4 May 2018
Order Paper for the meeting to be held in the
Hutt City Council, Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt,
Monday 28 May 2018 commencing at 9.30am
The purpose of the hearing is to consider a 13 lot multi-unit residential development at 11 Randwick Road, Moera, Lower Hutt by RSMG Investments Limited (RM170302)
Cr MJ Cousins (Chair)
Cr S Edwards (Deputy Chair)
Independent Commissioner Robert Schofield
For the dates and times of Council Meetings please visit www.huttcity.govt.nz
Meeting to be held in the Hutt City Council, Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on
Monday 28 May 2018 commencing at 9.30am.
1. Resource Consent Application for 13Residential Units and 15 Lot Subdivision at 11 Randwick Road, Moera (RM170302) (18/683)
Report No. HSC2018/2/65 5
2. Submissions (18/716)
Report No. HSC2018/2/69 115
3. S42a Officer Report for a 13 Lot Multi-Unit Residential Development at 11 Randwick Road, Moera (RM170302) (18/682)
Report No. HSC2018/2/68 by the Resource Consents Planner 120
01 May 2018
Report no: HSC2018/2/65
Resource Consent Application for 13Residential Units and 15 Lot Subdivision at 11 Randwick Road, Moera (RM170302)
Application: Subdivision and Land Use 11 Randwick Road, Moera
Appendix 1: Certificate of Title
Appendix 2: Scheme Plans
Appendix 3: Dwelling Plans
Appendix 4: Landscaping Plans
Appendix 5: Traffic Report
Appendix 6: Flood Displacement Report
Appendix 7: Sun Study
03 May 2018
Report no: HSC2018/2/69
(Mark) Zuo Zheng - RM170302 1/6 Pitt Street
James Taylor RM170302 8 Pitt Street
Author: Susan Haniel
01 May 2018
Report no: HSC2018/2/68
S42a Officer Report for a 13 Lot Multi-Unit Residential Development at 11 Randwick Road, Moera (RM170302)
Planners Section 42a Hearing Report
Appendix 1: Pre Hearing Meeting minutes
Appendix 2: ASSESSMENT - Urban Design
Appendix 3: ASSESSMENT - Traffic
Author: Dan Kellow
Resource Consents Planner
Planners Section 42a Hearing Report
Officer’s section 42a report for resource consent application to construct 13 residential units and undertake a 15 lot subdivision in the Suburban Commercial Activity Area at 11 Randwick Road, Moera. (RM170302)
Address: 11 Randwick Road, Moera
Applicant: RSMG Investments Limited
1. Dan Kellow states
1.1 I am an Environmental Planner contracting to Hutt City Council. I have previously worked for Hutt City Council as the Team Leader Resource Consents and as the Divisional Manager District Plan. I have a Masters of Environmental Studies degree from Victoria University as well as a Bachelor of Commerce. I have 15 years experience in land use planning, regulatory and policy, spending most of that time within local government
1.2 I have visited the site and am familiar with the surrounding area.
2. Summary of the proposal
2.1 The applicant seeks resource consent to construct 13 residential units and undertake a 15 lot subdivision at 11 Randwick Road, Moera. The proposal will create 13 residential allotments, an access lot with the balance lot containing the Hutt Park Hotel.
2.2 The applicant proposes to undertake earthworks across the entire site to raise the site so that all the dwellings will be above the 1:100 flood level of the Awamutu Stream. The fill would be up to 1m high which would be supported by low retaining walls around the perimeter of the site. This work requires approximately 2200m3 of fill to be imported onto the site. All areas of fill would be either covered by dwellings, the access ways or landscaping.
2.3 Of the 13 residential units 11 would be two-storey with the other two single-storey. Eight units would be freestanding and 4 would be attached with vehicle access off the proposed Right of Way. Lot 1 will have direct access onto Pitt Street and Lot 15 (Hutt Park Hotel) will retain access to Randwick Road. Two visitor carparks will be provided. The floor area of each unit will be between 98m2 and 145m2. Each unit has outdoor space accessed of the main living/dining area. The application provides an indication of the landscaping and has offered a condition of consent requiring detailed landscaping plans.
3. The site and locality
3.1 The following site description is adopted from the AEE.
“The application site is a 3963m² irregular shaped allotment, located on the western side of Randwick Road, Moera. The site features double road frontages, as it also has a 20m frontage at the western boundary which adjoins Pitt Street. The topography of the site is flat. With regard to built form, the site currently contains the two storey Hutt Park Hotel in the south-eastern corner. Several single storey buildings are also located in this eastern portion of the site, to rear of the hotel building and also to its’ north (directly behind the adjoining liquor store). These additional buildings would be removed as part of the development of the site. The remainder of the site is a vacant expanse of impervious surface that affords an informal parking arrangement to the sites’ activities.”
3.2 The site is in the Suburban Commercial Activity Area (SCAA) of the city’s district plan. There are no other notations within the district plan that apply to this site.
3.3 The site’s legal description is Lot 1 DP 30268 and Lot 2 DP 34172. There are no interests which affect the proposal.
3.4 To the north of the site is residential activity with large rear yards adjoining the northern most part of the site (3 and 5 Pirie Crescent). To the east of the northern arm of the site is a suburban commercial zoned site used for retail purposes (liquor store). To the south along Randwick Road is suburban commercial zoning with a mix of residential and retail use occurring. Directly south of the site there is suburban commercial and residential zoning with residential activity occurring on 19 and 20 Croft Grove. The site wraps around two residentially zoned and used sites (2 and 6/2 Pitt St) as well as 6/1 Pitt Street. To the west of the northern arm are two residential sites - 8 and 10 Pitt Street. Both of these sites contain single dwellings with large rear yards adjacent to the application site. To the west across Pitt Street are single storey dwellings.
3.5 A hotel was first established on the site in the late 1960’s.
3.6 Resource consent has been granted for signs relating to the hotel, erection of a rear extension, establishment of an off licence and the subdivision of the site. None of the resource consents have any bearing on the current proposal.
3.7 Flooding has occurred in the area during 1:100 flood events with a 2004 event the most recent. Both Pitt Street and Randwick Road are subject to flooding.
4. Consents sought
4.1 The appropriate planning instrument for assessing the proposed activity is the City of Lower Hutt District Plan. The site is within the Suburban Commercial Activity Area. The relevant rules are contained within Chapters 5C (Suburban Commercial), Chapter 11 (Subdivision) and Chapter 14 (general rules including earthworks and transport).
