11 January 2019
Order Paper for the meeting to be held in the
Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt,
Friday 1 February 2019 commencing at 9.30am
The purpose of the hearing is to consider the multi-unit residential development of
4 – 6 Bolton Street, Petone (RM180261).
Cr MJ Cousins (Chair)
Cr L Bridson
Mr R Schofield (Independent Commissioner)
For the dates and times of Council Meetings please visit www.huttcity.govt.nz
Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on
Friday 1 February 2019 commencing at 9.30am.
1. Resource Consent Application for a Multi-unit Residential Development at 4 - 6 Bolton Street, Petone (19/9)
Report No. HSC2019/1/1 4
2. Submissions (19/10)
Report No. HSC2019/1/2 107
3. S42A Officer Report for the Multi-unit Residential Development AT 4 - 6 Bolton Street, Petone (RM180261) (19/14)
Report No. HSC2019/1/3 by the Resource Consents Planner 146
07 January 2019
Report no: HSC2019/1/1
Resource Consent Application for a Multi-unit Residential Development at 4 - 6 Bolton Street, Petone
APPLICATION - Resource Consent application
PLANS - Architectural & landscaping plans
07 January 2019
Report no: HSC2019/1/2
Submission by Joe Serci and Cheryl Archer, 2 Bolton Street, Petone
Submission by Glenn Eveleigh and Kristen Perica, 8 Bolton Street
07 January 2019
Report no: HSC2019/1/3
S42A Officer Report for the Multi-unit Residential Development at 4 - 6 Bolton Street, Petone (RM180261)
S42A Planners Hearing Report
Appendix 1 - Legal advice on development - Building across boundary
Appendix 2 - Streetscape renders
Appendix 3 - Sun Studies
Appendix 4 - Parking Survey
Appendix 5 - Barclay Traffic assessment
Appendix 6 - Zackary Moodie traffic advice
Appendix 7- Urban design assessment
Author: Kerry Wynne
Resource Consents Planner
S42A Planners Hearing Report
Officer’s section 42a report for resource consent application to undertake a three lot fee simple subdivision, construction of a multi-unit residential development, and earthworks at 4 and 6 Bolton Street, Petone (RM180261)
Address: 4 and 6 Bolton Street, Petone
Applicant: Clark Kennedy Investments Ltd
Proposal: Construction of six new dwellings and a three lot subdivision
1. Kerry Wynne states:
1.1 I am a Resource Consents Planner at Hutt City Council. I hold a Bachelor of Resource and Environmental Planning (BRP) with First Class Honours from Massey University. I am currently a Graduate member of the New Zealand Planning Institute.
1.2 I have worked in the Resource Consents Team at Hutt City Council since November 2016. I have two years of experience processing resource consents.
1.3 I have visited the site and am familiar with the surrounding area.
2. Summary of the proposal
2.1 The applicant is seeking land use consent for a multi-unit development at 4 and 6 Bolton Street, Petone. All existing structures on these two properties will be demolished. In their place three two storey buildings are proposed, each containing a primary dwelling and a one-bedroom studio unit. In accordance with the definitions of the District Plan, this will result in a total of six dwellings across the subject site.
2.2 The applicant is also seeking to subdivide 4 and 6 Bolton Street into three fee simple allotments. The proposed development has the following parameters:
Gross site area
Net site area
Total floor area
Primary dwelling: 201.7m2
Studio unit: 70.3m2
Primary dwelling: 152.9m2
Studio unit: 38.2m2
Primary dwelling: 190.9m2
Studio unit: 79.6m2
Primary dwelling: 180.9m2
Studio unit: 38.8m2
Primary dwelling: 185.3m2
Studio unit: 72.7m2
Primary dwelling: 184.5m2
Studio unit: 38.4m2
2.3 Access to Lot 1 will be via a private driveway directly from Bolton Street. A shared right of way along the southern boundary of 4 Bolton Street will provide access to proposed Lots 2 and 3. Each dwelling will include a single car garage for use by the primary dwelling. No parks will be provided in conjunction with the studio units.
2.4 The proposal includes landscaping across the subject site, as well as 127.5m3 of earthworks to prepare suitable building platforms, enable installation of services, and provide adequate access to each dwelling. All dwellings will be fully serviced by three waters, power and telecommunications.
2.5 An existing power pole within road reserve will be shifted to allow for the new vehicle crossing. Shifting the pole is considered to be a permitted activity under the utility rules of the District Plan and as such does not require resource consent.
3. The site and locality
3.1 The application site includes 4 and 6 Bolton Street, Petone, a combined area of 969m2. These sites are located towards the southern extent of the street and the intersection with The Esplanade.
3.2 4 Bolton Street is rectangular, has an area of 390m2, and is topographically flat. Presently the site contains the existing single storey dwelling with outdoor living to the rear. To the south-eastern corner of the site is a standalone accessory building utilised as a sleepout. There are a number of mature plants along the southern site boundary, with the remainder of the site either paved or left as open grassed area.
3.3 6 Bolton Street (579m2) is rectangular in shape and has a narrow frontage to Bolton Street. This site contains an existing single storey dwelling as well as a single garage to the rear of the house. The remainder of the site is largely flat and consists of grassed areas. There are a number of mature tree specimens towards the rear of the subject site. A garage associated with 8 Bolton Street extends across the boundary into 6 Bolton Street (see: 3.10-.311 below). Access to these two garages is via an unformed access between the two sites. There is no right of way agreement protecting this arrangement.
3.4 The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, with a combination of older bungalows interspersed with more modern two storey dwellings. Whilst the development grain is generally defined by standalone residential dwellings located towards the front of larger, rectangular sites, there is evidence of more intensive development (for example at 1-4/15 and 18-18A Bolton Street). A number of dwellings also include accessory buildings or garages within the front yard setback.
3.5 To the south of the site is The Esplanade, Petone foreshore and beach. Further to the north is the Jackson Street commercial area and heritage precinct. To the south-east of the site (being 7 Tory Street) is BK’s Esplanade Motor Lodge.
3.6 Respectively, the sites at 4 and 6 Bolton Street are legally described as Lot 1 Deposited Plan 75882 held in computer freehold register WN42C/777 and Lot 24 Deposited Plan 1533 held in computer freehold register WN363/91. There are no interests listed on either certificate of title that will affect the processing of this consent.
3.7 The subject site is located within the General Residential – Medium Density activity area of the City of Lower Hutt District Plan (herein referred to as the District Plan). There are no other restrictions or notations listed within the District Plan that will affect the processing of this consent application.
3.8 The subject site(s) have a number of building permits and resource consents associated with development. This includes: BP1387_PET and BP1248 for the original dwellings; and BP6384 which provides for the construction of a garage to the rear of 6 Bolton Street.
3.9 There do not appear to be any building plans or permits relating to the establishment of the sleepout to the rear of 4 Bolton Street. However, the building has been located on site since at least 1988, and Council required this to be fire-rated (NRN 7820400A-2) in October 1992 without requiring any further consents.
3.10 As noted in section 3.3 above, survey information provided with the application shows the existing garage to the rear of 8 Bolton Street extends across the shared boundary into the application site (No 6). A building permit (BP9765) and planning dispensation (GEN7820600-10) were issued for this garage in 1990. The approved plans showed the garage located on the boundary and sharing a party wall with the existing garage to the rear of 6 Bolton Street. A memorandum previously circulated (GEN782600-11) noted that any shared driveway/access should be protected via a right of way however no such interest has been registered on the certificate of title for 6 Bolton Street.
3.11 Legal advice provided to Council (Appendix 1) confirmed that the construction of buildings over boundaries is a private legal matter; the current resource consent process is not the appropriate pathway to resolve this matter, but should instead be dealt with as a civil issue following determination of this consent application.
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 General Residential – Medium Density activity area, and rules relevant to this activity area are contained in Chapters 4A, 11 and 14.
4.2 The proposed development consists of the six proposed dwellings, earthworks, three lot subdivision and associated access and landscaping works. It is considered that these components of the application are mutually inclusive. In accordance with the bundling principle, the activity status of the proposal is a Discretionary Activity in accordance with the following Rules:
· The proposed land use is Discretionary under Rule 4A 2.4(m) for residential development of 3 or more dwelling houses on a site located within the suburb of Petone and within the General Residential - Medium Density activity area;
· The proposed land use is also Discretionary under Rule 4A 2.4(a) for an activity that fails to comply with the relevant Permitted activity conditions and relevant rules of Chapter 14 – General Rules; and
· The proposed subdivision does not comply with the allotment design, engineering design or earthworks requirements contained in Chapter 11 of the District Plan. As such, this element of the proposal is a Discretionary activity under Rule 11.2.4(i) for a subdivision that is not a Permitted, Controlled or Restricted Discretionary activity.
4.3 The proposed land use does not comply with the following permitted activity conditions of the District Plan:
· Rule 4A 2.1.1(a) Net site area – 300m2
The net site area associated with each of the proposed dwellings falls short of the 300m2 required under the District Plan. On proposed Lot 1 (273m2), the primary dwelling has a net site area of approximately 201.7m2, whilst the studio unit will have a net site of 70.3m2. On proposed Lot 2 (271m2), the primary dwelling has a net site area of approximately 190.9m2 whilst the studio has a net site area of 79.6m2. On proposed Lot 3 (426m2), and excluding the driveway and entrance pathway which are shared spaces, the net site area for the primary dwelling is approximately 185.29m2 and 72.7m2 for the studio dwelling.
· Rule 4A 2.1.1(b) Yard setbacks – 3m front yard, 1m all other yards; 5m to garage
The proposed studio unit on Lot 1 would breach the side yard requirement by up to 0.92m as measured from the southern net site area boundary. Proposed dwelling 3 also breaches the yard setback by 0.45m as measured from the western (internal) site boundary. As the proposed studio units are integrated into the primary dwellings they also represent a yard non-compliance of 1m from the notional (internal) net site area boundaries.
· Rule 4A 2.1.1(c) Recession planes – 2.5m + 45°
Proposed dwelling 1 breaches the recession plane by a maximum height of 2.61m as measured from the northern (external) net site boundary and by an approximate height of 0.43m as measured from the southern boundary of the application site. The second storey of proposed dwelling 1 also breaches the eastern (internal) site boundary by up to 2.1m. The proposed dwelling on Lot 2 would breach the recession plane by a maximum height of approximately 0.84m as measured from the northern (external) site boundary, 1.9m as measured from the western (internal) site boundary, and 2.1m as measured from the eastern (internal) site boundary. Proposed dwelling 3 breaches the recession plane by a maximum of 2.3m as measured from the northern (external) site boundary (excluding the chimney), 0.3m as measured from the western (internal) site boundary, 0.5m as measured from the eastern (external) site boundary, and up to 2.3m as measured from the southern (external) boundary. Due to their integrated nature, there are also recession plane non-compliances between the proposed studios and primary dwelling units on each site.
