the root zone was protected. Mr Riethmaier, proprietor of Reflection Treatment Systems distributed and read written evidence. Mr Riethmaier addressed the wastewater treatment and disposal for both Stage 1 and 2 of the development. Mr Elliott (Civil and Structural Engineer) distributed and read written evidence. Mr Elliott’s evidence focused on Infrastructure i.e. Water Supply, Stormwater Discharge and StormwaterTreatment. In response to questions from the Panel, Mr Elliott said that the Poplar tree would affect an area about one and a half times its height and he was of the opinion that there was enough separation from the building at this stage so that the Poplar roots wouldn’t actually affect it. In this regard he confirmed he was satisfied that the building foundations would not be affected by the Poplar roots. Mr Parfitt distributed and read written evidence. The following was noted: Mr Parfitt drew the Panel’s attention to the fact that the building complied with the height in relation to boundary rules. This had been confirmed by the architects, however there may be a shutter screen that did not comply and if that was an issue it could be designed to comply. The existing Poplar tree was the only significant tree on the site but it could be removed if necessary and replaced with a more appropriate specimen. Mr Parfitt discussed the site and locality and the District Plan provisions. He said that the applicant proposed an attractive two building complex with each building containing retail or a café/restaurant on the ground floor and retail above. The buildings were to be built with sustainability being an important feature. He noted that the site was zoned Medium Intensity Residential in the Proposed District Plan 2000 (PDP). In the Huapai Kumeu Waimauku Structure Plan it was shown as retail service. This zoning had never proceeded into any approved statutory document, but when one considered the location, size and past uses of the land, it was in town planning terms probably the most appropriate zoning of the land. He believed the only reason these provisions were not included in the PDP was due to a lack of capacity of the sewerage system. The site did not take over an existing residential building so that the residential coherence of the street (Tapu Road and SH16) was not broken by non-residential activity in the centre of what was a coherent residential street. The site had not been used for residential purposes for a very long time, if ever. The proposed activities were not noisy, did not generate dust, fumes or vibrations and would be mostly occupied during normal work hours. To avoid unnecessary night time activities the carparking area would be locked at night.
Page 1 and 2: RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL MI
Page 3: 3 28 November 2008 Resource Consent
Page 7 and 8: 7 28 November 2008 Resource Consent
Page 9 and 10: 9 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?