4.2 The activity status of the land use application is Discretionary (Unrestricted) in accordance with Rule 5C 2.3(a) which states:
Except where stated in the General Rules, any Permitted or Restricted Discretionary Activity which fails to comply with any of the relevant Permitted Activity Conditions, or relevant requirements of Chapter 14 - General Rules.
4.3 Residential Activity is permitted activity however in this case the proposal does not comply with several permitted activity conditions and consequently becomes a Discretionary Activity.
4.4 The permitted activity conditions that the proposal does not meet include 5C 2.1.1:
(a) minimum yard requirements
(b) recession plans
(e) landscaping (no landscaping proposed on Randwick Rd frontage)
(f) buildings must be built to the front of the site
(h) verandahs (no verandahs on Pitt Street frontage proposed)
(j) residential activities – residential activities are proposed at the ground floor and not to the rear of a shop
(o) General rules - does not comply with earthworks and car parking (for the Hotel)
4.5 In regard to General Rules the proposal does not meet 4A(iii) Car and Cycle Parking as the proposal results in a shortfall of 7 car parks at the Hutt Park Hotel as well as rule 14l 2.1.1 (b) Earthworks as the proposal includes bringing 2200m3 of fill onto the site.
4.6 The subdivision proposal does not meet the minimum allotment design as the minimum size for a controlled activity subdivision (22.214.171.124(a)) is 300m2 and several proposed lots are less than 200m2. Furthermore the proposal does not comply with Right of Way standards specified under 126.96.36.199(b). The earthworks also require resource consent as part of the subdivision application.
4.7 Overall the subdivision is a Discretionary Activity under rule 11.2.4 (i) due to the proposal not complying with allotment design standards
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 An assessment of effects of the proposal on the environment and the identification of the issues/matters raised by submitters is detailed in sections 6 and 7 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 9 of this report, form the basis of determining any adverse effects.
5.4 Written approval from Housing New Zealand as owner, and on behalf of the occupants, was provided in relation to 3 and 5 Pirie Street. Consequently, there can be no consideration of the adverse effects of the proposal on those sites.
6.1 The application was limited notified on the 12th of December 2017 to the owners and occupiers of 19 and 20 Croft Grove and 2, 1/6, 2/6, 8 and 10 Pitt Street.
6.2 Four submissions were received all of which were in opposition. However two parties have met with the applicant and due to revisions to the proposal they have both withdrawn their submissions. The amendments to the scheme due to the submissions are reflected in the current drawings.
6.3 The remaining submissions in opposition are from James Taylor (8 Pitt Street) and (Mark) Zuo Zheng (6/1 Pitt Street). James Taylor does not wish to be heard.
6.4 The key issues raised in the submission from Mr Zheng are as follows:
· The potential for loss of sunlight/solar gain to 6/1 Pitt Street leading to poor living conditions
· Adverse construction effects, namely noise and air pollution from the earthworks affecting his families health.
6.5 Mr Zheng requests that the proposal is amended to ensure the issues he raises are addressed.
6.6 The key issues raised by James Taylor are as follows:
· The noise effects of earthworks
· Potential flooding of his site due to earthworks raising ground level
· The density and design of the development is not in character with the neighbourhood
· The potential effect of additional vehicles on Pitt Street
· Minimum yard setbacks are not provided
6.7 James Taylor opposes the application and seeks assurances regarding the raised ground level and traffic on the surrounding area. James Taylor would support the proposal if it was for 5 – 6 houses.
6.8 A pre-hearing meeting was held on 15 February 2018. The chairpersons’ report is attached as attachment 1.
6.6 The matters raised within the submissions will be addressed within section 7 below.
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 9 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:
· Urban Design Effects
· Residential Amenity Effects
· Traffic effects
· Flooding effects
· Earthwork effects
· Construction effects
· Reverse sensitivity
· Loss of commercial land
· 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 can be met and no additional allotments are created. The proposal creates 15 lots so it is considered there is no relevant permitted baseline for the subdivision.
7.5 The land use permitted baseline for the site is the construction of a building no greater than 500m2 gross floor area which is built up to the front boundary of the site. Residential activity is permitted on the ground floor to the rear of a shop or at first floor level. The maximum height of a building is 8m, compliance with the recession plane of 2.5m + 45 degrees is necessary. Side yards abutting a residential area must be at least 3m.
7.6 Earthworks can be no greater than 50m2 and must have cut or fill no greater than 1.2m3. In this case the permitted baseline is of relevance and has been taken into account when considering the adverse effects of the proposal. It is noted that the existing hotel on the site is a larger than what could be erected as of right. The existing environment has also been taken into account when assessing adverse effects.
The existing environment
7.7 The site currently contains the Hutt Park Hotel as well as a portion of a building that straddles the boundary with 15 Randwick Road - the part of the building on 11 Randwick Road will be removed. The remainder of the site is an asphalt covered car park that serves the Hutt Park Hotel. There is solid wall/fencing around the southern, western and northern perimeter of the site.
Assessment of environmental effects
Urban Design effects
7.8 The proposal was assessed by Council’s Urban Design Consultant Morten Gjerde and his full assessment is attached as attachment 2. Mr Gjerde also provided pre application advice on the scheme. Mr Gjerde’s report should be referred to for the full urban design assessment.
7.9 Mr Gjerde notes in his assessment that because the site is in the SCAA that the Design Guide Medium Density Housing does not strictly apply. I concur with this comment as there is no reference to the Design Guide in the SCAA provisions. Despite this I consider that the Design Guide is a useful framework for assessing the application and that it can be taken into account under section 104 (1)(c).
7.10 Mr Taylor’s submission in opposition includes comment that the proposal is not in character with the area due to the density and design.
7.11 In the analysis of urban design outcomes Mr Gjerde states
“Overall, the project will provide much needed housing in the city. The dwellings are designed and arranged on the site in a rational manner. The site is appropriately landscaped and will fit appropriately with the surrounding area. In this particular setting, the standard of the development is appropriate. I am pleased to be able to recommend that the proposed development meets the objectives and guidelines of the DGMDH”.