· Rule 4A 2.1.1(e) Site coverage – 40%
Development will contribute to site coverage of 48.5% on proposed Lot 1, 55.9% on proposed Lot 2 and 53.5% on proposed Lot 3. Breaking this down by net site area, this equates to:
- Lot 1 – Primary Dwelling – 43.9%; Studio unit 54.3%
- Lot 2 – Primary Dwelling – 51.4%; Studio unit 48.7%
- Lot 3 – Primary Dwelling – 67%; Studio unit 52.8%
· Rule 4A 2.1.1(f) Building length – 20m + two 20° control arms
The dwelling on proposed Lot 3 is approximately 22.1m in length and falls outside of two 20° control arms meeting at a single point on the site boundary. As measured from the north boundary approximately 8.3m2 of floor area encroaches through the control arm. As measured from the southern boundary shared with 2 Bolton Street the proposed dwelling complies with the building length rule, however an additional 61m2 falls outside of the control arms as measured from the southern boundary shared with 7 Tory Street.
· Rule 4A 2.1.1(g) Permeable surface – 30% minimum
Development on proposed Lot 3 will result in permeable surface of 14.8% over the gross site area.
· Chapter 14A, Standard 1 (c) – Service lanes, private ways, pedestrian accessways and walkways
The proposed right of way will be servicing four dwellings. However it will have a formed and legal width of 3m, a non-compliance of 3m with the required 6m legal width and 2m with the required 5m formation width.
· Chapter 14A, Standard 2 (a) – Vehicle access
The proposed right of way will be servicing four dwellings but does not meet the minimum width of 4m required to allow for emergency service access.
· Chapter 14A, Standard 4 (a) – Car parking
The proposed studio units will not be provided with an onsite car park. This equates to a shortfall of 3 car parks.
· Rule 14I 2.1.1(b) Earthworks quantity – 50m3
The application is for a total of 127.5m3 of earthworks, including approximately 106.5m3 of fill and 21m3 of cut.
4.4 The proposed subdivision does not comply with the following standards and terms of the District Plan (for Controlled activities):
· Rule 18.104.22.168(a) Allotment Design
Proposed Lots 1 and 2 do not comply with the minimum allotment size being 273m2 and 271m2, a non-compliance of up to 29m2. Proposed Lot 3 has a gross site area of 426m2, or 323m2 excluding the driveway and thus complies with the minimum allotment size. However Lot 3 does not comply with the shape factor requirement (9m x 14m rectangle). The proposal does not comply with the permitted activity conditions of the General Residential – Medium Density activity area (see land use consent, above).
· Rule 22.214.171.124(b) Engineering Design
The proposed development does not comply with the required access standards of Chapter 14A of the District Plan. The proposed right of way will be servicing 4 dwellings. However it will have a formed and legal width of 3m, a shortfall of 3m with the required legal width and a 2m shortfall in respect of the required formation width.
· Rule 126.96.36.199(e) Earthworks
The proposal will exceed the permitted earthworks conditions of Rule 14I 2.1.1; a total of 127.5m3 of earthworks will be undertaken, exceeding the 50m3 permitted under the District Plan.
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 sections 8 and 9 of this report, form the basis of determining any adverse effects.
6.1 The application was limited notified to two properties, being 2 and 8 Bolton Street on 30 October 2018.
6.2 A submission was received from Glen Eveleigh and Kristen Perica, of 8 Bolton Street on 28 November 2018. This submission was in opposition to the proposal, and the submitters subsequently confirmed that they wished to be heard.
6.3 A second submission was received from Kelly Parekowhai on behalf of Joe Serci and Cheryl Archer, of 2 Bolton Street, on 29 November 2018. This submission was in opposition to the proposal and the submitters wished to be heard.
6.4 A summary of the key issues raised in the submission from the affected person/s at 8 Bolton Street are as follows:
· The proposed development would result in six dwellings along the shared boundary;
· The proposed dwellings breach the recession plane along the shared boundary and this will adversely affect amenity through loss of sunlight;
· Amenity will also be lost due to the intensive nature of the development both in terms of the number and scale of the buildings, including site coverage and the number of potential residents that may live next door. This represents a distinct change in outlook, will result in increased noise and activity levels next door, and will result in loss of privacy due to overlooking, particularly over the backyard of 8 Bolton Street;
· The proposal will put additional pressure on parking within Bolton Street and will increase traffic movements;
· The garage to the rear of the dwelling at 8 Bolton Street has been signed off by Council, and the property owners are not satisfied that this garage extends over the boundary. It is argued that the onus to fix this error falls on Council.
6.5 The matters raised within this submission shall be addressed in section 7 of this report. The exception to this is the final point relating to the garage; this shall be addressed below.
6.6 As noted, survey plans submitted with the application show that the garage at 8 Bolton Street extends across the boundary. Legal advice provided to Council has confirmed that this should be resolved via a civil process (Appendix 1). This matter will not be further addressed as part of this report, beyond an assessment relative to loss of access.
6.7 A summary of the key issues raised in the submission from the affected person/s at 6 Bolton Street are as follows:
· The proposed development is not in keeping with the established architecture, streetscape, amenity or character of the area, and will dominate the surrounding area due to the greater density and intensity of the development;
· The extent of non-compliance with the minimum allotment size and bulk and location rules will result in a development of a scale and intensity beyond that provided for by the District Plan. The cumulative building bulk and development density will have adverse effects in regards to visual amenity (including a loss of views and outlook), building dominance, privacy and shading effects, and will set a precedent for further development of a similar scale within the surrounding area. Additional consideration must be given to the cumulative effects of the proposed development, given the number and scale of non-compliances with the District Plan;
· The proposed landscaping is insufficient to screen and soften the proposal, and will be exacerbated by the loss of the mature pohutukawa to the rear of the subject site;
· The proposed development is not in keeping with the Design Guide for Medium Density Housing.
· The proposed parking shortfall will increase pressure on parking within Bolton Street, whilst the narrow width of the access will restrict onsite manoeuvring and create potential for conflict with pedestrians and cyclists;
· Onsite provision must be made for waste management;
· The submitter does not want any disturbance of their property during the installation of services;
· Further consideration must be given to construction effects, including the phasing and duration of construction works, erosion and sedimentation effects, noise and vibration, and control of stormwater during earthworks. The submitter is concerned about loss of access to their property at 2 Bolton Street during construction, as well as the safety of family and pets during construction.
· Some or all of the proposed dwellings could be utilised for visitor accommodation, and/or the studio units could be rented independent of the primary dwelling and this would create additional adverse amenity and traffic effects for the surrounding area;
· Referring to the proposed dwellings as three dwelling houses and three studios (noting studios are not defined in the District Plan) diminishes the cumulative effects arising from the proposed six dwellings on the subject site;
· Council’s notification decision should have found additional persons affected, including the owners/occupiers of 9 Tory Street, and 3, 5 and 7 Bolton Street. Further consideration should be given to whether special circumstances apply that should have warranted wider notification of the proposal.
6.8 The matters raised in this submission shall be addressed in section 7 of this report. The exceptions to this are the comments relating to the terminology used (i.e. primary dwelling, and studio), matters raised in relation to the notification decision, and comment around safety during construction; these shall be addressed directly below (6.9-6.11).
6.9 The submitter states that references to the proposal as three dwelling houses and three studio units are disingenuous. However this terminology serves to make it clear exactly which elements of the proposal are being discussed at any one time. Further the description of the proposal specifically notes that in accordance with District Plan definitions, the proposal is for a total of six dwelling houses. In the interest of clarity, the terms ‘primary dwelling’ and ‘studio unit’ will continue to be used.
6.10 In terms of the scope of notification and the submitters’ points regarding the role of special circumstances in such a decision, it is noted that the hearing process is for the determination of an application rather than reviewing the merits of the notification decision. The appropriate avenue for this is via the judicial review process which is a question of law rather than merit.
6.11 The District Plan does not seek to manage safety associated with a construction site beyond controls over site stability, management of surface water, and noise effects and these shall be considered in the assessment below. In terms of safety for persons and pets on adjacent sites, this is controlled via the building consent process whereby the site must secure, and WorkSafe.
6.12 A pre-hearing meeting will be held on Monday 14 January. The chairpersons’ report will be circulated as an addendum no less than five working days before the hearing.
6.13 The matters raised within the submissions will be addressed within sections 7 and 8 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:
· Residential character effects;
· Residential amenity effects;
· Streetscape amenity effects;
· Servicing and engineering effects;
· Traffic and parking effects;
· Subdivision design and layout;
· Effects upon natural features and topography;
· Effects upon sites of significance;
· Natural hazards effects;
· Site contamination effects;
· Esplanade strips and reserves;
· Construction effects; and
· Positive effects
7.3 Section 104(2) states “…when forming an opinion for the purpose of subsection 1(a), a consent authority may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if [[a national environmental standard or]] the plan permits an activity with that effect.”
7.4 In this instance, the permitted baseline is for two residential dwellings and associated accessory buildings, one located on each established legal property at 4 and 6 Bolton Street. To proceed without a resource consent these dwellings must comply with the relevant bulk and location standards in Chapter 4A of the District Plan, and general rules in Chapter 14.
7.5 The applicant has provided a permitted baseline argument that includes a two storey dwelling and associated standalone garage on each of 4 and 6 Bolton Street (see: job no. J0577, sheets RC19-20, prepared by Moore Architecture and dated 2 October). The dwellings are no more than 20m in length, and are located at least 1m away from the side and rear boundaries, and over 3m from the front boundary. The garages are setback a minimum of 5m from the front boundary. As per the District Plan (Rule 4A 2.1.1(b)(v)), each accessory building is located within the side yard but does not extend for more than 6m in length along the encroached boundary. All buildings comply with the recession plane (2.5m + 45°), do not exceed 8m in height, and the cumulative building footprint does not exceed 40% site coverage. These same compliant dwelling forms could be located further towards the eastern boundary of the subject site provided that they did not encroach into yards or breach recession planes. I accept the applicant’s permitted baseline, and consider it relevant for assessing the effects of the proposed buildings on site.
7.6 The permitted baseline also provides for a total of 50m3 of earthworks per site that result in a vertical change in ground level of no more than 1.2m. If development was to proceed independently on each established legal property forming part of the application site (4 and 6 Bolton Street), 50m3 of earthworks could be permitted on each section (i.e. a total of 100m3). It is acknowledged that the submitter for 2 Bolton Street does not consider this to form a relevant part of the permitted baseline. However, given the volume of earthworks proposed (127.5m3), I consider this permitted baseline to be of relevance for assessing the effects of the proposed earthworks.
7.7 With respect to subdivision, the permitted baseline includes minor boundary adjustments provided that the permitted activity conditions can be met and no additional allotments are created. This subdivision creates a total of three residential allotments so it is considered there is no permitted baseline for the subdivision.
The existing environment
7.8 As noted in section 3 above, the application site currently accommodates two dwelling houses and two accessory buildings; there is one dwelling and a sleepout at 4 Bolton Street, and a second dwelling and garage at 6 Bolton Street. The remainder of the application site generally consists of paved or grassed outdoor areas, whilst there are a number of mature tree specimens to the rear (east) and side (south) of the application site.
