29 November 2017
Order Paper for the meeting to be held in the
Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt,
Thursday 21 December 2017 commencing at 9.00am
The purpose of the hearing is to consider a resource consent application for a two lot subdivision and construction of a second dwelling at 21 Mason Street, Moera, that does not comply with the net site area and bulk and location provisions of the District Plan.
Cr M Cousins (Chair)
Cr S Edwards (Deputy Chair)
Mr R Schofield (Independent Commissioner)
For the dates and times of Council Meetings please visit www.huttcity.govt.nz
Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on
Thursday 21 December 2017 commencing at 9.00am.
1. Resource Consent Application for 21 Mason
Street, Moera, Lower Hutt
Report No. HSC2017/5/155 5
2. Submission from Mr P. Garrity, 19 Mason Street, Moera, Lower Hutt (17/1819)
Report No. HSC2017/5/156 83
3. Officer’s section 42A report for resource consent application
to undertake a 2 lot fee simple subdivision and the construction of a new
dwelling at 21 Mason Street
Report No. HSC2017/5/157 by the Senior Resource Consents Planner 87
27 November 2017
Report no: HSC2017/5/155
Application for 21 Mason Street, Moera, Lower Hutt
Application - Subdivision and Land Use
Appendix 1 - Subdivision Scheme Plans
Appendix 2 - Dwelling Plans
Appendix 3 - Landscaping Plans
Appendix 4 - Certificate of Title
Appendix 5 - Written Approvals
27 November 2017
Report no: HSC2017/5/156
Submission from Mr P. Garrity, 19 Mason Street, Moera, Lower Hutt
Submission from P. Garrity
27 November 2017
Report no: HSC2017/5/157
section 42A report for resource consent application to undertake a 2 lot fee
simple subdivision and the construction of a new dwelling at 21 Mason Street
Section 42A - Planner's Hearing Report.
Appendix 1 to Planner's Report: Pre-hearing meeting - Chairperson's report
Appendix 2 to Planner's Report: Hudson Moody - Qualifications
Section 42A - Planner's Hearing Report.
Address: 21 Mason Street, Moera
Applicant: The McLean Trust
Proposal: Construction of a new two storey dwelling and 2 lot subdivision
1. Stephen Dennis states
1.1 I am a Senior Resource Consents Planner at Hutt City Council. I hold a Masters in Planning (MPLAN) and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Otago. I am currently an Intermediate member of the New Zealand Planning Institute.
1.2 I have worked in the Resource Consents Team at Hutt City Council since December 2013. I have 4 years of planning experience.
1.3 I have visited the site and am familiar with the surrounding area.
2. Summary of the proposal
2.1 The proposal is to construct a new two storey dwelling to the rear of the application site and undertake a 2 lot subdivision around the proposed dwelling and existing dwelling located to the front of the site.
2.2 The new 3 bedroom dwelling will measure approximately 71.4m2 and be sited perpendicular with the southern site boundary, located approximately 1.28m from the northern boundary, generally 2.93m from the southern boundary, 1.74m from the western boundary and 1.5m from the eastern boundary.
2.3 Each proposed lot is detailed below:
· Proposed Lot 1 will have a site area of 274.3m2 and a frontage of approximately 14.83m to Mason Street. Proposed Lot 1 will accommodate an existing single storey dwelling and associated decks (131m2) a shed (9.5m2), and carport to the west of the site (15m2). An existing vehicle crossing to the west of the site will be widened to provide for access to both proposed lots. The proposed lot will accommodate 1 car parking space.
· Proposed Lot 2 would be a rear site having a gross site area of 304.6m² and a net site area of 240.5m2. This allotment will accommodate a new two storey dwelling unit (71.4m2). Proposed Lot 2 will have frontage of 3.6m to Mason Street via an access leg to the west of the application site. Car parking would be stacked; provided within the access leg and via a proposed carport (15m2).
2.4 The applicant proposes hard and soft landscaping associated with lot 2 as defined on the landscaping plan submitted with the application.
2.5 A copy of the application plans are provided in Appendices 1-5 of the application.
3 The site and locality
3.1 The application site is located at 21 Mason Street, Moera. The site of 579m2 contains an existing single storey dwelling located to the front portion of the site which is currently fenced along all boundaries including an internal fence which segregates the existing dwelling from the rear of the site which is vacant (following the proposed lot boundaries). A number of shrubs are located along the site boundaries and one medium sized tree located on the eastern boundary of the site.
3.2 The site is relatively flat and is served by one vehicle crossing located to the west of the property. A part gravel driveway extends from the north-western corner of the site to the rear of the section.
3.1 The site adjoins residential properties to the east, west and south with further residential properties opposite Mason Street to the north. The surrounding area is also predominately defined by residential activities.
3.3 Housing typologies within the immediate and surrounding environment are mixed; including standalone and semi-detached dwellings, both single and double storey in height, with various forms of legal ownership (fee simple, cross-lease and unit tile properties).
3.4 The site is located within the medium density general residential activity area of the city’s District Plan. The site has no special notations or restrictions registered in the District Plan that may affect the proposal, however, it is located within the 1 in 100 year flood return area of the Waiwhetu Stream.
3.5 The application site is legally described as Lot 102 Block III Hutt Valley Settlement and Defined on DP 8229 within the Computer Freehold Register WN377/43. The sites’ certificate of title lists interests relating to land settlement, a drainage easement, and a building line restriction. The proposed car port on lot 1 will encroach into this building line restriction; the applicant has proposed to apply to uplift this interest. There are no other interests registered on the Certificate of Title which may affect the proposal.
3.6 The site has a number of building permits/consents associated with development; these relate to additions to the existing dwelling in 1952 (BP11696) and re-location of the existing dwelling to the northern extent of the site in in 2015 (BC150186). It is noted that there are no building plans or permit information relative to the establishment of the original dwelling although historical aerials illustrate that the dwelling was present prior to 1941.