7.12 In relation to Mr Taylor’s submission that the proposal will not fit into the character of the area I note Mr Gjerde’s comments that that most significant aspect of the proposal is the development of Lot 1 which fronts Pitt Street. I consider that it is necessary to have regard to the fact that there is no design guide for single dwellings within residential sites. This means any site in the residential area can be developed with a modern two storey dwelling without resource consent being required. In a street with a uniform age and design of dwelling the new dwelling could be out of keeping however this is an outcome anticipated by the district plan.
Overall I agree with Mr Gjerde's analysis and therefore consider that the proposal has acceptable urban design outcomes.
Residential Amenity Effects
7.13 Residential development has the potential to affect the amenity of the surrounding residential sites through building bulk and location of buildings as well as the density of the development.
Loss of sunlight
7.14 In regard to shading the proposal breaches the recession plane permitted activity conditions on external boundaries. Unit 13 breaches the recession plane in relation to 3 and 5 Pirie Crescent however written approval was obtained from the owners (also signed on behalf of occupiers) of this site so any adverse effects must be disregarded. There are also breaches on 6/1, 6/2 and 2 Pitt Street and 19 and 20 Croft Grove. The effects of shading are shown on the Sun Study Diagrams provided by the applicant along with a summary of the shading effect by the applicant.
7.15 In relation to 6/1 and 6/2 Pitt Street the shading effect is considered to be limited as the proposal is located directly to the south of these dwellings. It is noted that a driveway runs along the southern boundary of 6/1 Pitt Street resulting in the dwelling being set off the boundary. The submission from Mr Zheng opposes the proposal due to the potential loss of sunlight to a bedroom, bathroom and laundry. Because the proposal is to the south any potential shading is limited to late evening in mid-summer. There is no shading effect in winter. The high solid wall along the southern boundary of 6/1 and 6/2 Pitt Street means much of the shading would fall on the wall and onto the driveway that provides access to 6/2 Pitt Street. Overall due to shading only occurring during mid-summer and in the late evening any shading effect on 6/1 and 6/2 Pitt Street is considered less than minor.
7.16 In relation to 2 Pitt Street and 19 and 20 Croft Grove the recession plan breaches are small as the proposed dwellings on lots 5, 6 and 7 are single storey. Shading of 20 Croft Grove will fall largely on the rear wall of a double garage and against a solid fence. The worst shading occurs mid-winter and at this time shading does not reach the dwelling on 20 Croft Grove except for early morning. The shading effect on 20 Croft Grove is considered to be a less than minor adverse effect.
7.17 The dwelling and garage on 19 Croft Grove are located close to the application site boundary. There is a small rear yard with the main outdoor area being located outside the western end of the dwelling. The shading of this site is small with only the eaves of the proposed single storey dwelling breaching the recession plane. Shading is limited to the winter months and shading will fall against part of the northern elevation of 19 Croft Grove. Because of the small size of the breach and due to it only falling against part of the dwelling during winter any shading effects are considered minor.
7.18 In relation to 2 Pitt Street there is a small recession plane breach against its eastern boundary. Shading is limited to early morning in the winter months and would fall mostly against the rear fence and vegetation within 2 Pitt Street. It is noted that the owner of this site withdrew their submission prior to the Hearing. Any shading effects on this site are considered to be less than minor.
7.19 There are no recession plan standards or yard requirements in relation to adjacent sites within the Suburban Commercial Activity Area. Because of this the shading effects on 15 Randwick Road are considered to be within what could occur from a permitted development. It is noted that shading of 15 Randwick Road falls on to the rear blank façade of the retail building.
Loss of privacy
7.20 There is the potential for overlooking from the two storey components of the proposed dwellings. This was a matter raised by the owners of 2/6 Pitt Street who withdrew their submission following the alteration of the proposal through lifting the sill height of windows on the top floor of units 9 and 10.
7.21 Because residential activity is permitted at first floor level in the Suburban Commercial Activity Area it is considered that the two storey dwellings will generally maintain the level of privacy that is anticipated by the district plan. The district plan requires 3m side yards in the SCAA and the two storey dwellings comply with this except for part of the dwelling on Lot 1. The part of the dwelling that does not comply contains a bedroom which due to the type of use will not result in unacceptable privacy effects.
7.22 The potential for loss of privacy due to units 9 – 13 are considered to be within the permitted baseline and can therefore be disregarded.
Density of development
7.23 The proposal will result in a density of development that could not occur as of right on this site. The submission in opposition by Mr Taylor includes comment that the proposal will result in a level of density that is excessive and detrimental. As well as the effects of building bulk denser development can result in a higher level of noise and disturbance due to increased activity.
7.24 From the public realm it would be difficult to discern the density of development due to the shape of the site. From Mr Taylor’s site it would largely be units 9 – 13 that are visible. These units are comparable to what could be built as of right (with residential activity at first floor) and accordingly this aspect of the proposal can be disregarded.
7.25 The proposed dwellings on Lots 5 and 6 are not set 3m off the side yard with 2 Pitt Street and 19 and 20 Croft Grove. However because they are single storey and will be used for residential purposes there will not be adverse effects that are unacceptable on the amenity of the adjoining sites.
7.26 It is acknowledged that the density of development is greater than the surrounding residential are but this is not considered to have unacceptable effects on any individual sites amenity or on the wider character of the area.
7.27 The application includes an assessment by a traffic engineer (Harriet Fraser) and this report has been assessed by a traffic engineer (Bill Barclay) on behalf of Hutt City Council. Mr Barclay has also provided an assessment post reviewing the submissions.
7.28 Mr Barclay’s assessment is attached as attachment 3. The proposal complies with parking requirements as each dwelling will have a compliant car parking space. Mr Barclay did express concern that the occupants of units 9 – 12 could not turn without using private turning facilities. He did however overall support the proposal as there would be adequate visibility and the site is flat. The ROW is under width by 0.5m but is still considered to be functional and therefore the proposal is supported by Mr Barclay.
7.29 The proposal results in the loss of car parking spaces for the hotel. Since lodging the resource consent application District Plan Change 30 has become operative. The car parking requirements are set out in table 4-1 (page 7 Transport Chapter) and do not require car parks for the first 400m2 of licensed premises. The Hutt Park Hotel is approximately 400m2 gross floor area. The applicant states the hotel provides long stay accommodation (boarding house) with a total of 32 rooms. The requirement is 0.5m car parks per resident of a boarding house. Nine car parks will be provided on the hotel site resulting in a shortfall of 7 car parking spaces. There is kerbside parking available in the area and this is not heavily utilised with the application stating there were 36 car parking spaces available kerbside during a parking survey. Because of the availability of kerbside parking the parking shortfall is considered acceptable.