Assessment of environmental effects
7.9 No persons have provided written approval to the proposal.
Residential character effects
7.10 Character is influenced by the layout of sites, including allotment size, dwelling form and development grain.
7.11 The application site is located towards the southern extent of Bolton Street, an area predominantly residential in nature. Within proximity of the site there is a dominance of standalone residential dwellings and associated accessory buildings on individual allotments. Sites and dwellings are generally oriented east-west, with dwellings situated towards the frontage and open gardens to the rear. Dwellings tend to be older bungalow houses and are generally (although not exclusively) single storey. Development forms along The Esplanade are generally more intensive with larger two storey dwellings more prevalent.
7.12 The proposal represents a departure from the permitted development density as evidenced by the undersized net site areas (185.3m2-201.7m2 for the primary dwelling units and 70.3m2-79.6m2 for the proposed studio units). Whilst these fall below the 300m2 anticipated under the District Plan they would not be exclusive examples in the local environment with flats at 1-4/15 Bolton Street located on net site areas between 84.5m2-213.6m2. However the integrated nature of the proposed studio units serves to partially mitigate adverse character effects due to the undersized net site areas; the six dwelling development will effectively read as three buildings – and thus three dwellings. Allotment size is therefore considered a better indication of perceived density and associated character. The proposed allotments range from 271m2 to 323m2 and are similar to other sections in the surrounding area (for example: 25-28 Bolton Street being 276-304m2 in size, and 18A Bolton street being 223m3). Whilst Lots 1 and 2 fall short of the required 300m2 allotment size, the scale of non-compliance is modest (up to 29m2) and will not be easily discerned from the surrounding area.
7.13 As the overall site area is 969m2 it could be reasonably anticipated that up to three, two storey dwellings could be constructed on site given the underlying zoning, although this does not form part of the permitted baseline and would be subject to assessment against the provisions of the Design Guide for Medium Density Housing. The proposed development has been assessed against the Design Guide by Dr Morten Gjerde, Council’s Urban Design Advisor, who concluded the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Design Guide and specifically the requirements of “Fitting with the Neighbourhood”, those clauses most relevant to character.
7.14 The submitters for No 2 consider that Bolton Street is also defined by an historic character. Many of the surrounding properties within Bolton Street and Petone are the result of historic development patterns, reflected in their architecture and development grain. However, the subject site is not located within a defined “special character” area of the District Plan such as the Historic Residential activity area or areas subject to a heritage overlay. Accordingly the District Plan does not seek to control the architectural style or character of the area beyond the bulk and location standards and provisions of the Design Guide for Medium Density Housing. This is evident within the surrounding area with more modern, two storey dwellings established at: 3, 5, 11, and 1-4/15 Bolton Street; 175, 177, 183 and 185 The Esplanade; and 2A, 4, and 9 Tory Street. The proposed two storey form and modern architecture of the proposed dwellings is considered to be generally consistent with the anticipated character of Medium Density activity area.
7.15 The submitter for 2 Bolton Street notes that the location of the garage on Lot 1 facing the street will undermine the residential character of the surrounding area. However the proposed garage complies with the front yard setback provisions of the District Plan, and there are several sites including 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 14 Bolton Street with garages located within front yard setbacks and/or directly oriented towards the street. As such I consider the proposed garage placement to not be inconsistent with the established residential character of the surrounding area and is therefore acceptable.
7.16 The submitter for 2 Bolton Street raised concerns about use of the proposed studio units as commercial visitor accommodation by future owners. It is noted that resource consent has not been sought for visitor accommodation on site and thus such a use could not be undertaken as of right under the current provisions of the District Plan, nor in accordance with this resource consent (should it be granted). As such, I do not consider that the proposed activity will undermine the residential character of the area by providing for an increase in visitor accommodation. Irrespective of this, I consider it appropriate to suggest that a consent notice be listed on the certificate of title stating that these units shall not be used for the purposes of visitor accommodation unless permitted under the District Plan or a resource consent is obtained.
7.17 For the reasons outlined above I do not consider the proposed activity to be visually incongruent with the anticipated residential character of the surrounding area. Any adverse character effects arising from the proposal are considered to be acceptable.
Residential amenity effects
7.18 For the purposes of this assessment, residential amenity effects are considered to include: visual amenity (including outlook, and building bulk and dominance), shading, and additional general amenity effects including privacy and overlooking, noise and perceived activity levels.
7.19 Both submissions raised concerns about the number and scale of non-compliances with the allotment design, net site, and bulk and location standards of the District Plan. They argue that the resulting built form will be overly intensive and will dominate the surrounding area, compromising views, outlook and associated visual amenity values. Whilst acknowledging the concerns raised in respect of loss of views – particularly of the sky and mature trees - case law has established that there is no absolute right of the preservation of a view, although consideration of matters such as building bulk, location and subsequent effects upon outlook are relevant to the maintenance of views. The assessment below has taken these matters into consideration.
7.20 The proposed development is for a total of three buildings containing six dwellings on the subject site. As such the outlook and perceived building bulk diverges from that permitted under the District Plan that provides for a single residential dwelling and associated accessory building on each of 4 and 6 Bolton Street. Whilst acknowledging that, due to the size of the site and underlying zoning, up to three dwellings could be reasonably anticipated on the application site, the proposed dwellings also breach a number of bulk and location standards. The cumulative effect of this higher development density and intensity is adverse visual amenity effects due to building bulk, dominance and change in outlook.
7.21 The proposed net site areas per dwelling range from 70.3-201.7m2. However the integrated nature of the primary and studio units reduces perceptions of density to three dwellings on site whereby overall allotment size (271-323m2) provides a better guide as to perceived density and associated adverse visual amenity effects.
7.22 A similar approach can be taken in respect to site coverage. The proposed dwellings contribute to site coverage per net site area of 43.9% - 67%. As noted above however the dwellings read as three buildings on the subject site, such that site coverage based off allotment size is considered a better guide as to perceived development intensity. Over Lots 1-3, this results in site coverage of 48.5%, 55.9% and 53.5% respectively.
7.23 The proposed development also breaches a number of yard setbacks (all internal to the application site), as well as the recession plane and building length controls of the District Plan.
7.24 When considering the perceived density in relation to the allotment size, the shortfall associated with proposed Lots 1 and 2 is modest in scale (up to 29m2) whereby it will not be readily discernible from the adjacent sites or wider area noting the screening provided by the dwellings and proposed fencing. Perceived density and associated adverse visual amenity effects are considered to be similar to those that could arise from a reasonably anticipated development on the subject site, particularly given the medium density overlay.
7.25 The combination of bulk and location non-compliances is considered to contribute to an intensive development form over the wider subject site. However a number of mitigating factors serve to reduce associated adverse visual amenity effects.
7.26 Fencing 1.8m in height is proposed along the southern site boundary. A 1.8m boundary fence is also proposed along the northern site boundary shared with 8 Bolton Street, with the exception of 14m of 1.2m fencing towards the street frontage. This low fence coupled with the adjacent low planting is not considered to provide sufficient screening of the proposal, as such I consider it would be appropriate that a condition should be imposed requiring this to be raised to 1.8m.
7.27 Combined, the fencing and adjacent landscaping (including the planting of specimen tree Pseudopanax ‘Dreamtime’ and dense hedge species Griselinia ‘Broadway mint’ and Pittosporum ‘Stephens Island’) is considered to screen and soften the appearance of the proposed development, partially mitigating the effects of the higher site coverage (48.5% - 55.9% per allotment) and more intensive development form. The extent to which planting will screen and soften the appearance of the proposal from the east and south is limited due to the small number of plants proposed, removal of existing mature specimen from the site, and within the need to have low growing plants to preserve sightlines within the driveway. Despite this the proposed buildings and underlying allotments will not be visible in their entirety as viewed from any one direction, further limiting perceptions of excessive building bulk.
7.28 The location of outdoor living areas to the north of the proposed dwellings and the 3.0m wide right of way to the south of the subject site provide a buffer between the proposed buildings and the properties at 2 and 8 Bolton Street. Modest yards are also provided between all three buildings. Whilst the total separation between the buildings on Lot 2 and 3 will 0.45m narrower than permitted under the District Plan, these separation distances will provide view shafts from north to south through the site, breaking up building bulk. It is acknowledged that when the dwellings are viewed at a more oblique angle these view shafts may not always be visible, thus restricting the outlook of persons at 2 and 8 Bolton Street and contributing to perceptions of building bulk.
7.29 The facades of the proposed dwellings have been modulated where possible, with variable setbacks from allotment boundaries with distinct dwelling and roof forms. Despite their two storey form, the first floor does not directly mirror the building footprint below but is oriented differently and/or recessed. These building elements ensure that portions of each building are single storey, providing visual interest and breaking up building bulk.
7.30 With respect to the proposed building length non-compliance (Lot 3), modulation of the northern façade is an important mitigating factor. The garage is recessed from the northern façade by 3.35m, and in combination with the mix of cladding and single storey portions of the building is considered to provide visual interest and mitigate perceptions of excessive building bulk. Furthermore, the scale of non-compliance is relatively modest as measured from the northern site boundary; the building is 2.1m over length, with 8.3m2 falling outside of the control arms further limiting adverse visual amenity due to excessive building bulk. Due to the form of the boundary, 61m2 falls outside of the control arms as measured from the southern boundary shared with 7 Tory Street. However, the effects of this are mitigated by the dwelling modulation, and the fact the breach is located adjacent to the visitor car park at 7 Tory Street, considered less sensitive to adverse visual amenity effects. For those persons at 2 Bolton Street the building complies with the building length control as measured from the shared boundary. For both 2 Bolton Street and 7 Tory Street it is noted that the building does not extend for its full length along the boundary shared, limiting perceptions of building bulk and associated adverse visual effects. Fencing and landscaping will further screen the proposal.
7.31 In regards to the recession plane non-compliances (0.3-2.61m in height), these breaches are largely concentrated upon the eaves and roof of the buildings; the exceptions are the north-facing gable ends on Primary Dwellings 1 and 3 adjacent to 8 Bolton Street, and the second storey of Dwelling 3 adjacent to 7 Tory Street, as well as the internal recession plane non-compliances.
7.32 Where the dwelling breaches the recession plane by up to 2.3m from the boundary shared with 7 Tory Street, this is located adjacent to the visitor car park. This area is considered to be less sensitive to adverse visual amenity effects due to perceived building bulk, whilst the primary outlook from the motel itself is to the south partially mitigating adverse visual amenity effects. Where the gable ends breach the recession plane to the north they are considered to contribute to building bulk due to their height (2.6m and 2.3m on Lots 1 and 3). The gable ends are 6.2m and 5m in width respectively, however the slope of the roof is such that the scale of the breach reduces quickly partially mitigating perceived building bulk and associated adverse visual amenity effects. These larger recession plane breaches are well separated, with one towards the rear (east) and one towards the front (west) of the application site. This separation assists in mitigating the effects of cumulative building bulk along the southern boundary of 8 Bolton Street.