4 Consents sought
4.1 The District Plan is the appropriate planning instrument for assessing the proposed activity is the City of Lower Hutt District Plan. The site is within the medium density general residential activity area. The relevant rules are contained within chapters 4A, 11 and 14.
4.2 The activity status of the proposal is Discretionary (unrestricted) under the following rules:
· The proposal would not comply with the relevant permitted activity conditions of the medium density general residential activity area. Rule 4A 2.4(a) states that except where stated in the general rules any permitted, controlled or restricted discretionary activity which fails to comply with any of the relevant permitted activity conditions, or relevant requirements of chapter 14 – general rules is a discretionary activity.
· The proposed subdivision will not comply with the allotment design standards (including minimum allotment size, shape factor, compliance with permitted activity conditions) and terms (for controlled activities) and does not trigger any of the restricted discretionary rules under Rule 11.2.3. Rule 11.2.4(i) states that any subdivision which is not a permitted, controlled or restricted discretionary activity is a discretionary activity.
4.3 The proposal fails to comply with the following permitted activity conditions:
· 4A 2.1.1(a)(iii) On residential sites identified on the planning maps as Medium Density Residential, the minimum net site are per permitted activity (excluding home occupations and accessory buildings) shall be 300m2: the net site area for dwelling 1 would be 274.3m2 (lot 1) and for dwelling 2 it would be 240.5m2 (lot 2).
· 4A 2.1.1(b) Minimum 3m front yard and a minimum 1m side yard: The proposed carports would be located within 1m of the side yard between the boundaries of lots 1 and 2. The proposed car port on lot 1 will be located approximately 2m from the front boundary.
· 4A 2.1.1(c) Recession Planes (2.5m + 45º): The proposed dwelling unit will breach the recession plane envelope when measured from the eastern and southern boundaries (respectively approximately 1.013m and 0.523m). It is noted that the extent of the recession plane non-compliance varies in its location/scale given the proposed dwellings proximity and orientation to the external boundaries (being at an oblique angle to the eastern and western boundaries of the site).
· 4A 2.1.1(e): Maximum site coverage 40%: the existing dwelling on proposed lot 1 will have a site coverage of approximately 56.6% (including decks over 0.5m in height).
5 Consideration under the Resource Management Act 1991
5.1 As a Discretionary Activity the application must be assessed in accordance with the provisions of sections 104 and 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act). The process for considering a Discretionary Activity is as follows:
(i) To identify the relevant section 104 matters;
(ii) As part of the overall discretion in section 104B, weigh the relevant matters under section 104.
5.2 I consider that the relevant section 104 matters are as follows:
· Any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity:
· The relevant provisions of the District Plan, objectives, policies and rules; and
· Part II of the Act.
5.3 The matters raised by submitters are summarised in section 6 below.
5.4 An assessment of effects of the proposal on the environment, including the matters raised in submissions, is provided in section 7.
5.5 The relevant objectives and policies and Part II criteria are set out and discussed in Sections 8 and 9 of this report.
6.1 The application was Limited Notified to one property at 19 Mason Street on 25 July 2017.
6.2 A submission was received from Philip Maxwell Garrity (the owner and occupier of 19 Mason Street) on 18 August 2017. The submission is in opposition and the submitter wishes to be heard. A copy of the submission is provided in the Hearing order papers.
6.3 A summary of the key issues raised in the submission from the affected party at 19 Mason Street are as follows:
· The proposed lot sizes will not be consistent with the density character of the area where most lots remain at their original size of 550-650m2 and those that have been subdivided are above 300m2.
· The proposal is beyond what could be expected to be developed on the application site which was investigated by the submitter at the time of purchasing their property.
· The proposed density and district plan breaches will adversely affect amenity through loss of sunlight, view, privacy, general interaction with neighbours and will produce increased noise from additional residential activity.
· The proposal will place further pressure on capacity of infrastructure to accommodate additional development given the density and previous reported events by the submitter; these include sewer blockages, and ponding around stormwater sump and kerb in the street. The subdivision will create a precedent where further pressure on services will result.
· The carport on lot 1 will likely not be utilised due to its orientation to the street.
· There will be congestion with respect to cars parking in the street.
· Health and safety will be adversely affected as the Lot 2 carport will restrict access for the fire service and associated fire fighting requirements.
6.4 The matters raised within the submissions will be addressed in the following section 7 of this report. With exception to the last matter relating to fire safety and access which is addressed below.
6.5 With respect to the submitters point relating to fire safety and access it is understood that this is a building code matter which would not require vehicular access for emergency vehicles to the dwelling of lot 2. Irrespective of this point comment has been sought from the New Zealand Fire Service for the sake of clarification; this is yet to be received.
6.6 A pre-hearing meeting was held on 19th October. The Chairperson’s report is attached as Appendix 1 of this report.
of actual and potential environmental effects
An assessment of effects on the environment, including the issues/matters raised by submitters, is detailed within the assessment below. The District Plan’s objectives, policies and rules are of particular relevance in terms of section 104(1)(b), and together with the Part II criteria listed in section 10 of this report, form the basis of any determination as to whether an adverse effect may be regarded as acceptable (or otherwise).
7.1 The following definitions contained in the Act apply in this case:
“Environment” is defined as
(a) Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; and
(b) All natural and physical resources; and
(c) Amenity values; and
(d) The social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural conditions which affect the matters stated in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this definition or which are affected by those matters.
“Amenity values” are defined as
those natural and physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence and cultural and recreational attributes.
7.2 The environmental effects which Council considers relevant when assessing this proposal are as follows:
· Residential amenity effects;
· Residential character effects;
· Streetscape amenity effects;
· Traffic and parking effects;
· Effects on existing natural features and topography;
· Servicing and engineering effects;
· Natural hazard effects;
· Effects on cultural and historical significance;
· Esplanade strips and reserves;
· Construction effects; and
· Positive effects
7.3 Section 104(2) states “…when forming an opinion for the purpose of subsection 1(a), a consent authority may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if a national environmental standard or the plan permits an activity with that effect.”