7.30 Mr Taylor’s submission stated that he was concerned about the effect of 13 vehicles on Pitt Street. Mr Barclay reviewed the submissions and commented that “the amount of traffic generated by the development will be small in relation to general volumes in the vicinity.” Mr Barclay confirmed his support for the proposal.
7.31 Overall the traffic and parking effects are considered acceptable.
7.32 The site and surrounding area is known to flood during a 1:100 year rainfall event. The applicant proposes to raise the ground level of the site which will allow dwellings to be built above the flood level. The submission by Mr Taylor states that he is concerned about the potential impact of raising the ground level on his site during a flood event.
7.33 The impact on adjacent sites due to raising the ground level was assessed by DHI Water and Environment Ltd on behalf of the applicant. The report concludes the effect of filling is almost imperceptible and the modelling shows a 1mm increase in depth elsewhere on the flood plain.
7.34 Advice has been obtained from Greater Wellington Regional Council’s senior engineer for flood protection (James Flanagan) who confirms that the assessment by DHI Water and Environment Ltd is valid.
7.35 In regard to minimum floor levels the applicant sought advice from James Flanagan in March 2017 when designing the development. The advice provided in March 2017 suggested the dwellings needed to be built to 2.34m above Mean Sea Level (Wellington 1953 Datum). This figure relates to the underside of floor joists or to the base of the concrete floor slab. Since that time GWRC have increased the amount of sea level rise that they include in their calculation of flood levels (sea level rise is now assumed as 800mm to 2090 rather 500mm) and they now recommend 2.6m above MSL.
7.36 Council’s subdivision engineer has recommended that the minimum floor level is 2.3m above MSL. Due to the uncertainty inherent in these calculations and because the proposal was based on the appropriate advice at the time it was designed the relevant recommended consent conditions takes the ‘middle ground’ of 2.34m above MSL. It is noted that the Building Act only requires buildings to be built so they do not flood in a 1 in 50 year flood event whereas the above relates to the 1 in 100 flood event.
7.37 Given the negligible impact on flooding the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to natural hazards.
7.38 The fill that will be brought onto the site to raise the ground level will average 0.6m and will be supported by engineer designed retaining walls. The maximum fill height will be 1m.
7.39 Once the development is complete the effects of the earthworks on the flat site will not generate any adverse visual effects. The site is not known to contain any historical or cultural resources and has no natural character. Any temporary effects due to earthworks, such as dust or sediment control, can be mitigated through the construction management plan that the applicant has proffered. Overall any adverse effects of earthworks are considered to be less than minor.
7.40 During construction there is the potential for adverse effects to be generated. Mr Zheng raised construction effects as an issue that he is concerned about, in particular noise and air pollution from earthworks. The applicant has offered to provide a Construction Management Plan to council for certification and to limit construction hours to 7am to 5pm Monday to Friday with no weekend or public holiday work. The CMP will also include measures for controlling dust.
7.41 Construction effects cannot be fully avoided and the hours offered by the applicant are more restrictive than the construction hours contained in the NZS 6803P “Measurement and Assessment of Noise from Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Work” which allows louder construction work to continue on the 6pm.
7.42 It is acknowledged construction may disturb adjacent property owners, particularly when they are at home during the weekdays, as is the case with Mr Zheng’s family. However the applicant has restricted hours of construction and will be required to undertake measures outlined in the Construction Management Plan that will mitigate the potential for adverse effects, including dust mitigation.
7.43 The construction effects will be appropriately mitigated and are considered acceptable.
7.44 Because of the proximity to the SCAA the applicant has stated that the townhouses will be constructed to meet the noise standard DnT, w Ctr > 30 dB2 to ensure reverse sensitivity issues do not arise once the townhouses are occupied. Mechanical ventilation will also be installed to allow rooms to receive fresh air while windows are closed. This is considered to adequately address potential reverse sensitivity effects.
7.45 The proposal will result in 13 residential Lots, a ROW Lot with the balance Lot containing the Hutt Park Hotel.
7.46 The Lot sizes are under the District Plan requirement for Lots in the SCAA. The Lots align with the proposed residential use and because of this they are considered to be an appropriate size and shape given their future use. All sites will have legal access from the road and can be supplied with power and telecommunications.
7.47 The proposal has been assessed by a council subdivision engineer who did not raise any concerns with the proposal subject to suitable conditions being imposed. The proposal will have adequate water supply and storm and waste water disposal.
7.48 Standard subdivision consent conditions have been suggested by the subdivision engineer and these are included in the list of suggested consent conditions. Overall the subdivision proposal is considered acceptable.
Loss of commercial land
7.49 The proposal will result in a reduction of the amount of suburban commercial land available in this area. The site has been used as a hotel since the late 1960’s and zoning has reflected this use since. I could not find historical records relating to the need or otherwise for this site as a suburban commercial centre. In the absence of any information to the contrary it is reasonable to conclude the zoning reflects the use of the site rather than the need for a suburban commercial centre to extend from Randwick Road through to Pitt Street.
7.50 Six hundred metres to the north of the site is another Suburban Commercial Activity Area which contains the Moera shopping centre. The Moera shops are more extensive than around the application site and provide typical suburban commercial shops and services. The application states that this area had vacant shops during a site visit prior to lodging the application. This area still had several vacant shops in late April 2018.
7.51 The use of the rear part of the 11 Randwick Road for residential use will not remove any existing commercial activities from the area. The Moera shops and remaining land from 1 – 15 Randwick Road will be able to provide suburban commercial services to the local community and because of this it is considered acceptable to use the application site for residential purposes.
8. Relevant plan provisions
8.1 The relevant objectives and policies for the Discretionary Activity in the Suburban Residential Activity Area relate primarily to the provision of commercial activity areas and the protection of the amenity of adjoining residential activity areas.
8.2 Objective 5C 1.1.1
To maintain Suburban Commercial centres close to residential areas, and support where possible, the community focus associated with such centres.