7.33 Recession plane breaches concentrated upon the eaves of the buildings are considered to be sufficiently small in scale whereby they make only a minimal contribution to building bulk and adverse visual amenity effects. Recession plane breaches along the internal site boundaries contribute only marginally to perceived building bulk and associated adverse visual amenity effects beyond the site boundary.
7.34 As viewed from the wider environment (specifically properties to the north, east and south) the proposed development will be partially screened and separated by adjacent development. As mentioned the integrated dwelling design reduces perceived density to an extent that can reasonably anticipated on the application site given the medium density overlay. This screening and separation limits perceptions of the undersized allotments and bulk and location non-compliances with the District Plan, mitigating perceived building bulk, dominance and associated adverse visual amenity effects to an acceptable level.
7.35 For persons located to the west of the subject site it is development on proposed Lot 1 that will be most prominent. The building thereon will effectively screen and separate the proposed development – and associated allotment size, bulk and location non-compliances – on Lots 2 and 3. The dwelling on Lot 1 complies with the minimum yard and recession plane setbacks as measured from the western (front) site boundary, and the 20m separation distance over the Bolton Street carriageway will further reduce perceptions of building bulk and dominance. The proposed fencing (1.2m in height) and planting (including hedge-like species Griselinia ‘Broadway Mint’ and the modest weeping kowhai Sophora chathamica) will further screen and soften the appearance of the proposed dwellings.
7.36 Renders provided by the applicant (Appendix 2) showing the proposal in situ demonstrate that, despite the number of non-compliances, the development will not result in an overly bulky or dominant form when viewed from the wider environment. Any adverse visual amenity effects will thus be acceptable for the wider area.
7.37 The proposed earthworks are approximately 300mm deep, and thus comply with the maximum change in ground level permitted under the District Plan. The permitted baseline provides for a total of 100m3 of earthworks to be undertaken (50m3 on 4 and 6 Bolton Street, respectively). The proposal is for 127.5m3 and it is considered that the small additional volume (27.5m3) will not be readily discernible from the surrounding area. At the completion of works any exposed surfaces will be paved, built over or landscaped whereby adverse visual amenity effects are considered to be less than minor and therefore acceptable.
7.38 On the basis of the above analysis, I conclude that whilst the proposal will generate adverse visual amenity effects due to a change in outlook, perceived building bulk and dominance, these will be mitigated to an acceptable level for all persons.
7.39 Submitters for both 2 and 8 Bolton Street raised concerns about the extent of shading arising from the proposed development. Following receipt of submissions the applicant has provided an updated set of shading diagrams (Appendix 3) to demonstrate the shading effects at mid-summer, mid-winter, and equinox. A comparison is provided with the permitted baseline, including perimeter fencing.
7.40 It is considered that shading effects arising from the proposal will be limited to those properties immediately adjacent to the application site, as well as the adjacent street frontage. Effects upon the wider environment are considered to be acceptable due to separation distance from the subject site. With respect the adjacent public domain, any shading effects are considered to be acceptable due to the transient nature of users and noting that the dwellings on Lot 1 complies with the recession plane as measured from the shared site boundary.
7.41 With respect to shading it is primarily recession plane controls that determine the scale and scope of shading. However it is considered that the cumulative effect of the three proposed buildings, their two storey form, recession plane and site coverage non-compliances will all contribute to shading effects beyond those anticipated by the District Plan. On all lots, it is acknowledged that shading cast by the proposed fencing will be comparable to a permitted baseline development.
7.42 With respect to 7 Tory Street it is acknowledged that the proposal will cast shadow over the application site throughout the year. Adverse shading effects are largely attributed to the proposed building on Lot 3; the remaining dwellings on Lots 1 and 2 are sufficiently separated whereby they contribute to shading only during the winter months when the sun is lower. As a result of the proposed dwelling shade will be cast over 7 Tory Street between sunrise and sunset in the winter and equinox months (although the extent of shading is reduced in equinox), and between 7.30-10am in summer with a further reduction in the extent of shading . It is acknowledged that a compliant two storey dwelling located towards the eastern site boundary of 6 Bolton Street would account for some of the shadow cast. Irrespective of this, it is considered that any adverse shading effects will be acceptable as shading effects will be concentrated upon the visitor car park behind the motel, an area considered less sensitive to loss of sunlight.
7.43 The recession plane non-compliance along the eastern site boundary shared with 9 Tory Street is modest in scale (0.5m) and restricted to a small portion of the roof/eaves of the dwelling. As such, adverse shading effects are considered to be similar to those that could arise from a compliant two storey dwelling located towards the eastern site boundary of 6 Bolton Street and are thus acceptable.
7.44 Shading effects upon 2 Bolton Street are considered to be acceptable during the summer months. The shading diagrams provided show that the only shading will be attributable to the proposed fencing, and is therefore considered to be comparable to a permitted baseline development. During equinox, shading associated with the proposed dwellings will occur between sunrise and approximately 9.30am; from this point on shadows will be cast to the east and north and away from 2 Bolton Street. This is less than could arise from a permitted baseline development where the extent of shading from a dwelling and garage would be larger, and the duration of shading greater, impacting on No 2 until approximately 11am.
7.45 During the winter months, shading arising from the proposed development will not extend into 2 Bolton Street after 12.30pm until sunset. Between sunrise and 12.30pm the extent and duration of shading upon living spaces at No 2 (both indoor and outdoor) are considered to be no worse than could arise as the result of a permitted baseline development. The exception is between the hours of 9 and 11am when the proposed development would cause greater shading over the outdoor living area. However the limited extent of shading upon the dwelling itself will be lesser as a result of the proposal than the permitted baseline; the modulated dwelling forms, 3.0m separation over the right of way, coupled with the high degree of compliance with the recession plane (the exception being a 0.43m breach at the roof peak on dwelling 1) are sufficient to mitigate adverse shading effects for persons at 2 Bolton Street to an acceptable level.
7.46 The proposed building bulk – including recession plane breaches between 0.8-2.3m in height along the shared boundary – will also contribute to shading effects upon persons at 8 Bolton Street. Shading diagrams demonstrate that shading upon the patio/paved outdoor area to the north east of No 8 is largely internally generated, whilst shading through the centre of the property is currently attributable to the existing garage on the site. Due to its position to the north, shading effects upon 8 Bolton Street are shown to be negligible during winter, with shadows from the proposed dwellings being cast to the south and east.
7.47 During equinox, shading from the proposed dwellings reaches the property at 8 Bolton Street at approximately 4.30pm. The extent of shading increases throughout the remainder of the day, but is generally restricted to the southern yard and dwelling façade. However, the extent of shading is considered to be generally comparable to the permitted baseline due to the wider yard setbacks and modulation of dwelling form proposed.
7.48 During the summer months, the proposal will also cast shade over 8 Bolton Street. With respect to proposed Lot 1, shading from the new building first reaches the subject site and approximately 4pm. Shading will extend along the southern dwelling façade of number 8 for the remainder of the day. However this is no worse than could arise from a permitted development; a comparison against the permitted baseline shows that shading from a standalone garage would begin to impact upon 8 Bolton Street at approximately 3pm and would endure for the remainder of the day.
7.49 Summer shading associated with the building on Lot 2 is concentrated upon the existing garage at number 8, an area less sensitive to adverse shading effects. Acknowledging that this garage could be removed, it is considered that the extent of shading from the building on proposed Lot 2 is no worse than currently occurs as a result of the garage.
7.50 The permitted baseline diagram shows that during summer, most of the house and rear yard will be shaded by approximately 6.00pm. At 6pm cumulative shading from all three dwellings (including Lot 3, which casts shadows over the rear yard for No 8), will be comparable to that which may arise from a permitted baseline development.
7.51 On this basis shading effects upon persons at 8 Bolton Street are considered to be acceptable.
General amenity – privacy, noise and perceived activity
7.52 The submitters from both 2 and 8 Bolton Street noted that the density of the development will generate privacy and overlooking effects. The submitters from 8 Bolton Street further noted that the proposed development will increase the number of persons living immediately adjacent to their boundary, and will result in additional noise and activity within the surrounding area.
7.54 It is noted that no windows breach the northern or southern recession planes, and thus will not exacerbate overlooking effects. From the first floor level, overlooking of 2 Bolton Street will be from bedrooms and/or bathrooms. The exception is the primary dwelling on proposed Lot 2 where additional windows associated with the first floor landing/hallway and reading nook are included. The floor plan illustrates that any overlooking of 8 Bolton Street will be from bedrooms, bathrooms, and a stairwell/hallway ‘void’ at the first floor level. These areas will have reduced activity levels during the day as they are not primary living spaces, thereby limiting actual overlooking effects.
7.55 With the exception of the outdoor area for Studio 1, the outdoor living spaces are located to the north of the proposed dwellings whereby associated noise effects will be screened from 2 Bolton Street by intervening development. At the ground floor level there is potential for adverse privacy due to a line of sight from living rooms associated with Studio 1 and Dwelling 2 to the south, however these areas will be separated from No 2 by the right of way and will be screened by a 1.8m boundary fence, thereby mitigating potential privacy effects.
7.56 Indoor and outdoor living areas at the ground floor are located adjacent to, and oriented towards, the northern boundary shared with 8 Bolton Street. Landscaping plans show that a 1.8m close boarded boundary fence will screen the proposed outdoor areas from view, limiting perceived activity levels and associated privacy effects and providing a degree of acoustic protection. It is noted that the fence reduces to a height of 1.2m for a length of 14m towards the street frontage. This low fence coupled with the adjacent low planting is insufficient to preserve the privacy of persons at 8 Bolton Street. As such I consider it appropriate to suggest a condition of consent that this portion of the fence be raised to 1.8m.
7.57 As per the landscaping scheme, a combination of Psudopanax ‘Dreamtime’, Griselinia ‘Broadway mint’ and Pittosporum ‘Stephens Island’ will be planted along the northern boundary of the subject site. At maturity the griselinia and pittosporum form dense hedges whilst the pseudopanax specimen tree grows up to 3m in height. This will provide additional screening of outdoor areas as well as windows and doors in the northern façades of the proposed dwellings for persons at 8 Bolton Street. Further, the existing patio at 8 Bolton Street is located to the north east of the dwelling, is setback from the boundary shared with the application site by approximately 2.4m and is screened by an existing timber fence delineating the patio from the vehicle access to the garage. This is further considered to mitigate privacy and noise effects upon the passive outdoor living area at 8 Bolton Street.
7.58 As viewed from the north and south, the proposed buildings will be read as three dwellings. Whilst the internal yard layouts (including the provision of outdoor living areas) are defined for all six dwellings, these will be well screened from the south by the buildings themselves, and will be screened by the proposed 1.8m boundary fence along the northern boundary. Perceiving the development as six dwelling partially mitigates adverse privacy effects due to overlooking to an extent similar to a reasonably anticipated development on the subject site. Noting this, and the assessment in sections 7.52-7.57 above I consider any actual adverse privacy effects to be mitigated to an acceptable level for 2 and 8 Bolton Street.