7.4 Minor boundary adjustments are permitted provided that the conditions for the activity area can be met and no additional allotments are created. The proposal creates an additional lot, so it is considered there is no permitted baseline for the subdivision.
7.5 With respect to land use the permitted baseline for the application site would include the construction of a two storey dwelling and associated accessory buildings providing such developments comply with all relevant permitted activity conditions of the medium density general residential activity area (including general rules of chapter 14); this would include buildings up to 7m in height covering up to 40% of the site and up to 20m in length (noting that they could be more than 20m providing they could fit within two 20º arms measured from a common point on any boundary). With respect to accessory buildings it is also noted that an accessory building may be located within 1m of a side or rear yard providing that it does not measure more than 6m in length. The applicant has provided plans of a permitted accessory building located to the rear of the application site as part of a suite of shading diagrams (see plans in Appendices 2-5 of the application). I accept that this illustrates a reasonable permitted development.
The existing environment
7.6 As identified in the proposal summary, the application site currently accommodates an existing dwelling located to the northern extent of the site. The rear portion of the site is physically separated from the existing dwelling by an internal fence which follows the proposed lot boundaries. The southern (rear) portion of the site is vacant with a number of shrubs and one medium sized tree located to the north-eastern corner.
Assessment of environmental effects as required by s104 of the Act
The following persons have provided written approval to the proposal, therefore this assessment must disregard any effects on these persons:
· Simon Douglas Faulkner, owner and occupier, 23 Mason Street, Moera;
· Tim Goodson, on behalf of Housing New Zealand Corporation, owner with authority to sign on behalf of occupiers, 28 Randwick Crescent.
Residential amenity effects
7.7 The District Plan seeks to protect residential amenity values from the adverse effects of higher dwelling densities. In this case the potential amenity effects are considered to relate to loss of sunlight, daylight, privacy, outlook, general activity and noise as well as the impacts of building bulk and density to the adjoining residential properties.
7.8 The proposed dwelling on lot 2 will not comply with the recession plane requirement of the District Plan when measured from the western and eastern boundaries of the application site which may have adverse effects relative to the shading of adjoining properties.
7.9 The applicant has provided shading diagrams to illustrate the extent of shading of the proposed dwelling on lot 2 compared to an appropriate permitted baseline development on the application site. For the sake of clarity the shading diagrams include information as to the shading of proposed car ports on each proposed lot. It is noted that the proposed carports comply with recession plane requirements of the District Plan.
7.10 The shading diagrams provided have been reviewed by Hudson Moody (cadastral surveyor and shading expert; refer to Appendix 2 of this report for his qualifications), who has provided the following assessment:
“Overall, the diagrams appear to be accurate. It should be noted that the shadow diagrams are not oriented with north up the page. There is no indication as to whether an hour has been applied for daylight saving. The December times appear to have been adjusted by +1hr whereas the March times have not. Given that daylight savings typically runs through until early April, the March times should have been adjusted too.”
“The encroachments are quite small and the orientation of the proposed dwelling serves to mitigate their effects.”
“As noted in the application, the proposed building lies to the south of the dwellings on No. 19 The shading effects generated by the proposed dwelling therefore only affect the yard space of that property. More importantly, the effects are generally occurring late in the day to the southern parts of that yard when the sun is low in the sky. The yard area is of sufficient depth that when compared to the size of the shadows, not all parts of the yard are affected at the same time.“
“The covered area at the rear of No. 19 is located clear of the areas that will be affected by the proposed dwelling.”
“Your summary of the likely effects is correct and that the only time when there is any additional shading of any note is at 7pm in the summer.”
“The shading diagrams are sufficiently accurate to demonstrate the change in shading that will occur. That said, there are some technical details around the times shown which may need to be clarified by the applicant.”
“In my opinion, the difference in shading effects between the permitted activity baseline and the proposed dwelling is minimal and the shading effects on the adjoining property will be no more than minor.”
7.11 While the applicant has stated that daylight saving have been accounted for in the shading diagrams it is suggested that the applicant further clarify the timeframes for the March period as raised by Mr Moody. Irrespective of the correct time illustrated I agree with the assessment above. I acknowledge that there will be additional shading on the neighbouring site at 19 Mason Street, as raised by the submitter. In respect to shading effects I consider that the extent of shading over and above that of permitted the baseline development to be acceptable in line with Mr Moody’s assessment above.
General activity and noise effects
7.12 The submitter has raised concern over the increase in noise and general activity associated with an increased density of development adjoining their property.
7.13 Access to and from both the additional lot (lot 2) and the existing dwelling (lot 1) are located to the west of the site removed from the submitters property to the east. Given this fact I consider movements and general activity to and from the sites will be restricted to the western extent of each proposed lot.
7.14 The private outdoor areas of the existing and proposed dwellings will be located to the north of their respective net site areas. Given the location of the submitters dwelling and associated outdoor areas (to the north and south of the dwelling) the submitter would only be exposed to the immediate activity and associated noise when utilising one of their respective outdoor areas at one time. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed landscaping treatments to the east of proposed lot 2 which adjoins the submitters western boundary and southern outdoor area; species are varied but notably includes Griselinia (a leafy hedge) which will aid in mitigating noise effects and general activity through screening of the private outdoor area of proposed lot 2.
7.15 The proposed dwelling and subdivision has the potential to have privacy effects relative to the adjoining neighbour of 19 Mason Street over and above what may be anticipated on the application site given its two storey nature and more intensive use as an additional dwelling on an undersized lot.