Policy (a) That a range of retail and commercial activities be provided for in Suburban Commercial centres to meet the needs of residents
Objective 5C 1.1.2 To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of activities in Suburban Commercial centres on the amenity values of residential areas.
Policy (a) That activities at Suburban Commercial centres are of a character, scale and intensity that the amenity values of adjoining residential activity areas are not affected adversely.
Objective 5C 1.2.1
To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the size, scale, location, design and external appearance of buildings and structures on the amenity values of adjoining residential areas.
Policy (a) That the size, scale and location of buildings and structures be designed to be compatible with the amenity values of surrounding residential areas.
Policy (b) That where an activity abuts a residential area there will be a separation distance to avoid or mitigate any adverse effects on the amenity values of the residential area
8.3 The effect of the proposal on the character of the neighbourhood and amenity of the surrounding residential sites has been assessed in sections 7.8 – 7.26. The effects have been found to be acceptable due to the bulk and location of the proposal and therefore the proposal is considered to be consistent with the above objectives and policies.
8.4 The objectives and policies that relate to earthworks are:
Objective 14l 1.1 To ensure that earthworks are designed to maintain the natural features that contribute to the City’s landscape.
Policy (a) To ensure that earthworks are designed to be sympathetic to the natural topography
Objective 14l 1.2 To ensure earthworks do not affect adversely the visual amenity values, cultural values or historical significance of an area, natural feature or site.
Policy (b) That rehabilitation measures be undertaken to mitigate adverse effects of earthworks upon the visual amenity values
Policy (c) To protect any sites with historical significance from inappropriate earthworks
Policy (d) To recognise the importance of cultural and spiritual values to the mana whenua associated with any cultural material that may be disinterred through earthworks and to ensure that these values are protected from inappropriate earthworks
8.5 The effects of the earthworks has been discussed in section 7.38 – 7.39. The effects are considered to be consistent with the above-mentioned objectives and policies.
8.6 The relevant subdivision objectives and policies are:
Objective 11.1.1 To ensure that land which is subdivided can be used for the proposed use or development
Policy (a) To ensure that allotments have minimum design standards such as, minimum size, shape and frontage, which are suitable for the proposed use or development.
8.7 The subdivision has been designed in conjunction with specific buildings resulting in Lots of an appropriate size and shape.
Objective 11.1.2 To ensure that utilities provided to service the subdivision protect the environment and that there are no adverse effects on the health and safety of residents and occupiers.
Policy (a) To ensure that utilities provided comply with specified performance standards relating to such matters as access, street lighting, stormwater, water supply, wastewater, gas, telephone, electricity and earthworks.
8.8 All required utilities can and will be provided to the Lots if appropriate conditions are imposed.
Objective 11.1.3 To ensure that land subject to natural hazards is subdivided in a manner that the adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.
Policy (b) Subdivision of land subject to flooding is discouraged as this can lead to greater intensity of use and development and have adverse effects on the environment.
8.9 The applicant has demonstrated that by raising the ground level by 600mm on average that adverse effects due to flooding are avoided to an acceptable extent.
8.10 The relevant Transport Chapter objectives and policies are:
Objective 14A 3.4 Adverse effects on the safety and efficiency of the transport network from land use and development that generate high volumes of traffic are managed
Objective 14A 3.5 Adverse effects on the safety and efficiency of the transport network from onsite transport facilities (vehicle access, parking, manoeuvring and loading facilities) are managed.
Policy 14A 4.2 Land use, subdivision and development should not cause significant adverse effects on the connectivity, accessibility and safety of the transport network, and, where appropriate, should:
· seek to improve connectivity within and between communities; and
· enable walking, cycling and access to public transport.
Policy 14A 4.6 Vehicle access, parking, manoeuvring and loading facilities should be designed to standards that ensure they do not compromise the safety and efficiency of the transport network
8.11 The proposal has been assessed by a traffic engineer on behalf of council and he supports the application. The proposal is not considered to be contrary to the above policies and objective.
8.12 Rules 5C 2.3 .1 states 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
8.13 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.
8.14 The relevant permitted activity conditions are recession planes, yards and height. The proposal complies with the 8m height but does not met the 3m side yard requirement for a small portion of the proposed dwellings on Lot 1, Lot 5 and 6. The effect of these breaches have been assessed in section 7.23 – 7.26. Similarly the breach of the recession planes has been assessed in section 7.14 – 7.19 and have been found to be acceptable.
8.15 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.
8.16 Objective 22 of the Regional Policy Statement relates to maintaining a compact, well designed urban form. This proposal helps to achieve that objective through infill development.
8.17 Objective 20 relates to hazard mitigation measures and their consequences. This proposal has demonstrated that it will adequately reduce the impact of natural hazards on the application site while avoiding exacerbating the effect on the surrounding area.
8.18 The National Policy Statement for Urban Development capacity is relevant to the application. In particular Policy PA4 which states:
When considering the effects of urban development, decision-makers shall take into account:
a) The benefits that urban development will provide with respect to the ability for people
and communities and future generations to provide for their social, economic, cultural
and environmental wellbeing; and
b) The benefits and costs of urban development at a national, inter-regional, regional and district scale, as well as the local effects.
8.19 This proposal achieves this policy through providing infill housing with minimal adverse effects (costs) on the surrounding area.
8.20 This proposal is considered unlikely to create a precedent or to undermine the integrity of the district plan as residential activity is permitted and this site is unusual because it is an underutilised through site.
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.”
9.4 It is considered the proposal has positive effects in that it will provide infill housing on an underutilised site.
9.5 Given the above factors, the proposal is considered that the proposal is consistent with section 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
9.6 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.
9.7 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:
It is considered that the proposal is not contrary to section 7 of the Act for the reasons discussed in the assessment of effects.
9.8 It is considered that 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, shall 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 that would warrant notification of the application to the Port Nicholson Settlement Trust.
9.9 Overall I consider the land use and subdivision consent application for 13 residential lots and two ancillary Lots along with dwellings will be consistent with Part II of the Resource Management Act 1991.
10.1 The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies and will not generate unacceptable adverse effects. The proposal is consistent with Part 2 of the Act.
10.2 I recommend that resource consent is granted for the land use activity and subdivision subject to the following conditions of consent.
11. Suggested conditions of consent
If the committee resolves to grant resource consent, the following may be considered as conditions of the landuse consent:
1. That the proposal is carried out substantially in accordance with the information and approved plans (Scheme plans: 105 – 108, 301, 302, 601 – 610; 29336SCH 1 – 4 Rev C) submitted with the application held on file at council.