7.59 As viewed from 9 Tory Street the building on proposed Lot 3 effectively reads as a single dwelling. Perceived development density and associated adverse privacy effects due to potential overlooking will be similar to those that could arise from a compliant two storey dwelling located to the east of the subject site and are thus deemed to be acceptable.
7.60 The proposed dwellings on Lot 3 will be located immediately to the north of the property at 7 Tory Street. In terms of privacy, the second storey windows in the southern façade of the proposed building will breach the recession plane in their entirety. However these will be overlooking the car park area and rear façade of the motel, areas considered to be less sensitive to the effects of overlooking. Visitors to the motel will be transient and are thus less sensitive to adverse privacy and perceived activity levels. Given the oblique line of sight, screening and separation into the remainder of the development any adverse privacy effects are considered to be acceptable for 7 Tory Street.
7.61 The submitter for 2 Bolton Street argued that possible use of the studios as rental properties will adversely affect amenity. It is considered that, irrespective of rental status, the proposed use of the primary and studio dwellings as two dwellings will be comparable to the effects of a larger dwelling with an additional bedroom with similar occupancy and activity levels and associated effects upon privacy and general amenity.
7.62 All other persons are considered to be sufficiently screened and separated from the application site whereby they will not be subject to direct overlooking. This separation distance is considered sufficient to mitigate any adverse privacy or noise effects due to perceived activity levels to an acceptable degree.
Streetscape amenity effects
7.63 Dwellings within Bolton Street are generally oriented east-west on the underlying allotment. Many of the older bungalows within the surrounding area have large windows and clearly defined entrances oriented towards the street frontage, often with low picket or timber slab fences defining the front boundary and providing for passive surveillance and a visual connection to the public domain.
7.64 For dwellings along the eastern extent of Bolton Street front yard setbacks are relatively consistent, ranging from approximately 5-7m. Along the western extent of the street the setbacks tend to be smaller (between 2.5-5.0m approximately). The width of the front yard setbacks serves to minimise perceived building bulk at the front boundary. A number of properties (including 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 14 Bolton Street) have standalone garages located within the front yard, or internal access garages oriented directly towards the street frontage. Due to the narrow frontage of many allotments within the surrounding area front yards also tend to be paved and utilised for onsite parking.
7.65 With respect to the proposed development, it is considered that the site layout will mitigate perceptions of excessive building bulk at the front boundary. The proposed dwelling on Lot 1 has a modulated front (western) façade, with yard setbacks varying from 3m - 6.7m. These yard setbacks help maintain the rhythm of the surrounding streetscape, whilst the proposed 1.2m front fence and associated planting is consistent with the front yard landscaping treatment on surrounding sites. The proposed garage on Lot 1 is recessed recessing to prevent dominance of the street frontage by vehicles and garage facilities. The building on Lot 1 also complies with the recession plane as measured from the front boundary, mitigating perceptions of excessive building bulk and associated adverse streetscape effects.
7.66 The proposed dwellings on Lot 1 both have their front entrances and French doors oriented towards the street frontage. These are reminiscent of the bay windows on many of the surrounding dwellings, albeit a more modern approach, and ensure that the passive surveillance of, and visual connection to, the street are maintained.
7.67 The “stacked” site layout whereby the proposed Lots are ranged behind each other from east-west mitigates perceptions of development intensity at the front boundary (including both building bulk and density). The rear Lots and dwellings thereon will be partly screened and sufficiently separated from the public domain so as to minimise adverse streetscape effects due to perceived building bulk. Renders provided by the applicant (Appendix 2) showing the development in context demonstrate that the building form will not be overly dominant in relation to Bolton Street.
7.68 The proposed dwellings are all two storey in form, and thus will be visible above the roofs of the dwellings immediately to the north and south. However, the District Plan anticipates two storey dwellings on sites within the General Residential – Medium Density activity area.
7.69 For these reasons I consider any adverse streetscape effects will be mitigated to an extent that is less than minor and therefore acceptable for all persons.
Servicing and engineering effects
7.70 The applicant has proposed to extend water supply, wastewater, stormwater, power and telecommunication services to all allotments. Where necessary these will be protected by easements, with additional easements proposed to provide access over the right of way.
7.71 Correspondence between Sylvio Leal, Council’s Subdivision Engineer, and Brian Smith and Marlene Roberts-Saidy, engineers at Wellington Water, noted that The Esplanade is subject to an “inundation area under investigation”. To mitigate any risk of onsite the proposed dwellings have a finished floor level (FFL) higher than the crown of the Bolton Street carriageway (FFL of 2.625 as compared to 2.42 within the road). This is considered adequate to address any inundation risk associated with infrastructure in the surrounding area.
7.72 Wellington Water did not raise any concerns in relation to increased demand upon the surrounding water, stormwater, and wastewater networks. Input was sought relating to the permeable surface non-compliance associated with Lot 3; over the gross site area a total of 14.8% will be permeable surface. Comment provided by Ms Roberts-Saidy noted that: “the development will increase the impermeable area and this will generate additional stormwater. Consultation with the hydraulic modellers indicate that stormwater neutrality will not be required as this site does not appear to be flooding in the 1 in 10 year event and the discharge is close to the marine environment. Based on this no mitigation will be required for stormwater.”
7.73 The proposal has also been assessed and is supported by Sylvio Leal, Council’s Subdivision subject to conditions. I consider these conditions necessary and appropriate to be imposed under s220 of the RMA to ensure that all proposed dwelling units are adequately serviced at the completion of works.
7.74 Based on the above I consider that any adverse effects arising from servicing of the site and the proposed shortfall in permeable surface will be mitigated to an acceptable extent at the completion of works.
Traffic and parking effects
7.75 No car parks are proposed to be provided in association with the studio units, a shortfall of three parks. Both submitters have raised concerns about the extent of pressure this will place upon the on-street parking facilities within the surrounding area.
7.76 To further support their proposal, the applicant has conducted parking surveys along Bolton Street. The results on this are included in Appendix 4 and have been reviewed by Bill Barclay, Council’s Traffic Engineer (Appendix 5). This survey examined parking capacity within a distance of 30-40m from the application site. The survey showed that there were 9-14 vacant car parking spaces available. Mr Barclay accepted the results of this survey and confirmed that there is enough on street parking available to mitigate the effects of the shortfall to an acceptable level.
7.77 Reverse manoeuvring is required in association with proposed Lot 1. Whilst the driveway access to Lot 1 will serve the primary and studio dwellings, only one on site park will be provided. As such, Mr Barclay has determined that any adverse effects arising from the need for reverse manoeuvring will be no worse than could arise from a compliant access to a single dwelling forming part of the permitted baseline.
7.78 The submitter for 2 Bolton Street raised concerns about the acceptability of the onsite circulation and manoeuvring arrangements given the undersized right of way. This would have a formed and legal width of 3m, less than the 5m and 6m respectively required for a private way serving four dwellings.
7.79 This element of the proposal has been assessed and is supported by Mr Barclay who concluded that there is good visibility within the site; extending upon this, I note that the right of way will be straight and extends for a moderate length of approximately 33.6m. Furthermore, Standard 1(c) in Chapter 14A of the District Plan stipulates that where a right of way is servicing up to two dwellings (each with a minimum requirement for one onsite car park, being a total of two parks) there is a legal width requirement of 3m and no minimum formation width. Whilst the right of way will be providing access to a total of four dwellings, it will only be servicing two dwellings and two car parks. As such, any circulation, access and manoeuvring effects arising from the proposed 3m right of way will therefore be comparable to those that could arise from a compliant right of way serving two dwellings on the subject site and are thus acceptable. These effects will be internal to the application site, and thus will have a negligible effect upon the owners/occupiers of any adjacent properties.
7.80 The submission from 2 Bolton Street raised concerns about the ability of vehicles on Lots 2 and 3 to turn on site. Mr Barclay has confirmed that vehicles will be able to turn onsite allowing them to enter and exit the site in a forwards direction.
7.81 With respect to sightlines, the front (western) fence on proposed Lot 1 will be limited to a height of 1.2m assisting with visibility to the north. Combined with the wide footpath (approximately 3m), lack of street trees to infringe upon lines of sight, separation distance from the closest intersections (being 135m to the north and 45m to the south), and noting the reasonably sheltered traffic environment, Mr Barclay has determined that the proposed sightlines will be almost indefinite in length. NZS 2890.1:2004 sets a minimum 40m sightline distance for residential dwellings accessing a road with a 50km speed limit. Mr Barclay has confirmed that the proposal will meet this minimum standard and are therefore acceptable.
7.82 It is acknowledged that a 1.8m boundary fence is proposed along the southern extent of the site boundary, and that kowhai trees within the front yard of Lot 1 may somewhat restrict sightlines. However kowhai do not have particularly dense foliage, mitigating any adverse effects upon sightlines, and it is noted that the permitted baseline provides for fencing up to 2m in height around the site perimeter. Mr Barclay has confirmed that despite the fence there will still be clear visibility and due to low numbers of vehicle movements are not expected to generate unacceptable safety issues. Given also that vehicles will be able to exit the right of way in a forwards direction I consider that any adverse effects upon the safety of pedestrian, cyclists or other motorists within Bolton Street will be acceptable.
7.83 Both submitters raised concerns about increased congestion within Bolton Street and the surrounding road network. This was assessed by Mr Barclay who concluded:
“Typically residential dwellings generate between five and ten vehicle movements per day per dwelling. With six dwellings the generation can be expected to be in the range of 30 and 60. This is a very small number in comparison with flows on The Esplanade near the site, which carries in the order of 25,000 veh/h. Flows on Bolton Street will be much lower, and I would expect potential effects on road safety or efficiency to be very minor”.
I concur with this assessment and consider congestion effects to be acceptable.
7.84 Persons at 8 Bolton Street will lose vehicle access to their garage as a result of the proposal, and may also be required to remove or alter the established garage. The District Plan provides for the construction of a boundary fence up to 2m in height around the perimeter of the 6 Bolton Street as a permitted activity. This would effectively prevent persons at No 8 from utilising the existing informal access in the same way as the current proposal. Whilst the outcome in unfortunate, it is considered acceptable as compared to the permitted baseline.
7.85 The submission from 2 Bolton Street stated that the Council has a proposal to establish angle parking along Bolton Street, which may result in alterations to pedestrian, cyclist and public safety. Input was subsequently sought from Zackary Moodie, Traffic Engineer – Network Operations at Hutt City Council (Appendix 6). Mr Moodie confirmed that no alterations are proposed for that portion of the roadway adjacent to the subject site; these will be concentrated within that portion of Bolton Street bounded by Jackson Street to the north and Adelaide Street to the south and will not alter the number of unmetered parks available in the street. Accordingly the changes are not considered to have implications for the proposed development.
