RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL - Auckland Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8 28 November 2008 Resource Consents Hearings Panel Minutes 4. We do not consider that the grant of consent to this application would create any precedent or give rise to concerns regarding the integrity of the District Plans, or their consistent administration, because the site has characteristics which distinguish it from other residential zoned land in the vicinity. 5. The grant of consent to the application will be consistent with the provisions of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement because the land concerned is contained within an area in which urban growth is expected to be accommodated. 6. The grant of consent would be consistent with Vision Rodney because it provides further opportunities for local employment, does not create sprawling development and does not adversely affect the amenity values of the District. 7. We are satisfied that the purpose of the RMA will be better served by granting consent rather than refusing it because the grant of consent will enable the sustainable management of the resources of this area (as represented by the subject site) while avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment and does not prejudice the availability of resources required to meet the likely needs of future generations. THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS THAT WERE CONSIDERED: Overall this application was considered to be a non-complying activity and was considered in terms of sections 104, 104B, 104D and Part 2 of the RMA. OTHER RELEVANT PROVISIONS THAT WERE CONSIDERED: The provisions of the following documents were considered by the Hearings Panel in reaching this decision. National Policy Statement Provisions None applicable New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement Provisions None applicable Auckland Regional Policy Statement Provisions Broadly consistent with 2.5.2.3 (iii) Proposed Regional Policy Statements Provisions None relevant Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal Provisions None applicable Auckland Regional Plan: Air Land and Water Provisions None applicable
9 28 November 2008 Resource Consents Hearings Panel Minutes Plan Provisions Operative District Plan Plan Change Number 26 Residential Provisions Objectives 3D (1)(a) & (b);3H (1); 3I(1). Policies 3D (2)(a)(ii);3H(2)(d)(i) & (iv); 3I (a), (b) & (c). Proposed Plan Provisions Proposed District Plan 2000 Objectives 8.3.1; 8.3.2; 8.3.4; 8.3.5; 8.8.3.1.1; 8.8.3.1.2; 18.3.1. Policies 8.4.1; 8.4.2; 8.4.3; 8.4.4; 8.4.5; 8.8.3.2.1; 8.8.3.2.2; 8.8.3.2.3; 8.8.3.2.4; 18.4.1 & 18.4.4. PREAMBLE This was an application to use a 4430 m² site at the intersection of State Highway 16 and Tapu Road, zoned Medium Intensity Residential under the OPD, and Residential Medium Intensity under the PDP, for a commercial complex comprising office, retail and restaurant uses in two buildings with associated car parking and landscaping. The site the subject of the application had previously been used as a "Works Depot" and more recently for the exhibition of a show home. Because connection to external sewage disposal was not available, the application was proposed in 2 stages, with Stage 1 being serviced by an on-site sewage disposal package system. The area of the site used for the onsite sewage system was to be made available for the development of Stage 2 at such time as a municipal piped sewage disposal system became available. The application was publicly notified and there were 7 submissions in opposition to the application and one neutral submission. None of the submitters attended the hearing to give evidence but an e-mail from the New Zealand Transport Agency to the applicant was tabled indicating that the traffic related concerns of the Agency were likely to be satisfied by the applicant's proposal for the upgrading of the Tapu Road/State Highway 16 intersection. SITE VISIT The Hearing Panel visited the site on 28 November 2008 following the hearing. THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES THAT WERE IN CONTENTION: The principal issues that were in contention were as follows: 1. Whether adverse effects on the environment of neighbouring residential properties as a result of the intensity of the development proposed, including traffic noise and movement and the scale of the proposed buildings, would be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated. 2. Whether the proposed development was contrary to the objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan and Proposed District Plan 2000. 3. Whether the grant of consent to the application would result in a perception that the District Plans were being administered inconsistently and as a consequence public confidence in the integrity of the District Plans might be diminished. 4. Whether the Panel should take into account concerns regarding potential effects on the viability of the main Huapai retail area, having regard to the express prohibition of section 104(3)(a).
Page 1 and 2: RESOURCE CONSENTS HEARINGS PANEL MI
Page 3 and 4: 3 28 November 2008 Resource Consent
Page 5 and 6: 5 28 November 2008 Resource Consent
Page 7: 7 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?