2. That the consent holder advises the council (firstname.lastname@example.org or (04) 560 1044) at least two working days before starting any work 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 given 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.
3. That the consent holder undertakes all earthworks (including for trenching purposes) in such a way that no sediment leaves the site or enters streams or the stormwater system; and that the consent holder installs and maintains sediment control measures in compliance with Greater Wellington regional council’s erosion and sediment control guidelines (issued in April 2003).
4. That the consent holder paves, metals, re-grasses, hydro-seeds or plants all areas exposed by earthworks, trenching or building work as soon as possible after excavation or, at the latest, within a month of completing earthworks to the satisfaction of the council subdivision engineer; and that the consent holder repeats any seeding or planting that fails to become fully established within 12 months of the completion of earthworks.
5. That the consent holder ensures all earthworks are carried out in a way that prevents dust blowing beyond site boundaries. Control measures may include use of a water cart, limiting the vehicle speed to 10 kilometres an hour, applying water to exposed or excessively dry surfaces, or applying a coating of geotextile, grass, mulch or the like.
6. 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 process. (The term “road” includes footpaths, vehicle crossings and berms.)
7. That the consent holder compacts all earthwork fill areas in accordance with the Code of Practice for Earth Fill for Residential Development (NZS4431:1989) and meets the code’s obligations on final documentation and certification, which state the suitability of earthworks for residential development.
8. A final Landscaping Plan must be submitted to council for certification prior to development commencing.
9. That landscaping is in accordance with the above landscaping plan and that planting is completed as soon as seasonally practicable, but must be completed prior to an application for 224 certification.
10. That the consent holder replaces any dead or dying plants for a period of four years from the date of planting.
11. That a Construction Management Plan is submitted to council for certification prior to development commencing. The CMP must include/state the measures proposed to manage effects related to
· Construction hours of 7am to 5pm Monday to Friday with no weekend or public holiday work.
· Construction traffic
· Sediment control vibration
· Contact details of a person responsible for dealing with any concerns of local residents relating to construction activity
12. The consent holder shall ensure that the proposed residential units are protected from noise arising from outside the building by ensuring that the external sound insulation level achieves the following minimum performance standard DnT.w+Ctr<30dBA. A certificate from a suitably qualified acoustic engineer shall be submitted to the Team Leader Resource Consents to state that the above design standard has been achieved prior to the occupation of the residential units.
13. The consent holder shall ensure that where bedrooms with open able windows are proposed, a positive supplementary source of fresh air ducted from outside or plenums is required at the time of fit-out. For the purposes of this requirement, a bedroom is any room intended to be used for sleeping. The supplementary source of air is to achieve a minimum of 7.5 litres per second per person.
1. That the consent holder pays Council an engineering fee to meet the cost of work carried out by 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 2.59 per cent 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.
2. That the consent holder compacts all earthworks fill areas in accordance with the Code of Practice for Earth Fill for residential Development (NZS4431:1989). A completion certificate from a suitably qualified and experienced geotechnical engineer stating the earthworks have been completed to a satisfactory standard is to be provided at time of application for 224c certification. Where the completion report identifies any limitations or specific requirements such as specific foundation design, consent notices in accordance with section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
3. That the consent holder undertakes all earthworks (including for trenching purposes) in such a way that no sediment leaves the site or enters streams or the stormwater system; and that the consent holder installs and maintains sediment control measures in compliance with Greater Wellington Regional Council’s erosion and sediment control guidelines (issued in April 2003).
4. 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 process. (The term “road” includes footpaths, vehicle crossings and berms.)
5. That the consent holder constructs the private way, including a heavy-duty vehicle crossing and necessary stormwater control in accordance with Council’s codes and standards. Before building any retaining walls subject to traffic loading (or other surcharge) or are more than 1.5 metres high, the consent holder must obtain a building consent. The consent holder must submit a design prepared by a chartered professional engineer with the building consent application, followed by a producer statement on completion of the walls.
6. That the consent holder installs the reticulation as necessary and connects separate minimum 100mm NB sewer and stormwater service leads to the public mains (or to the road kerb or other approved disposal point in the case of stormwater) for each residential lot (and adjust existing services where necessary) in accordance with Council’s codes and standards.
§ All water, stormwater and sewer reticulation services shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the ‘Regional Standard for Water Services’, the ‘Regional Specification for Water Services’ and the ‘Approved Products Register’, including all associated amendments. Copies of the latest version of these documents are available on the following website: https://wellingtonwater.co.nz/contractors/technical-information.
§ It is now Council policy that only existing sewer and stormwater laterals less than 25 years old can be utilised for a new dwelling or new vacant lot, otherwise they are to be renewed or sealed off at the mains if not replaced in the same location.
7. The consent holder arranges for a suitably qualified engineer to provide a stormwater design report for the suitable disposal of stormwater from the site, including the design of any proposed stormwater attenuation. Where it is determined that there is insufficient, or no additional, capacity available within Council stormwater mains to cater for the proposed development then the development shall be designed to be stormwater neutral so that the stormwater runoff from the fully developed site is no more than existed prior to the development. Where storage attenuation tanks, pipes or similar are proposed a consent notice, in accordance with section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991, shall be placed on the affected lots including details of the size of the tank, the size of the discharge pipe (orifice) et cetera.
8. That the consent holder supplies water reticulation as necessary and supplies separate minimum 20mm NB connections for each residential lot that meets Council’s code for domestic supply and the firefighting capability required under the New Zealand Fire Service code of practice (SNZ PAS 4509:2008).
§ It is now Council policy that only existing laterals of polyethylene material can be utilised for a new dwelling or new vacant lot. All existing non-polyethylene laterals, including the tobies, are to be renewed and sealed at the main if not replaced in the same position.
§ The consent holder must apply for new water connections at the customer services counter of Council Building, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt. These applications are processed by Wellington Water Ltd., which is a Council-controlled company in charge of Council water and drainage assets. Their contact person is Chandra Koswatte (ph 04 912 4534). Wellington Water 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. Council recommends that the consent holder makes this application before submitting engineering plans to Council subdivision engineer.
9. That the consent holder submits a copy of the approved water connection application form (signed by Wellington Water Ltd.) when applying for the section 224(c) certificate.