7.86 The District Plan also requires any vehicle access serving three or more dwellings to have a minimum width of 4m to allow for fire service vehicles. The proposed right of way will service up to four dwellings, and will be short of the required width by 1m. The New Zealand Fire Service Firefighting Water Supplies Code of Practice (SNZ PAS 4509:2008) specifies the distance of buildings/structures from fire hydrants that is required to provide sufficient firefighting capacity and ability. The SNZ PAS 4509:2008 specifies that buildings need to be within 135m of a fire hydrant for required water flow, with additional water being located within 270m. The proposed dwellings will be located within 135m of the closest fire hydrant on Bolton Street, and 270m of the next closest fire hydrant. Accordingly, I consider that while emergency vehicles may not be able to access the site, the proximity of fire hydrants on the street will allow for sufficient firefighting capacity for the new dwellings from the street.
7.87 For the reasons outlined above I consider any adverse access, circulation, manoeuvring and parking effects be acceptable without requiring a traffic management plan as requested by the submitters for 2 Bolton Street.
Subdivision design and layout effects
7.88 Access to the site will be via a private driveway servicing Lot 1, and a shared right of way to Lots 2 and 3. As noted below the proposed right of way does not comply with the require formation standards of the District Plan. However this is not considered to adversely affect usability to an unacceptable degree; access arrangements have been reviewed and are supported by Bill Barclay.
7.89 All proposed allotments comply with the minimum frontage standard of the District Plan. However Lots 1 and 2 fall short of the 300m2 minimum allotment size and proposed Lot 3 cannot comply with the relevant 9 x 14m shape factor. Nevertheless each allotment will be of sufficient size and shape to support the intended dwellings, onsite car parking proposed, outdoor living and landscaping that is generally consistent with the Design Guide.
7.90 All proposed dwellings will be connected to water, wastewater, stormwater, power and telecommunications, and physical and legal access to the road network.
7.91 On this basis I consider the proposed subdivision design and site layout is acceptable; the allotments will be fit for their intended residential purpose.
Effects upon natural features and topography
7.92 At approximately 300mm deep the earthworks will make only a modest alteration to the existing natural ground level, less than the 1.2m permitted under the District Plan. Given also that the volume of earthworks to be undertaken beyond the permitted baseline is modest (27.5m3 more than the 100m3 which could be done as a permitted activity), and noting that the subject site is generally flat and devoid of distinctive topographical features such as escarpments, steep hillsides, extensive tracts of native bush or coastal features, any adverse effects upon natural features and topography are considered to be less than minor and therefore acceptable.
Effects upon sites of significance
7.93 The subject site does not contain any identified site of historical or cultural significance, nor is it identified as being subject to any specific Statutory Acknowledgement Area. As such, I consider the likelihood of the proposed earthworks and construction disturbing sites of significance to be minimal and therefore acceptable. As much of Petone has been affected by pre-1900 activity, the applicant is advised to contact Heritage New Zealand to determine whether an archaeological authority is required.
Natural hazards effects
7.94 Council records do not indicate that the application site has a known history of erosion or land instability, and the subject site is located outside of the Wellington Fault Special Study Area. However the proposed earthworks have the potential to create or exacerbate the risk of land instability.
7.95 The applicant has proffered a condition requiring all work be undertaken in accordance with an approved construction management plan. This will include measures to control sedimentation and runoff, factors that can contribute to land instability. I consider the proffered condition reasonably necessary and suitable to be imposed under s108 of the RMA 1991, and note that this will ensure ongoing site stability during works. Given also that the proposed earthworks will result in a modest change in ground level (approximately 300mm) and noting that the subject site is generally flat, it is considered that the site will remain in a stable condition at the completion of works. Associated natural hazards effects are thus considered to be less than minor and therefore acceptable.
7.96 With respect to inundation risk, the subject site is partly subject to the 1:440 flood extent associated with the Hutt River. However, Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) do not impose minimum floor levels unless a site is located within a 1:100 flood extent. Given that the natural ground level will be partially raised (by up to 300mm) during the preparation of building platforms, and noting that 6 Bolton Street is almost entirely out of the modelled flood extent, I consider that any adverse effects due to loss of floodplain storage or flood risk to be acceptable due to the modest volume change in ground level and low return period of any 1:440 flood event.
7.97 For the reasons outline above, I consider any natural hazard risks to be avoided or mitigated to an extent that is less than minor and therefore acceptable.
Site contamination effects
7.98 The site is not listed in the GWRC Selected Land Use Register (SLUR) as being a site known to have contained or potentially contained an activity that may have resulted in ground contamination. Council records do not indicate that any activity from the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) has been undertaken on site. As a result I consider the likelihood of works onsite uncovering contamination to be negligible and therefore acceptable.
Esplanade strips and reserves
7.99 The District Plan requires provision of an esplanade strip or reserve where a property adjoins identified waterways, lakes, or the Coastal Marine Area. The subject site does not contain or abut any watercourses, nor is it located within the Coastal Marine Area whereby no esplanade strips or reserves are proposed or required.
7.100 Construction will result in temporary disturbance for the surrounding area, with potential to create noise, vibration, dust and sedimentation, and traffic issues. The submission from 2 Bolton Street raised these as areas of concerns, as well as the effects of stormwater runoff during construction, pile driving and heavy machinery, hours of work and tracking of sediment onto the adjacent street.
7.101 Following the receipt of submissions, the applicant has provided further detail regarding the intended construction process. The applicant has confirmed the following:
· Each building containing a primary dwelling and studio unit will be constructed one at a time;
· It is estimated that the construction phase per building will be 10-12 months (including earthworks). The applicant notes that this timeframe is considered realistic given the difficulties in contracting labour due to the level of construction in the region, but notes that timeframes could be shorter;
· The dwelling on 4 Bolton Street will be removed prior to the commencement of construction on site; and
· Works will commence towards the rear (east) of the subject site; the dwellings on Lot 3 will be constructed first and the dwellings on Lot 1 will be built last.
7.102 The applicant has proffered a condition requiring that all works be undertaken in accordance with an approved Construction Management Plan (CMP). This CMP will detail limitations on working hours and days, and will detail how the effects associated with construction traffic, sediment runoff and erosion, and noise will be managed on site. The applicant has also proffered that the CMP shall include notification procedures to inform neighbours prior to pile driving or the commencement of demolition or earthworks on the subject site.
7.103 I consider such a condition reasonably necessary and suitable to be imposed under s108 of the RMA 1991. I would also consider it necessary to impose conditions relative to limits on construction noise, the control of stormwater during works, dust mitigation, and requiring all sedimentation and erosion methods to be installed and maintained in accordance with Greater Wellington regional council’s erosion and sediment control guidelines.
7.104 The permitted baseline provides for the construction of two dwellings and two accessory buildings on the application site, and beyond compliance with the relevant noise standards the District Plan does not place limitations on the duration of construction. Given the integrated nature of the primary dwellings and studio units, the proposed development is effectively for the construction of three buildings; the effects will be similar to the construction of three dwellings on the subject site, or one more than provided for as part of the permitted baseline.
7.105 The applicant has confirmed that, at worst, the cumulative construction phase for the proposed dwellings may extend out to a period of three years (12 months per building, constructed one at a time). Disregarding those adverse construction effects that are comparable to a permitted baseline development, it is considered that the conditions proposed under sections 7.10 and 7.11 above will partially mitigate adverse construction effects associated with construction of the third dwelling. It is acknowledged that persons at 2 Bolton Street frequently work from home, at least on a part time basis. However, given that construction works are inherently temporary – with the third dwelling anticipated to take no more than 12 months to construct – and noting that all works will be undertaken in accordance with an approved construction management plan this is sufficient to mitigate any adverse construction effects to a less than minor and therefore acceptable extent.
7.106 The submitter for 2 Bolton Street raised further concerns about the tracking of material onto the adjacent roadway, and potential for disturbance or works on their property during the construction phase. The applicant has subsequently agreed to the imposition of a condition to ensure that no earth, mud, dirt or debris shall be deposited on the road or footpath as the result of works, and requiring any accidental discharges to be immediately removed. The applicant has also confirmed that they will not need to enter into the property at 2 Bolton Street at any time, except for the construction of the proposed boundary fence.
7.107 For the reasons outlined above, I consider that any adverse construction effects arising from the proposal will be mitigated to a less than minor extent for all persons and are therefore acceptable.
7.108 The proposal will result in the construction of six residential dwellings within the Lower Hutt area. These dwellings will provide for increased housing choice due to the construction of primary dwellings suitable for family living and smaller studio units, as well as supporting flexible living arrangements for larger families. These units will increase the city’s supply of housing stock as well as complimenting the consolidated urban form in an area identified for more intensive housing developments. The subject site is located within proximity of the Jackson Street retail precinct, recreational opportunities associated with the Petone foreshore, and will serve the economic, social and cultural needs of future inhabitants.
7.7 Based on the above assessment I consider that the scale and scope of the proposed non-compliances, both individually and on a cumulative basis, will be acceptable.
8. Relevant plan provisions
8.1 As the proposal is for a multi-unit development within the General Residential – Medium Density activity area, the Design Guide for Medium Density Housing applies. The intent of the design guide is to ensure that higher density development provides quality living spaces that meet the needs of inhabitants whilst maintaining and enhancing the amenity values and character of the surrounding area.
8.2 The submitters for 2 Bolton Street raised concerns about the extent to which the proposal meets the provisions of the Design Guide. The following assessment is considered to respond to these concerns.
8.3 The applicant had prepared a detailed assessment against the Design Guide (see: p28-32 of the applicant’s Assessment of Environmental Effects). The proposal and assessment have subsequently been reviewed by Council’s urban design advisor, Dr Morten Gjerde. A copy of Dr Gjerde’s initial assessment and subsequent correspondence is attached at Appendix 7. In summary, Dr Gjerde concluded that the proposed development will meet the intent of the Design Guide. The result of the design guide assessments is summarised below in relation to the following:
· Fitting in the neighbourhood – Whilst the proposal is larger in scale than many developments on surrounding sites there is more intensive development along The Esplanade that provides suitable context to the proposal. The applicant further noted that the building on Lot 1 – and thus the most prominent – has been design in a manner that reflects the established yard setbacks within the area, with both dwellings oriented to the street frontage and low fencing reminiscent of that on adjacent sites providing a positive relationship with the adjacent public domain. Furthermore the comprehensive nature of development over two allotments provided opportunity for more intensive development whilst managing external amenity effects to an appropriate degree. Dr Gjerde did not dispute this assessment, and concluded that the proposal will satisfy the matters under this heading.
· Integrated buildings and spaces – Indoor living areas are oriented to the north or west for maximum solar gain, as are outdoor areas congruent to these. Outdoor living areas will be defined through the use of fencing and planting and provide opportunities for passive recreation. Whilst the proposed outdoor areas associated with the studio units are less than 35m2 in size, Dr Gjerde concluded that these will be appropriate given the smaller size of the flats and noting the quality of these spaces. Garages will not visually dominate the street frontage as only one will be visible, and I note also that the modest size (single) and recessed nature further restricts visual dominance.