7.16 With respect to the second floor of the proposed dwelling it is noted that there are no windows on the northern or southern elevation while the eastern elevation will accommodate a small set of windows (measuring 0.7m in height and 1.6m in width) and located within a bedroom. This window will face south west over the southern extent of the adjoining neighbouring site of 19 Mason Street. Given the size of the window, the use of the room (generally being limited to certain hours when outdoor areas are not occupied), and orientation of the window to the south-east, I consider any potential privacy effects resulting from the second storey nature of the proposed dwelling to be acceptable.
7.17 While ground floor levels will be raised given the requirement to build above potential flood levels ground floor windows and private outdoor areas of the proposed dwelling will be partially screened by fencing and proposed landscaping. Given the orientation of the proposed dwelling to the north-east views into the neighbouring outdoor area and deck of no. 19 Mason Street across the eastern fence line and over landscaping would be at an oblique angle. I consider any such views to be fleeting in nature given the layout of the proposed dwelling (the closest windows/glass doors would be on the northern elevation of the kitchen and dining area).
7.18 Furthermore, the dwelling located at no. 19 Mason Street is located between the primary outdoor living areas of the existing and proposed dwelling at no. 21 Mason Street with grassed areas to the north and south of this neighbouring site. As noted in section 7.14 above the submitter would only be exposed to the immediate activity and therefore potential privacy effects when utilising one of their respective outdoor areas at one time.
7.19 Taking account of the above matters I consider that the potential adverse privacy and overlooking effects associated with the proposal to be acceptable.
Building bulk and density
7.20 Visually the bulk of the development will be most discernible from adjoining properties of lot 2 given that the existing dwelling will remain in its current location to the sites’ northern frontage to Mason Street. The eastern recession plane non-compliance associated with the proposed dwelling of up to 1.013m is considered to be relatively small in scale that it will not be visually different from a permitted building given the nature of non-compliance; this is due to the orientation of the building to the eastern boundary whereby it essentially cuts through the north-eastern corner of the proposed building and is largely isolated to the gable end and roof apex of the proposed dwelling.
7.21 The western boundary recession plane non-compliance is considered to be small in scale and indiscernible when viewed from beyond the owners/occupiers of the immediate adjoining site to the west who have provided written approval to the proposal.
7.22 The proposed dwelling will be located approximately 1.28m from the northern boundary, generally 2.93m from the southern boundary, 1.74m from the western boundary and 1.5m from the eastern boundary (at its closest point). The proposed dwelling will comply with the yards, site coverage, building height and length requirements of the District Plan. While the proposed dwelling does not comply with the net site area permitted activity condition of the District Plan it is considered that the dwelling is modest in footprint, sufficiently separated from yards and of a height and scale that is appropriate and proportionate with the area of proposed lot 2 (being 304.6m² with a net site area of 240.5m2). This is supported by the respective site coverage associated with proposed lot 2 being 35.9% including the proposed car port located to the north-west of the site.
7.23 The site coverage non-compliance associated with the existing dwelling on proposed lot 1 would be 16.6% above that permitted by the District Plan. With respect to this non-compliance it is noted that the majority contributing element in terms of site coverage is the existing dwellings’ decks and proposed carport which considered cumulatively would cover approximately 16.7% of the site. It is noted that that the existing decks, while above 0.5m in height, will not contribute to building bulk when viewed from the adjoining properties or wider environment. The proposed carport will be open in character which, in terms of site coverage, will not contribute significantly to the building bulk exhibited within proposed lot 1.
Effects on outlook
7.24 The submission from the neighbour at 19 Mason Street refers to a loss of view relative to the proposed dwelling on lot 2. In light of the above assessment relating to building bulk it is acknowledged that the proposal involves the construction of an additional dwelling being 2 storeys in height which will affect the outlook from immediately adjoining properties of proposed lot 2.
7.25 The submitter has identified that their view would be adversely affected by the proposed dwelling. While it is acknowledged that views are a valued element associated with property, the District Plan does not set out any particular protection of private views within the medium density residential activity area. Notwithstanding this, for the reasons set out above (in paragraphs 7.20 and 7.22), I consider that any loss in view to the adjoining property at 19 Mason Street will be acceptable.
Amenity effects conclusion
7.26 Overall I consider any adverse amenity effects to the adjoining properties to be acceptable, and that all other properties are sufficiently separated from the proposed dwelling such that any adverse amenity effects will be negligible.
Residential character effects
7.27 The surrounding area is generally characterised by residential development comprising a mix of single storey and two-storey dwellings with densities ranging from low to medium.
7.28 The submitter has raised concern with the density of the proposed lots and associated dwellings stating that the majority of surrounding sites maintain their original size of 550-650m2 and those that have been subdivided are above 300m2 (being the minimum permitted size under the District Plan). This statement is true for those sites immediately abutting the application site and to the south of Mason Street within the residential block on which the site is located. Despite this fact it is noted that not all residential sites within the local environment maintain a 300m2 net site area as provided for by the District Plan.
7.29 On the matter of undersized site examples the sites of 8, 10, 22 and 26 Mason Street all contain undersized sites (ranging from 130m2 to 287m2) with more examples located on surrounding road networks such as Randwick Road. The building typologies of undersized sites also range with examples of semi-detached units and standalone dwellings, some of which are two stories in height.
7.30 While the proposed lots and dwellings will be of a higher density than those immediately abutting residential sites (and more generally those to the south of Mason Street) they are considered to be consistent with, and comparable to, the wider character of the area. The proposed lots will contain individual dwellings situated on separate lots accommodating both a single storey and two storey dwelling in keeping with the residential character and density of residential development evident in the local environment.
7.31 Furthermore I do not consider the scale of non-compliance in terms of lot size is significant (respectively 25.7m2 and 59.5m2) particularly when compared to other sites in the surrounding environment. Additionally it is noted that the proposed dwelling is modest in footprint (71.4m2) and is residential in nature and appearance.