10. That the consent holder constructs a standard concrete vehicle crossing to serve lot 1 in accordance with Council’s codes and standards.
11. That the consent holder severs all cross-boundary services, including any power, water and stormwater.
the consent holder submits two copies of engineering plans for the above
construction work to 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.
§ 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.
§ Engineering approval of the proposed services and access up to the individual lot boundaries is completely separate from any approval given under building consent and must be requested prior to installation, irrespective of any building consent being issued.
13. That the consent holder appoints a representative to carry out the design and supervision of construction work, as well as certification upon completion, as provided for by clause 1.4.1 of NZS 4404:2004; and that the consent holder submits the name, contact details and experience of the representative to Council subdivision engineer for approval before submitting engineering plans. The consent holder must document the representative’s experience in a resume and show the relevance of that experience to the works and services required under this consent. The certification must include confirmation that the materials, installation and testing meet Council’s codes and standards.
14. 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 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 Council subdivision engineer before starting work.
15. That the consent holder provides underground telephone and electrical services to each lot in accordance with the specifications and requirements of the relevant authority.
16. That the consent holder provides 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.
17. That the consent holder provides 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 Council with written confirmation from a surveyor that no such adjustments and sealing are necessary.
Please Note: This will apply to the water connection off Pitt Street if it exists.
18. 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 Council as the grantee in gross; and engage a lawyer at the consent holder’s expense to prepare easement documents. Please note that, in accordance with the Regional Standard for Water Services, the easement width shall be an increased where there is more than one service within that easement.
19. That the consent holder provides appropriate easements of rights of way, shown as a memorandum of easements on the land transfer title plan; and that the consent holder engages a lawyer at the consent holder’s expense to prepare easement documents.
20. That the consent holder gives the new private access road a name after first contacting Council’s road and traffic administration co-ordinator about the procedures to follow to formalise the suggested name. (This is now a requirement of LINZ, which states “A private road, private way, right of way, or access lot needs to be named if six or more addressable sites are accessed off it - or are likely to be accessed off it in the future”.). The process can take several months, so an early application is encouraged. A payment of $250.00 (GST incl.) to meet the cost of making and installing each street name sign is to be made to Council at time of application for the 224(c) certificate.
21. That the consent holder moves all buildings clear of the new boundaries before applying for a section 224(c) certificate.
22. That, at the time of requesting a section 224(c) certificate, the consent holder provides a schedule of assets detailing each item to be transferred to Council ownership as part of the subdivision process; and that the consent holder supplies a full description of the item, material type, size, length, area, volume, et cetera, following the format set out in Council form RAS-FORM-014.
23. That the consent holder sets out the value of services to be taken over by Council to enable the creation of a buyer-created tax invoice, with the details provided to be in accordance with Council buyer-created tax invoice form RAS-FORM-015.
24. That, in accordance with section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991, Council registers a consent notice on the certificate of title of lots 1 to 13 to ensure any dwellings built on these lots have a minimum under-floor level of RL 2.34 m (MSL Wellington Vertical Datum 1953) to mitigate possible flooding from the nearby Waiwhetu Stream. This level refers to the underside of timber floor joists or the base of a concrete slab.
25. 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.
26. That, in accordance with section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991, Council registers a consent notice on the titles of lots 2 to 13 inclusive stating that the right-of-way has no footpath and has a lesser width being a departure from Council’s usual right of way construction standard.
27. That the consent holder meets the cost of registering consent notices.
28. That the consent holder provides 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.
29. The consent holder shall pay a contribution to Council’s Reserves Purchases and Development Account at Council’s standard rate of 7.5% of the value of the additional residential allotments 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.
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.
§ The property has, or is likely to have been occupied prior to 1900. Any disturbance of land or damage or destruction of any building or structure associated with human activity prior to 1900, may require an archaeological authority from Heritage New Zealand under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. Please contact Heritage New Zealand for further information.
Appendix 1: Pre Hearing Meeting minutes
Minutes of pre-hearing meeting for resource consent application at 11 randwick Rd (RM170302)
15 February 2018
Description of proposal: Construct 13 units, undertake earthworks and subdivision.
· Dan Kellow , Resource Consents Planner (processing officer)
· Tim Johnstone, Team Leader Resource Consents (facilitator)
· James Beban of Urban Edge Planning
· Megan Simmons and Scott Connew
· Selina Zheng – had to leave meeting before discussion started
Key points discussed at pre-hearing meeting
1. Privacy loss
· Submitter stated that they have concerns over privacy and overlooking.
· Applicant’s representative proposed to suggest mitigation measures to the applicant of raising the height of the windows on the first floor of units 9 and 10.
· The applicant’s representative would get back to the submitters after discussing with the applicant.
2. Building bulk
· The submitter raised their concern that the bulk of the units 9-13 would affect their eastern outlook.
· The applicant’s representative explained that a specific view is not protected and that a permitted building would likely have a similar impact.
3. Shading effects
· Applicant’s representative agreed to provide shading diagrams to demonstrate the amount of shading that would be caused.
· The applicant’s agent raised the possibility of removing a tree from 6a Pitt Street to improve sunlight on that site. He will take this to the applicant.
4. Construction effects
· The submitter raised concerns about adverse construction effects. The applicant’s representative agreed to prepare a Construction Management Plan and to not have construction occur on weekends or public holidays. The agent’s representative raised whether internal works such as painting and decorating may occur on the weekends which the submitter did not object to.
5. Summary of meeting
· The applicant intends to address the submitters concerns sufficiently so that submitters withdraw their wish to be heard on the application.
· Additional information (shading diagrams and Construction Management Plan) will be disseminated by the applicant to submitters and Council once it is available.
· The applicant’s representative will contact directly submitter Selina and Zou Zheng and Peter Mumm to discuss their concerns.
Appendix 2: ASSESSMENT - Urban Design
Urban Design Assessment Report
Proposed 13-unit Residential Development
11 Randwick Road, Moera
Prepared for Hutt City Council
The application seeks to establish 13 new dwellings, eight of which would be detached houses on individual lots and five of which would be attached, in a single terrace typology building. The site is in behind a pub and several shops situated on the western side of Randwick Road, and to the north of the major Seaview Roundabout. This part of the site is currently vacant, apparently used for car parking purposes. Although currently able to be accessed from Randwick Road, following development access will only be from Pitt Street. Refer to Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Site context.