· Vehicles - Dr Gjerde concurred with the applicant’s assessment that the site layout reduces the dominance of accessways, manoeuvring areas and garages from the street and within the development. However he noted that the extent of hard paving and fencing created an inappropriate entry along the access leg; the visual attractiveness of this space would be poor.
· Fences and Walls – Dr Gjerde noted the importance of fences to achieving privacy around the proposed outdoor living spaces. He concluded that the 1.8m fences along the northern and eastern boundaries were appropriate. In conjunction with the assessment of vehicles it was considered that fencing along the right of way was too intensive, and that fencing to the front (west) of the site should be lower to provide adequate visual connection to the street.
· Site facilities – All proposed dwellings will be provided with washing lines. Plan RC03 prepared by Moore Architecture shows indicative rubbish storage facilities on site that are well separated from primary outdoor living areas.
· Privacy and safety – Dwellings on Lot 1 are oriented towards the street frontage thereby contributing to passive surveillance and safety. All dwellings will have private entrances with paths and landscaping used to define entry, and will be provided with letterboxes at the street frontage. In addition, Dr Gjerde noted that subject to slight reductions in the height of the front fence, the internal privacy and safety standards could be met.
· Landscaping and vegetation – Dr Gjerde considered the proposed landscaping plans to be appropriate for the site, noting only that revisions to the driveway space were required.
8.4 Subsequently, the applicant has amended their proposal as follows:
· A new fence with variable material was provided along the southern extent of the right of way;
· The fence along the northern side of the driveway as removed, allowing the planting to become more prominent within the site;
· The front fencing was reduced to 1.2m in height.
Dr Gjerde concluded that his concerns with the proposal were satisfied and recommended that the development met the minimum standard of the Design Guide.
8.5 The submitter for 2 Bolton Street commented that the indoor and outdoor living areas for each dwelling are too small and will place additional pressure on the amenity of the surrounding area. However, the outdoor areas for the primary dwelling units meet the minimum 35m2 size required under the District Plan. It is noted that the outdoor areas for the studio units are approximately 15-16m2 in size, below the 35m2 stipulated in the design guide. However Dr Gjerde considered these suitable for passive recreation purposes and appropriate given the smaller size of the studios themselves. In addition I note the proximity of the application site to the Petone foreshore and associated opportunities for recreation. I do not consider that due to their small size, the outdoor areas will undermine residential amenity.
8.6 Concerns were also raised in regards to rubbish storage and collection facilities given the location of the site near to the beach. The Design Guide requires only that adequate provision of storage facilities; beyond this the management of rubbish is not a matter controlled by the District Plan.
8.6 The key objectives and policies for the relevant to the proposed multi-unit and subdivision within the General Residential – Medium Density activity area relate primarily to: allotment design and engineering; residential character, amenity and the scale of a development in relation to its surroundings; the safety and efficiency of the transport network; and earthworks.
8.7 The following objectives and policies 11.1.1(a), 11.1.2(a) and 11.1.3(b) are relevant to the proposed subdivision element of the proposal:
11.1.1 Allotment Standards
To ensure that land which is subdivided can be used for the proposed use or development.
(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.
11.1.2 Engineering Standards
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.
(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.
11.1.3 Natural hazards
To ensure that land subject to natural hazards is subdivided in a manner that the adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.
(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.
8.8 Whilst the proposed allotments do not all meet the minimum allotment size or shape factor control, they are considered to be of sufficient size and shape to support their intended residential dwellings, including the provision of onsite landscaping, parking and manoeuvring, and will achieve outcomes consistent with the provisions of the Design Guide. As such they are considered to be suitable for the intended residential use.
8.9 All proposed allotments will be provided with connections to the three waters, power, and telecommunication services. Where necessary these will be protected via the necessary easements. The proposal has been reviewed and is supported by Sylvio Leal, Council’s subdivision engineer, who has confirmed the proposal will be adequately serviced, subject to compliance with a number of conditions imposed under s108 and 220 of the RMA 1991. Mr Leal also determined that the proposed floor levels are sufficient to mitigate any potential inundation risk associated with infrastructure along The Esplanade to an acceptable level. Whilst the access width does not comply with the District Plan it is considered to provide adequate room for access and manoeuvring, as per the assessment undertaken by Mr Bill Barclay. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the objective and policies under 11.1.2.
8.10 The subject site is partly located within a 1:440 flood extent, however Greater Wellington Regional Council do not require or impose minimum floor levels for such events. Furthermore, I consider the low frequency return period (0.23% per annum) and noting that the modelled flood extent will be largely concentrated upon the proposed right of way, such that the proposal is generally consistent with the objectives and policies under 11.1.3.
8.11 The following objectives and policies 4A 1.1.1(a), and (c)-(f), 4A 1.1.2(a)-(c), and 4A 1.2.1(b)-(g) and (j) are relevant to the proposed multi-unit element of the proposal:
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 of the City.
(a)That opportunity be provided for a diversity of residential activities.
(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.
(f)That the clearance of vegetation be managed to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on the intrinsic values of ecosystems.
4A 1.1.2 Medium Density Residential Development
To ensure opportunity is made for medium density residential development around some commercial centres, along major transport routes, and where amenity values will not be affected adversely and where there is appropriate servicing of development.
(a)That opportunity for higher dwelling densities be made along major transport routes, around some commercial centres, in the residential area between Jackson Street and The Esplanade, Petone, where existing dwelling densities are higher, and where amenity values will not be affected adversely and where there is appropriate servicing of development.
(b)To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of higher dwelling densities on the surrounding area, caused by height of buildings, intensity, scale and location.
(c)That medium density development be encouraged where it is in general accordance with the direction provided by the Design Guide for Medium Density Housing (Appendix 19) and maintains and enhances on site amenities and consistency with the surrounding residential character and minimises impact on the natural environment.
4A 1.2.1 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.
(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.
(j) To ensure that the developments are in general accordance with the Design Guide for Medium Density Housing (Appendix 19) to control other aspects of design, such as quality of onsite amenity, integration of buildings and landscaping in respect to open space and compatibility with surrounding development patterns and low environmental impact.
8.12 The proposed development provides for choice within the residential housing market through the provision of primary dwellings and studio units. Whilst the proposed development results in net site areas below that anticipated by the District Plan (70.3-201.7m2) they are considered to be of sufficient size to accommodate their intended residential use in a manner consistent with the Design Guide. Due to the integrated nature of the proposed dwellings whereby they effectively read as three buildings, and noting that proposed allotment sizes range from 271-323m2, the underlying site layout is considered similar to that which can be reasonably anticipated for the General Residential - Medium Density activity area.
8.13 The proposed development will be inherently residential in nature and scale, and as such is not anticipated to generate noise, dust, glare, light spill or odour effects beyond what could be expected for any residential development on the site.
8.14 The submitter for 2 Bolton Street has specifically noted the loss of an established pohutukawa towards the east (rear) of the subject site. The objectives and policies speak to retention of such vegetation where practicable; the removal of this tree allows for vehicle access to the rear site and as such its retention is not considered practical. None of the trees on site are protected, and the mature specimen are generally remnant trees rather than part of a larger, more heavily vegetated area. Their loss will be comparable to a permitted activity on the site and is not considered to undermine the intrinsic values of the ecosystem to an unacceptable degree.
8.15 The District Plan provides for higher dwelling densities within that portion of Petone bounded by The Esplanade and Jackson Street. The proposed development capitalises on this opportunity, and as evidenced by the consistency with the provisions of the Design Guide is considered to be generally in keeping with the anticipated development form and minimum amenity standards for such sites.
8.16 The proposed development represents an intensive development form on the subject site particularly as it exceeds the yard, recession plane, site coverage and building length controls of the District Plan, and as discussed under section 7 will result in adverse environmental effects for the adjacent properties and surrounding area. However, the proposed development has been laid out and designed to mitigate adverse visual amenity and shading effects through the provision of wide yard setbacks to the north and south, view shafts trending north-south through the subject site, integration of the proposed studio units and primary dwellings to mitigate perceptions of density, and modulation and variation in dwelling form to provide visual interest and break up perceived building bulk and dominance. Fencing and landscaping will further assist in screening and softening the proposal.
8.17 Where yard and recession plane non-compliances are internal to the subject site they are considered to have a lesser impact on the surrounding environment. Whilst the proposed buildings will be taller than development on many surrounding sites, the District Plan provides for the construction of two storey dwellings within the area, and the scale and form of the dwellings is similar to more intensive development along The Espalande, and is reflective of larger two storey houses within Bolton and Tory Streets.
8.18 The scale and extent of shading effects has been assessed in section 7 above. In conclusion this found that whilst the proposal will result in shading of the immediately adjacent sites the effects of this will be acceptable.
8.19 The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the provisions of the Design Guide for Medium Density Housing which aims to provide for intensification of land use where this is well designed and integrated with existing infrastructure.
8.20 Whilst permeable surface on Lot 3 will be below the 30% minimum, comment from Wellington Water confirmed that the surrounding infrastructure could cope with the additional runoff.
8.21 The following objectives and policies 14A 3.1, 14A 3.5, 14A 4.2, 14A 4.3, 14A 4.6 and 14A 4.7 from the transport chapter are relevant to the proposed access arrangements for the development:
Objective 14A 3.1
A safe, efficient, resilient and well-connected transport network that is integrated with land use patterns, meets local, regional and national transport needs, facilitates and enables urban growth and economic development, and provides for all modes of transport.
Objective 14A 3.5
Adverse effects on the safety and efficiency of the transport network from on-site 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 4.3
The transport network should be located and designed to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the adjacent environment.
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.
Policy 14A 4.7
The transport network, land use, subdivision and development should provide for all transport modes.
8.22 The proposed development is located within walking distance of the Jackson Street retail precinct, Petone railway station and bus stops serviced by a number of routes to Hutt Central, Wellington Central, Upper Hutt, the airport, Eastbourne and the wider Lower Hutt suburbs. Whilst the development provides for private vehicle use, it is considered to foster use of public and active transport modes due to its location.
8.23 The proposed access arrangements have been assessed and are supported by Bill Barclay, Council’s traffic engineer. Mr Barclay confirmed that whilst the proposed right of way is undersized it will adequately service the two onsite parks proposed. Mr Barclay also concluded that there is adequate provision for onsite turning (within the right of way), that the effect of vehicles reversing from the single garage on Lot 1 will be comparable to a permitted development and that there are adequate sightlines to minimise the risk of conflict both within the subject site and at the footpath and street.
8.24 Parking surveys showed that there is adequate provision of on street parking to cope with the proposed parking shortfall (three parks) and Mr Barclay has confirmed the effect of this will be no more than minor. Due to the modest size of the development (six dwellings) it will not contribute greatly to congestion given the sheltered traffic environment in Bolton Street and the carrying capacity of The Esplanade.