7.32 On the basis of the above matters I consider any potential adverse effects on residential character are acceptable.
Streetscape amenity effects
7.33 The proposal will include two new carports (one on proposed lot 1 and one on proposed lot 2). The car ports will be staggered in terms of distance from the road with the car port on lot 1 being approximately 2m from the front boundary and the car port on lot 2 being approximately 6.6m from the front boundary.
7.34 In terms of the proposed carports while these will have an impact on streetscape amenity these structures are not considered to be overly bulky or dominant in form given their open nature. Furthermore I consider the proposed carport on lot 2 to be sufficiently set back from the street. The 1m non-compliance associated with the car port on proposed lot 1 is considered to be small in scale accounting for the open nature of the car port. Overall I consider the potential streetscape amenity effects to be less than minor.
Natural hazard effects
7.35 The proposal has the potential to create natural hazard effects on the surrounding environment as the site is located within the in 1:100 year flood return area for the Waiwhetu Streams identified by the Greater Wellington Regional Council. The proposed floor level of the new dwelling seeks to address the flood risk posed to the subject site by raising the minimum floor level of the dwelling (0.4m-0.6m in height above existing ground level). This will result in a floor level being at 2.2m (MSL) when measured from the underside of floor joists/base of the concrete slab. This level was provided by and subsequently confirmed by James Flanagan, Senior Engineer, Greater Wellington Regional Council.
7.36 The applicant has proposed that a consent notice be placed on lots 1 and 2 requiring that any buildings be built above the 1:100 year flood return area. I consider such a condition to be appropriate and necessary to ensure that buildings are built to a minimum level as to mitigate any potential flood risk to the site and its owners/occupants. With registration of a consent notice relating to minimum floor levels and taking into account the matters raised within section 106 of the Resource Management Act I consider the natural hazard effects will be acceptable.
Effects on cultural and historical significance
7.37 There are no identified significant natural, cultural or archaeological resources located on the site. There is no significant vegetation located on the site that requires protection as part of this proposal. Given these factors, any potential cultural, archaeological or natural effects associated with this proposal are considered to be negligible.
Subdivision allotment design and layout
7.38 Proposed lots 1 and 2 will both measure below the 300m2 requirement and will not meet the shape factor for the medium density general residential area. As part of this proposal the applicant has provided the design of the proposed dwelling that will be constructed on lot 2 while lot 1 will accommodate an existing dwelling. The provision of dwelling plans for proposed lot 2 show that the allotments are suitable in their size and shape to accommodate a good standard of residential development. The allotment design and layout effects will be less than minor.
Servicing and engineering effects relating to the subdivision
7.39 The proposal has been assessed by council’s subdivision engineer who considers the proposal can be accommodated within the existing capacity of the infrastructure network subject to meeting council requirements.
7.40 The submitter has raised concern with the capacity of infrastructure and its respective ability to cope with additional development. Specifically the submitter has mentioned that they have previously reported events relating to street ponding and blockage of the sewer main. With respect to these matters comment has been sought from Wellington Water who manage council’s stormwater and sewer assets, I am still awaiting feedback from Wellington Water in relation to a specific comment in relation to capacity.
7.41 I have received additional feedback from council’s subdivision engineer, Philip Murphy. Mr Murphy has stated that previous blockages of the sewer main (which runs east to west through the rear yards of 21 and 19 Mason Street) were located downstream of the submitters property (east) and were caused by clean-wipes and fat and not related to any issue with capacity. Mr Murphy notes that the sewer main was flushed, checked and found to be clear also stating that as 21 Mason Street is at the head of the main any extra flow could be an advantage (additional flushing) rather than a source for additional problems.
7.42 With respect to stormwater capacity and ponding it is noted that proposal complies with the permeable surface permitted activity requirements whereby additional runoff is considered to be comparable to that expect by the District Plan. Mr Murphy has stated that the last report relative to stormwater was on 28.04.2004 where the main was found to be blocked and cleared.
7.43 While I am awaiting additional commentary from Wellington Water, on the basis of the above matters I consider that the proposal can be accommodated within the existing capacity of the infrastructure network subject to meeting conditions of consent recommended by council’s subdivision engineer.
Traffic and parking effects
7.44 The proposal will comply with the parking requirements of the District Plan which requires one car parking space for existing dwellings and 2 parking spaces per new dwelling. Each lot will contain a single carport capable of accommodating a vehicle. Proposed lot 2 will have adequate area to the north of the car port to accommodate an additional car parking space.
7.45 The submitter has raised concern with the orientation of the car port on lot 1 noting that this may lead it to not be used while also stating that the dimensions of the parking space on lot 2 may cause occupants to park on the street due to ease of access to the dwelling. Furthermore, the submitter illustrates concern in relation to the parking of additional vehicles associated with the proposal within the street, specifically towards their property.
7.46 The proposal has been assessed by councils traffic consultant, Bill Barclay (BTP, MNZPI, MEngNZ, CPEng), who has provided the following comments:
“A two-lot subdivision is proposed for a residential site at 21 Mason Street, Moera, as shown on documents prepared by Cuttriss Consultants.
1. Access will be by two driveways immediately adjacent to each other. They will have a combined width no more than 6.0 metres, as required by the District Plan.
2. Proposed Lot 1 will contain the existing dwelling, positioned near the front of the site. It will be served by the northern driveway. The southern driveway will give access to the side yard and vacant rear site.
3. Proposed Lot 1 will have a single car park on the front yard, as required by the District Plan for existing dwellings. Proposed Lot 2 will have room for two car parks, either on the rear part of the section or on the access leg.
4. I support the proposal.”
7.47 I agree with Mr Barclay’s assessment above. The District Plan requires the provision of off-street car parking spaces and the proposal complies with these requirements. With respect to the orientation of the carport on lot 1 I do not consider it to be orientated to a degree where it would not be used. Furthermore it is noted that while the District Plan the provision of off-street car parking spaces any preference to parking in the street would be that of the owners/occupants as this is a public parking area.