The surrounding setting varies, depending on which side the site is seen from. To the east, the context is commercial in nature, being the shops located along Randwick Road. Across Randwick Road, the recreation areas associated with the Hutt Valley Golf Course and the Hutt Park Raceway can also be seen and accessed. Around the site to the west, a more traditional residential setting is observed. The properties are mainly detached, although several apartment buildings owned and operated by Housing New Zealand Corporation are evident to the south of Croft Grove. From within this residential area the setting appears green and spacious, in part because of the extensive landscaping on many sites and in the road reserve, and in part because the eastern and western hills of the valley can be seen. Access to the Hutt River walkway is available within easy distance of the Pitt Street frontage.
The proposed development will appear much denser than the existing residential development patterns, largely because of the closer spacing of houses on smaller sites and in relation to the design of the buildings. Two of the eight freestanding dwellings are designed as single storey houses (Lots 5 and 6) whereas the others are full two storeys offering little opportunity for form articulation. That is to say, the upper floors of the two storey houses are largely the same outline as the floors below. In these cases, articulation is only created through variance of rooflines and claddings. The houses each have single car garages set back from the ‘primary’ façade, paved principal outdoor areas on the north side of the footprint, and landscaped sites.
Prior to the application being lodged, the writer had the opportunity to review the development proposal and offer feedback on the urban design outcomes. The feedback centred on two issues, the architecture and the site development. That feedback is repeated here as background:
The buildings are very large in scale and consistently so. There is little relief between the building forms and the development will therefore feel quite dense, maybe overbearing in some conditions. I would encourage extensive landscaping and the use of light colours, at least for the exterior claddings of the buildings.
Landscaping and open space treatment
As noted, the development is pretty dense. This in itself is not a bad thing as long as there is sufficient amenity on the site. The density will create challenges for privacy in the small areas of open space that are provided. The applicant could consider providing a mixture of fencing heights in order to create areas of privacy, but this would need to be moderated carefully to ensure that the fences don’t simply add to the ‘hardness’ of the site. To avoid this, the site should perhaps e ‘over landscaped’ if that would even be possible. I would make sure there are a number of taller elements in the landscaping proposal, this to provide visual relief and a soothing feeling. The taller elements could be in the ‘street space’ between the individual houses. Finally, to help break down the scale of the buildings and to provide a bit more privacy for outdoor areas, I would encourage the applicant to consider whether overhead structures could find their way onto portions of the outdoor living spaces. These could be structures extended off the building or freestanding. Either way, they could help visually and in terms of privacy for residents.
The key message in the feedback related to the importance of landscaping to mitigate any negative effects arising from the form and intensity of the development. It is also noted that the site is not in a residential activity area. As such, the criteria of the Design Guide for Medium Density Housing (DGMDH) do not strictly apply. However, in assessing levels of residential amenity and development form in relation to the setting, these criteria are relevant. In addition, the applicant has provided a fulsome review of urban design outcomes also in relation to the design guide criteria. Where appropriate, the following discussion references that assessment.
Analysis of urban design outcomes
The development fits appropriately with the neighbourhood. Although more intensive than the patterns of development in the area to the west in Pitt Street, the site is adjacent to several commercial developments and has a zoning designation that would allow it to be developed in a similar manner. Certainly the residential form of the buildings, the development attributes more generally and their use for residential purposes will all help the project fit within this setting. The applicant incorrectly (in my opinion) associates the form of the present development with the form of the HNZC development to the south of Croft Grove. That earlier development has buildings that are larger in scale than the new project but there is significantly more space around and between the building, which helps create spatial and visual relief.
The most significant aspect of the proposed development in terms of fitting with the neighbourhood is the form, location and site development associated with Lot 1 (and to a lesser extent Lot 2). Even as a two-storey building it will not appear out of scale with the setting. The driveway provides a break between this development and the houses further south. It is however, important that this part of the development particularly is well landscaped. Associated to this, it is significant that that the street contains several large, established trees. These help provide mitigation of any differences in scale and form of the buildings. In other respects, the development form is appropriate in this setting.
The applicant makes the case for appropriately integrated buildings and spaces. Specifically in relation to this site, where alternative and more intensive forms of development could be pursued that would lead to lower residential amenity level outcomes, the outdoor living spaces here may be considered appropriate. The areas provided for are certainly small but they are all located on the northern or western sides of the houses they are associated with. It is also relevant to consider the quality of these outdoor living spaces. In this respect, the landscape development proposal is appropriate. The landscaping plans indicate appropriate quality of these outdoor spaces. Despite the spatial quality of the landscaping in this setting, the ground surfaces have high proportions of paving and other impervious surfaces. Others will evaluate the appropriateness of the site being covered to this extent with impervious surfaces; I note the DGMDH suggests this should be minimised. In other respects, the proposal meets the criteria under this heading.
The driveway has some areas of contrasting paving, which will help modulate and articulate the surfaces. Garages are set back from the front façade of all houses. In my opinion the provision for vehicles meets the design guide expectations.
Fences and walls along the front boundaries of the individual dwelling sites within the development are perhaps taller than would be preferred. At 1.5metres, these screens are at or above eye level for many people and the driveway space will feel hard and enclosed as a consequence. A mitigating factor is the planting and the offset between the solid screens and adjoining slatted fences. In the current context the fencing and walls are appropriate.
Site facilities are appropriate to the design guide criteria. Safety and privacy are provided for in the development; I agree with the observations made by the applicant. Finally, the planting and vegetation proposal seems appropriate. While it would be preferred to have more planting throughout the development, and particularly to have a few more substantial trees, the underlying zoning, close proximity of the commercial area and the extensive planting in Pitt Street all help mitigate against untoward visual and amenity effects. In a sense, the site planting proposal provides a transition from the leafier area in the west to the less vegetated commercial area to the east. The outcomes are appropriate in this setting.
Overall, the project will provide much needed housing in the city. The dwellings are designed and arranged on the site in a rational manner. The site is appropriately landscaped and will fit appropriately with the surrounding area. In this particular setting, the standard of the development is appropriate. I am pleased to be able to recommend that the proposed development meets the objectives and guidelines of the DGMDH.
Morten Gjerde FNZIA
Urban Design consultant for Hutt City Council