RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL - Auckland Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6 28 November 2008 Resource Consents Hearings Panel Minutes Mr Parfitt addressed traffic and carparking, visual effects, landscaping, wastewater and stormwater and other services. He requested a resource consent period of 10 years rather than the usual five years. He commented on the submissions and the planning report. In conclusion, he said that resource consent should be granted for the two stage development. The suggested conditions in Mr Green’s report were accepted as forming the basis of consent and Stage 2 could only proceed once there was an alternative wastewater system available, whenever that occurred. It was his view that the proposal was not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the District Plan and the proposal did not generate any adverse effects that could not be avoided, remedied or mitigated. In response to questions from the Panel, Mr Parfitt said that: • The applicant would consider removing the Poplar tree and replacing it with another substantial tree, although the applicant didn’t want to cover the place with trees. • If necessary people could work in the offices on weekends, obtaining access with a control device. • He thought the Huapai and Kumeu town centres were in need of revitalisation. Kumeu, Huapai and this proposal should be able to thrive. • He did not think the development proposed would conflict with Kumeu and Huapai. Council Officers: Mr Green, Council’s Development Engineer addressed the Panel. The following was noted: Mr Green thought that it would be prudent to make minor changes to make sure the detention worked. There were two storage tanks, and his concern related to the situation when tanks were full and it continued to rain – he didn’t believe this had been sufficiently dealt with. He suggested converting one of the tanks to be a proper stormwater detention tank with storage in place to cope with those storm events or that an additional tank be provided for that purpose. In terms of run off from car parking areas, he believed it would be prudent to provide detention for the car park water and that this could be done by deepening the swales. Mr Green said that at Stage 2 it would be good to have a specific condition saying that detention should be provided to limit post development flows to those of predevelopment in up to, and including, the 10 year storm event. The reason for this being that deficiencies had been identified in the downstream pipe network. Mr Trevelyan, Council’s Manager of Urban Design addressed the Panel. Mr Trevelyan said he thought the proposal was a high quality product with a high quality of design. In his opinion there was no reason why the development proposed couldn’t co-exist with the existing township and he agreed with what the applicant said about there being some pockets of infill in due course. Mr Trevelyan said that if an environment was attractive people would walk rather than drive short distances. In his opinion the area would become one of more mixed use over time. Ms Gardner, the Reporting Planner addressed the Panel. The following was noted: Ms Gardner said that she stood by her recommendation to decline consent. In particular her concern related to the vitality and viability of Huapai’s retail area. Ms Gardner stressed the non residential objectives and policies in the planning documents and her opinion that the development would generate more noise and traffic. In regard to the Kumeu Huapai Central Area Plan and the Kumeu Huapai Waimauku Structure Plan, Ms Gardner said that from her discussions with Policy Planners there had been a clawback from a linear type pattern of development and the focus was now more on a town centre hub. She noted that the asterisk points on the Central Area Plan were not stated as gateway points, but rather they denoted where one entered and exited the township. In response to questions from the Panel, Ms Gardner said that the site had qualities not consistent with the medium intensity of the area. She assumed a potential owner of the site wouldn’t use it for residential purposes; however she felt that the intensity of this proposal was beyond the character of the area. Her concerns were not so much to do with the residential zoning but the intensity of the development.
7 28 November 2008 Resource Consents Hearings Panel Minutes Mr Parfitt presented the right of reply. The following was noted: 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 hinted extensively to the elements picked up by the applicant’s architects. In regard to comments from the reporting planner, Mr Morley said that the town was not contained; it was too late to attempt to contain it. Mr Morley said that as part of the proposal the intersection would be improved for all the people who used the road and that it would be safer than what was currently there. He noted that vehicular activity at the site would not clash with that of vehicle movement in association with the sports ground. Mr Morley said that the site had been used in the past as a Council work depot and that his development proposal was a great improvement on that previous use. He noted that there would be double glazing on the south side of the building to shield the occupiers from road noise. Mr Morley also considered that the building would aid in shielding those residents who lived further up the street (Tahu Road) from road noise. He didn’t believe the comments from the reporting planner about the scale being wrong; he didn’t want to see a small low-profile type building which would under-utilise such a prime site. 12.54 p.m. The Chairperson adjourned the hearing subject to a site visit. 2.30 p.m. The Chairperson closed the hearing at the conclusion of the site visit. The Panel resolved: Craig/Taylor DECISION OF THE RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL That pursuant to Sections 104, 104B, 104D & 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the notified resource consent application by REM Developments Ltd to construct and operate a new commercial complex at 1A Tapu Road, Huapai is granted consent for the following reasons: REASONS FOR DECISION 1. The Panel is satisfied that any potential adverse effects arising from the intensity of vehicle movements will be satisfactorily avoided, remedied or mitigated through the intersection upgrading proposed and the relatively limited extent of the Tapu Road frontage affected by vehicle movements generated by the proposal. We are satisfied that the bulk of the development will not have any effects on landscape or visual amenities that are more than minor and that commercial activity generated by the site will have no more than minor adverse effects on neighbouring residential properties. 2. We consider that the proposed development will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of either the Operative District Plan ("ODP") or Proposed District Plan 2000 ("PDP"). Both Plans make provision for non-residential activities to occur subject to various assessment criteria. The focus of the objectives and policies in respect of non-residential activities is towards ensuring that there are no significant adverse effects on the amenities of adjacent residential properties and these concerns are satisfied in this case. 3. For these reasons we are satisfied that the application passes the gateway tests of section 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991 ("RMA") and can accordingly be considered under section 104 of that Act. In that regard our findings in respect of the limited extent of any adverse effects on the environment and the broad consistency with District Plan provisions, does not preclude the grant of consent. In more positive terms we consider that the proposed development will provide a sustainable use of this land resource, an outcome that would be unlikely if its development was confined to permitted activities under the relevant zone provisions of the District Plans.
Page 1 and 2: RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL MI
Page 3 and 4: 3 28 November 2008 Resource Consent
Page 5: 5 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?