7.48 On the basis of the above matters I consider the effects of servicing to be acceptable.
Site contamination effects
7.49 The property is not identified as being contaminated within the Greater Wellington Regional Council’s Selected Landuse Register. Based on a review of council’s historic aerial maps that indicate the site has been used for residential purposes which is not considered a typical land use that is likely result in site contamination, the effects will be less than minor.
Esplanade strips and reserves
7.50 As the site does not contain any natural watercourses over an average width of 3m, the provisions relating to esplanade strips and reserves are not applicable.
7.51 There will be effects occurring as a result of the earthworks and construction required for the erection of buildings, creation of access and the installation of services. The effects can result in noise, dust and general disturbance to the surrounding area. The District Plan anticipates residential development on the application site and with consideration of the permitted baseline (such as a permitted accessory building) I consider any construction effects associated with the proposal to be temporary in nature and less than minor.
7.50 My overall conclusion is that the environmental effects of the proposal will be acceptable.
8 Relevant plan provisions
8.1 The relevant objectives and policies are set out below along with an assessment of the proposal against them.
Objective 4A 1.1.1 Residential Character and Amenity Values
To maintain and enhance the amenity values and residential character of the General Residential Activity Area.
(c) To ensure residential amenity values are retained, protected and enhanced through the establishment of a net site area per dwelling house.
(d) That adverse effects arising from noise, dust, glare, light spill and odour be managed.
(e) That vegetation and trees which add to the particular amenity values of the area be retained where practicable.
8.2 Medium Density Residential Development – Objective 4A 1.1.2
To ensure opportunity is made for medium density residential development around some commercial centres, along major transport routes, and where amenity values will not be affected adversely and where there is appropriate servicing of development.
(a) That opportunity for higher dwelling densities be made along major transport routes, around some commercial centres, in the residential area between Jackson Street and The Esplanade, Petone, where existing dwelling densities are higher, and where amenity values will not be affected adversely and where there is appropriate servicing of development.
(b) To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of higher dwelling densities on the surrounding area, caused by height of buildings, intensity, scale and location.
(c) That medium density development be encouraged where it is in general accordance with the direction provided by the Design Guide for Medium Density Housing (Appendix 19 of the Design Guide) and maintains and enhances on site amenities and consistency with the surrounding residential character and minimises impact on the natural environment.
Objective 4A 1.2.2 Building Height, Scale, Intensity and Location
To avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects caused by building height, intensity and location on the amenity values of adjacent residential sites and the residential character of the surrounding residential area.
(a) To establish a minimum net site area and maximum site coverage requirement to ensure medium density development is achieved.
(b) To establish a minimum net site area and maximum site coverage to ensure opportunity is provided for higher density residential development where appropriate, without affecting adversely the amenity values.
(c) To ensure all new development is of a height and scale, which is compatible with surrounding residential development.
(d) To ensure a progressive reduction in height of buildings the closer they are located to a site boundary, to maintain adequate daylight and sunlight to adjoining properties.
(e) To manage the siting of all buildings so as to minimise detraction from the character and visual attractiveness of the surrounding residential activity area.
(f) To manage the siting of all buildings so as to minimise detraction from the amenities of adjoining properties.
(g) To establish a minimum permeable surface area to assist with the sustainable management of stormwater.
8.3 It is acknowledged that the District Plan also contains objectives and policies specific to medium density residential development, such policies illustrate that higher density development is appropriate where it is consistent with the Design Guide, and also that some impact on the character of an area is acceptable in association with new higher density development. As the District Plan does not require assessment against the design guide for singular additional dwellings/lots (as opposed to proposals for 3 or more dwellings) I have not considered it necessary to assess the proposal against the design guide.
8.4 The proposed dwellings and lots include various non-compliances with the permitted activity conditions, on assessing the effects of these non-compliances I have been able to conclude that the effects will be minor overall and therefore they will not be to a degree where the effects on residential character and amenity is unacceptable. It is acknowledged that the proposal also includes a number of non-compliances with the subdivision standards and terms, however, based on my effects assessment in section 7 of this report I consider the subdivision element of the proposal to also be consistent with District Plan objectives and policies. On this basis the proposal is considered to be consistent with the above objectives and policies.
8.5 Rule 4A 2.4.1 identifies that the matters contained in sections 104 and 105, and in Part II of the Act shall apply and the degree of compliance or non-compliance with any relevant Permitted Activity Conditions are assessment matters for discretionary activities. Assessment in accordance with section 104 and 105 of the Act is contained within section 7 of this report. Part II assessment can be found in section 9. The degree of non-compliance has been considered within section 4 and the effects of this non-compliance within section 7.
8.6 I am therefore satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the above and objectives and policies.
Objectives and Policies Conclusion
8.7 My overall conclusion is that the proposals are consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the District Plan.
8.8 I have given regard to the relevant national environmental standards; other regulations; national policy statements; New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010; regional policy statement/proposed regional policy statement; or plan/proposed plan.
8.9 It is acknowledged that there is no explicit reference to ‘precedent’ in the Resource Management Act. However, the matter of precedent can be considered in respect of resource consent applications by virtue of s104(c) which allows consent authorities to have regard to ‘any other matter’ when determining an application for resource consent. Precedent is relevant where the granting of a resource consent would cause an expectation that similar consents would be granted on sufficiently similar circumstances. District Plan integrity can also be challenged where the granting of a resource consent is outside what the plan anticipates to the degree that a reasonable person would consider the integrity of the plan to be challenged.
8.10 The proposal is considered to generally be consistent with the intent of the Objectives and Policies for the medium density general residential activity area with an acceptable scale of environmental effects; on this basis it does not represent any potential to undermine the integrity of the District Plan if granted. Any potential future development of other residential sites will continue to be assessed on a case by case basis and on the merits of each subject application.
