|
Attachment 1
|
Section 42A - Planner's Hearing Report.
|
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 (RM170076)
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.
Site
history
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 Submissions
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.
7 Assessment
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
Permitted
baseline
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.
Shading
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.
Privacy
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.
Construction effects
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.
Conclusion
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.
Policies
(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.
Policies
(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.
Policies
(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.
Other plans
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.
Other matters
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 Conclusion
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 (enforcement@huttcity.govt.nz 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.
Subdivision;
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.
12 Notes
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.