8.11 I do not believe there are any other matters that need to be taken into account in determining this application.
9 Part II of the Act
9.1 Part II sets out the purpose and principles of the Act (section 5); matters of national importance the consent authority must recognise and provide for when determining a resource consent (section 6); other matters the consent authority must have particular regard to (section 7); and provision for the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (section 8).
9.2 The purpose of the Act as set out in section 5 is to promote “the sustainable management of natural and physical resources while managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while… avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”
9.3 In determining the proposal against section 5 of the Act, I consider that the proposal will promote the sustainable use of natural and physical resources, as it involves creating multiple medium density dwelling units within an established urban area. The units will be compact in form, well designed and on balance will meet the aims of the design guide for medium density housing.
9.4 Given the above factors, the proposal is considered that the proposal is consistent with section 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
9.5 Section 6 of the Act lists matters of national importance. It is considered that none of the matters of national importance are relevant to this proposal; in particular it is not identified as an outstanding natural feature or landscape.
9.6 Section 7 of the Act lists a number of other matters that Council shall have particular regard to when considering such an application. Under section 7 the following matters are considered applicable:
(b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:
(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:
(f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:
9.7 It is considered that the proposal is not contrary to section 7 of the Act for the reasons set out in the assessment of effects, and that the proposal represents an efficient use of land that is supported by Part II of the Act.
9.8 Section 8 of the Act requires that the Council, in achieving the purpose of the Act, in managing the use, development and protection of the natural and physical environment, to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is considered the proposal is not contrary to section 8 of the Act. It is noted the subject site is not adjacent to any land subject to the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Act 2009 or Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Act 2014.
10.1 Resource consent is sought for a two lot subdivision and the construction of a new dwelling that does not comply with the minimum net site area, minimum front yard, side yard, maximum site coverage and recession plane requirements of the District Plan. The proposal is a Discretionary Activity within the General Residential Activity Area of the city’s District Plan.
10.2 Whilst there was one submission in opposition to the proposal, I do not consider that it should be declined given the absence of any significant adverse environmental effects as identified in section 7 of this report.
10.3 I believe the proposal represents an appropriate use on this site and that it is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the District Plan and Part II of the Resource Management Act 1991.
10.4 My recommendation is therefore that resource consent may be granted under Section 104B of the act, subject to the following conditions.
11 Suggested conditions of consent
If the committee resolves to grant subdivision and land use resource consents, the following may be considered as conditions of that consent:
Land use (conditions apply to both stages of associated subdivision);
11.1 My recommendation is therefore that resource consent may be granted under Section 104B of the act, subject to the following conditions.
11.2 That the proposal is carried out substantially in accordance with the information and approved plans (ref: Drawing number 28540SCH, prepared by Cuttriss Consultants Ltd, dated February 2016; Drawing Nos.601-605, dated 23.11.17 prepared by Prime Designs Ltd; and Project No.2660 Drawing 02 prepared by David Goodyear dated 5.10.16) submitted with the application and held on file at the council.
11.3 That the consent holder keeps a copy of this decision on site when work starts and makes it available on request to council staff.
11.4 That the consent holder advises the council (firstname.lastname@example.org or (04) 560 1044) at least two working days before any work starts on site; and that the consent holder also supplies the name, phone number and address of the main contractor and, if applicable, the same details for the earthworks company.
Important note: When giving notice of a start date, a compliance officer will suggest an on-site meeting to run through a checklist of things to make sure the project runs as smoothly as possible. This service is included in the resource consent application fee. Using it could avoid difficulties later on.
11.5 That the consent holder ensures all development and construction work complies with the provisions of NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics - Construction noise.
11.6 That the consent holder ensures the landscaping detailed in the landscaping plans (Project No.2660 Drawing 02 prepared by David Goodyear dated 5.10.16) shall be undertaken and completed as soon as practicable within the next available planting season following completion of construction works of the proposed dwellings on lot 2. The consent holder shall replace any seeding or planting that fails to become fully established within 12 months of completing construction of the dwellings.
Note: Should this require the replacement of certain species (where deep rooting systems are anticipated or corresponding to site conditions or location) the applicant may substitute particular species following consideration and approval of Team Leader, Resource Consents.
11.7 That the consent holder replaces any dead or dying plants for a period of four years from the date of planting.
11.8 That the consent holder shall ensure that the layout of all car parks and manoeuvring areas shall comply with the provision of AS/NZS 2890.1-2004.
11.9 That the consent holder ensures that the underside of floor joists/base of the concrete slab of the proposed dwelling on proposed lot 2 will be built to 2.2m (MSL) or above the 1:100 Waiwhetu Stream flood extent as identified by Greater Wellington Regional Council.
Note: the purpose of this condition is to ensure floor levels are at an adequate height should subdivision and subsequent consent notice not be undertaken prior to construction of the dwelling.
11.10 That the proposal is carried out substantially in accordance with the information and approved plans (ref: Drawing number 28540SCH, prepared by Cuttriss Consultants Ltd, dated February 2016; Drawing Nos.601-605, dated 23.11.17 prepared by Prime Designs Ltd; and Project No.2660 Drawing 02 prepared by David Goodyear dated 5.10.16) submitted with the application and held on file at the council.
11.11 The consent holder shall pay a contribution to Council’s Reserves Purchases and Development Account at Council’s standard rate of 6.5% of the value of one additional residential allotment or capped at $10,000 per allotment whichever is the lesser. The amounts required will be determined on the basis of a market value assessment from a registered valuer. It is the consent holder’s responsibility to instruct the valuer and supply Council with this assessment. The amount to be paid will be determined when the consent holder submits the qualified valuer’s assessment.
11.12 That the consent holder pays the council an engineering fee to meet the cost of work carried out by the council subdivision engineer in assessing, inspecting, testing and approving water, sewer and stormwater services, access or any other aspect of the proposal so assessed by the engineer or any representatives of the engineer (as distinct from work which must be monitored as a result of any building consent). That fee is 3.43 percent of the consent holder’s construction costs (including GST) and is calculated using a scale of engineering fees based on the number of new lots created. The minimum fee is $150.00, irrespective of whether any construction work is necessary. Payment is necessary before or at the time of applying for a section 224(c) certificate.
11.13 That the consent holder ensures vehicles and machinery leaving the site do not drop dirt or other material on roads or otherwise damage road surfaces; and that if such spills or damage happen, the consent holder cleans or repairs roads to their original condition, being careful not to discharge the material into any stream, stormwater system or open drainage channel in the
11.14 That the consent holder installs and connects 100mm sewer, 100mm stormwater and 20mm water service leads to the public mains for lot 2 (and adjust any existing services if necessary) in accordance with the council’s codes and standards.
Note: The consent holder must apply for new water connections at the customer services counter of the Council Building, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt. GHD Ltd processes applications on behalf of Wellington Water Ltd, which is a council-controlled company in charge of council water and drainage assets. The GHD Ltd contact person is Tom Mulvihill (tel. (04) 495 5812). GHD Ltd may impose special requirements or conditions for new connections depending on, among other things, the existing reticulation system’s condition and layout, flow rates, pressure zones and proposed future work. It is important the consent holder makes an application early in the design or construction phase. The council recommends that the consent holder makes this application before submitting engineering plans to the council subdivision engineer.
Please note that it is now council policy that only existing sewer and stormwater laterals less than 25 years old and only existing water connections of polyethylene material can be utilised for a new dwelling or new vacant lot, otherwise they (including the toby in the case of the water connection) are to be renewed and/or sealed off at the mains if not replaced in the same location.
11.15 That the consent holder submits a copy of the approved water connection application form (signed by GHD Ltd) when applying for the section 224(c) certificate.
11.16 That the consent holder arranges for a certifying drainlayer to inspect and verify that the section of existing sewer from lot 1 that will be within lot 2 is in sound condition and if not, to be made so; and that the consent holder provides written certification from the drainlayer before or at the time of applying for a section 224(c) certificate.
11.17 That the consent holder constructs a new standard concrete vehicle crossing to serve lot 1 and reinstates the existing cracked and broken vehicle crossing to lot 2 in accordance with the council’s codes and standards.
11.18 That the consent holder severs all cross-boundary services, including the existing garden water tap, within lot 2.
11.19 That the consent holder submits two copies of engineering plans for the above construction work to the council subdivision engineer for approval; that the plans provide information on the materials to be used, including the size, type and class of pipes, as well as indicate pipe gradients; and that all this work is carried out in accordance with the approved plan. Please note that this condition is necessary, even for minor works, as the engineering approval letter will list further engineering requirements in regard to Corridor Access Requests, pipe materials, inspections, as-built information, etc.
11.20 That the consent holder appoints an approved contractor or contractors to complete the works to the approved design; and that the consent holder submits to the council subdivision engineer for approval the name, contact details and experience of the contractor(s) at the time of submitting engineering plans for approval. The approved contractor(s) must give a minimum of 24 hours’ notice to the council subdivision engineer before starting work.
11.21 That the consent holder provides underground telephone and electrical services to lot 2 in accordance with the specifications and requirements of the relevant authority.
11.22 That the consent holder provides the council with written confirmation from Chorus (or the equivalent network supplier) and Wellington Electricity Lines Ltd that they are satisfied with the supply of their utilities to each lot.
11.23 That the consent holder provides the council with written confirmation from a surveyor that all existing services have been adjusted so they are contained within the lot (or are protected by an appropriate easement) and that the ends of all abandoned lines have been sealed in accordance with council requirements, or alternatively that the consent holder provides the council with written confirmation from a surveyor that no such adjustments and sealing are necessary.
11.24 That the consent holder provides appropriate easements for public and private services where necessary, with the easements shown as a memorandum of easement on the land transfer title plan. The consent holder must show easements for public services on a plan with a minimum three-metre width centred over the service, or twice the depth of the trench, whichever is greater; show the council as the grantee in gross; and engage a lawyer at the consent holder’s expense to prepare easement documents.
11.25 That, in accordance with section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the council registers a consent notice on the certificate of title of lot 2 to ensure any dwellings built on these lots have a minimum floor level above the 1 in 100 year flood level from the Waiwhetu Stream.
11.26 That the consent holder provides a benchmark in the form of a new survey peg or other permanent mark so the site’s minimum floor level can be easily determined; and that the consent holder records this benchmark – and the known reduced level – on the as-built and title plans.
11.27 That the consent holder meets the cost of registering consent notices.
11.28 That the consent holder provides the council with two copies of the as-built plan, certified by a surveyor or engineer, showing, where applicable, the levels and alignment of all the mains and road work, and the location of all service connections (and, if applicable, new work within private property) relative to the lot boundaries.
If the committee resolves to grant resource consent, the following may be considered as notes on the consent:
§ The applicant for resource consent, consent holder or any person who made a submission on the application may also appeal this decision to the Environment Court within 15 working days of notice of the decision being received.
§ This resource consent is subject to payment of a Development Contribution Fee under the Council's Development and Financial Contributions Policy.
§ In accordance with section 125 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the consent lapses if not given effect to within five years from the date of the application being granted.
§ This resource consent is specific to the application received by Council. Any changes to the proposal may require a new resource consent and additional application fee.
§ Plans submitted with the application have only been checked for compliance with the City of Lower Hutt District Plan.
§ Any building work associated with the proposed activity should not commence until a building consent has been obtained under the Building Act 2004.
§ The consent holder is reminded that this resource consent is not a licence to create adverse effects. You still have a duty under the Act to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects. Notwithstanding any resource consents held, section 17 of the Act continues to apply and will take enforcement action where necessary.
§ Council may issue an abatement notice if the conditions of this resource consent are not complied with. Contravention of an abatement notice may incur a fine up to $300,000 or two years imprisonment for a natural person and a fine of up to $600,000 to a person other than a natural person.