8.25 The proposed transport arrangements are thus considered to maintain the safety and efficiency of the roading network and are considered generally consistent with the above objectives and policies.
8.26 The following objectives and policies 14A 3.1, 14A 3.5, 14A 4.2, 14A 4.3, 14A 4.6 and 14A 4.7 relative to earthworks are relevant to the proposal:
14I 1.1 Natural Character
To ensure that earthworks are designed to maintain the natural features that contribute to the City’s landscape.
(a)To ensure that earthworks are designed to be sympathetic to the natural topography.
(b)To protect significant escarpments, steep hillside areas, and the coastal area by ensuring that earthworks are designed to retain the existing topography, protect natural features, and prevent erosion and slips.
14I 1.2 Amenity, Cultural and Historical Values
To ensure earthworks do not affect adversely the visual amenity values, cultural values or historical significance of an area, natural feature or site.
(a)To protect the visual amenity values of land which provides a visual backdrop to the City.
(b)That rehabilitation measures be undertaken to mitigate adverse effects of earthworks upon the visual amenity values.
(c)To protect any sites with historical significance from inappropriate earthworks.
(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. Licy
8.27 The proposed earthworks are relatively modest in scale (127.5m3, 0.3m vertical change), particularly as compared to the permitted baseline (100m3, with 50m3 on 4 and 6 Bolton Street, and 1.2m vertical change). The subject site is generally flat whereby it does not contain any significant scarps, steep hillsides, coastal features and due to its location on the valley floor does not provide a visual backdrop to the city. At the conclusion of works the site will be paved, built over or landscaped and will not result in exposed groundworks or scarring.
8.28 The subject site is not identified as a site of historical or cultural significance. Due to the previous history of development on site I consider the likelihood of works disinterring artefacts of historical, cultural or spiritual significance to be minimal.
8.29 For these reasons the proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the above objective and policies.
Plan Change 43
8.30 Plan Change 43 was publically notified on 7 November 2017, with submissions closing on 9 March 2018. Subsequent opportunities to make further submissions closed on 5 September 2018. To date, no decision has been made in respect to this plan change. As such the plan provisions relevant to the application site do not have legal effect. Irrespective of the provision of weighting, and for the reasons outlined in sections 7 and 8 above, the proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the following objectives and policies of Plan Change 43: Objective 4A 2.2, Policy 4A 3.2; Objective 4A 2.3, and Policies 4A 3.3 and 3.4; Objective 4A 2.4 and policies 4A 3.5, 3.7 and 3.8; and Objective 4A 2.5 and policies 4A 3.9 and 3.10. These provisions primarily relate to the form of buildings and the need to manage the height and bulk of development to protect onsite amenity, as well as the amenity of the street and surrounding properties and impacts upon infrastructure.
8.31 As determined by section 104(1)(b), I consider that the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC) is relevant to this application. The NPS-UDC directs consent authorities to consider if there is sufficient development capacity to meet current and future demands.
8.32 The applicant has included a description of the relevant policies of the NPS-UDC (see p.38-39 of the applicant’s Assessment of Environmental Effects). In the interest of brevity they will not be repeated here in full.
8.33 Policies PA1 and PA2 require local authorities to ensure that there is sufficient land available for housing development which will be suitably serviced by infrastructure. The proposal is considered to be consistent with this policy. The subject site is zoned for medium density residential development, and as determined by Wellington Water and Mr Leal, can be adequately serviced by the proposed and existing infrastructure.
8.34 Policy PA3 requires that the development provide for the wellbeing of people whilst having regard to the need for diversity in dwelling typology and location, the efficient use of land and infrastructure, and limiting adverse impacts on competition within the free market. The proposal is considered to be consistent with this policy. The site is within the medium density activity area, and through the construction of six dwellings results in the efficient use of land within the existing urban limit. The proposal will provide a mix of larger primary dwellings and one bedroom studios, increasing choice within the housing market and satisfying a larger range of needs. The proposal will not adversely impact on the competitive operation of land and development markets.
8.35 Policy PA4 requires consideration of the benefits of urban development on the wellbeing of people, and the benefits and costs from the local to the national scale. As the subject site is located within close proximity to shops and businesses, recreation facilities, public transport, and community facilities such as libraries and schools is it considered to provide for the social, cultural, economic wellbeing of people. As discussed in section 7 and 8 above, the proposal also includes a number of mitigation measures to ensure that the environmental wellbeing of people is maintained at an acceptable level.
8.36 Due to the scale of the proposal any costs and benefits will be limited to the local and district level. It is considered that the proposal will provide benefits through increasing housing stock in an area identified as suitable for medium density development and where demand for housing exists.
8.37 Under s104(1)(b)(v) of the RMA 1991 regard must be had to any relevant provisions of a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement. The applicant has provided an assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the Wellington RPS, made operative in April 2013 (see p.39 of the applicant’s Assessment of Environmental Effects). I accept and adopt this element of their assessment, and consider the proposal to be generally consistent with the Wellington RPS.
8.38 I consider that there are no other relevant provisions of national environmental standard, other regulations, national policy statement, or New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement to which regard must be had.
8.39 Section 104(1)(c) requires the consideration of any other matters considered relevant to determination of a proposal. Both submitters raised the possibility that the proposed development will set a precedent for more intensive development within the surrounding area.
8.40 Precedence effects arise wherea decision on an application creates a high probability that similar applications subsequently lodged will attract the same tenor of decision, and in doing so will undermine the integrity of the District Plan.
8.41 I consider that the issue of precedence is, to an extent, determined by the activity status of a proposal; it is considered that Non-Complying and Prohibited activities are not anticipated by the District Plan whereby precedence is a highly relevant consideration. The proposed activity has a Discretionary activity status, and whilst this provides the consent authority with full discretion over assessment matters and determination, it follows that the District Plan does anticipate such activities (in this instance, medium density residential development on a site zoned for such use).
8.42 The proposal is also for a comprehensive development across what are currently two legal parcels within the residential block. As such, the application site (969m2) is notably larger than the majority of land parcels within the surrounding area. The exceptions are 15 Bolton Street which contains four dwellings, 7 Tory Street utilised as a motel, and 14-20 Tory Street utilised for industrial purposes. As discussed above the proposal exceeds a number of allotment design, bulk and location and access standards of the District Plan. The resulting density (six dwellings) and intensity is recognised as creating adverse effects upon the adjacent properties, although not to an extent considered unacceptable (refer: section 7). On this basis the application site is considered relatively unique, and associated adverse effects are considered acceptable, thereby limiting the extent of any precedent set.
8.43 The Hutt City Urban Growth Strategy (2012-2032) was approved to encourage construction of 6000 new houses within Lower Hutt by 2032. The proposed development will contribute towards desired growth outcomes through the establishment of six dwelling houses on a site zoned for medium density development. This will be serviced by existing infrastructure, and is considered to be generally in keeping with the Design Guide for Medium Density Housing.
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 The proposal is considered to be in keeping with the sustainable management purpose of the Act. At the conclusion of works, the proposal will provide additional infill housing within the existing urban limits thereby fostering a consolidated urban form. The application site is located in proximity to public transport, shops, schools, recreation facilities and employment opportunities thereby providing for the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of residents.
9.4 As determined in sections 7 and 8 of this report, the proposed development has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the Design Guide for Medium Density Housing. Previous assessment also concluded that the site layout and dwellings have been designed in such a way as to limit perceptions of density on the site, with yard setbacks, modulation and landscaping incorporated to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed development intensity upon adjacent sites and the wider environment.
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. The reasons for this are largely assessed in sections 7 and 8 above and will not be repeated here. In the interests of brevity it is concluded that the proposal provides for the efficient use of land within an established residential area, and the proposal has been designed in such a way as to maintain amenity values and the quality of the environment in a manner consistent with the medium density overlay.
9.8 It is considered 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 does not contain an identified statutory acknowledgement area, nor any known sites of historical, cultural or archaeological significance. It is therefore considered that this section of the Act is not directly relevant to the proposal.
9.9 Overall I consider the proposed multi-unit residential development and subdivision will be consistent with Part II of the Resource Management Act 1991.
10.1 Resource consent is sought for the construction of six dwellings and a three lot subdivision at 4 and 6 Bolton Street, Petone. The proposal breaches a number of bulk and location, allotment design, access and earthworks non-compliances. The proposal is a Discretionary activity within the General Residential – Medium Density activity area of the City of Lower Hutt District Plan.
10.2 Whilst two submissions were received in opposition to the proposal, I do not consider that it should be declined. As discussed in section 7 these are considered to be mitigated to an acceptable level.
10.3 I believe the proposal represents an appropriate use on this site and that it is generally consistent with the 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 resource consent, the following may be considered as conditions of that consent:
1. That the proposal is carried out substantially in accordance with the information and approved plans (Scheme Plan ref # 1136 B, prepared by Survey Insight Limited and dated July 2018).
2. 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 3.43 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.
3. 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:
§ 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.
§ The stormwater lateral from lot 1 shall be located within lot 1 and not angle into the right of way as indicated on the Scheme Plan.
§ The proposed sewer manhole shall be located fully within road reserve (not in private property as indicated) and the proposed 150mm sewer pipe shall be laid perpendicular to the existing sewer main. This will require an additional manhole at the junction with the existing sewer main and the memorandum of easements in Gross for the sewer will not be required.
§ There is the possibility of services from Nº 8 Bolton St being located within the development site. If, during construction, any neighbouring services are found to be within the new lots, they shall be adjusted as necessary or protected by an easement.
4. 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 fire fighting 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 or sealed at the main if not replaced in the same position. This will apply to both existing water connections.
§ 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.
5. 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.
6. That the consent holder arranges for a certifying drainlayer or engineer to investigate and plot the alignment of the existing stormwater pipework from the existing dwellings through to its discharge points in order that this information is plotted on the required engineering plan and the end of the abandoned lines can be sealed in accordance with Council’s requirements.
§ The existing sewer lateral for Nº 6 Bolton St (Lot 24 DP1533) is to be sealed off at its junction with the “live” pipe. Council records indicate that this may be a shared private connection with Nº 8 Bolton Street (Lot 23 DP1533) (Council record number GEN7820600-3). The alignment of the existing sewer lateral for Nº 8 Bolton Street is to be confirmed at the time of sealing off the abandoned pipework.
7. That the consent holder removes the existing concrete vehicle crossings and reinstates the kerb and footpath in accordance with Council’s codes and standards.
§ This will involve forming a new vehicle crossing haunch on the southern side of the existing vehicle crossing for Nº 8 Bolton St.
8. That the consent holder constructs standard concrete vehicle crossings to serve lot 1 and the right of way in accordance with Council’s codes and standards, including relocating the existing power pole clear of the proposed vehicle crossing for lot 1.
§ If the right of way serves three or more lots then the vehicle crossing shall be heavy duty.
9. That the consent holder secures the ground-floor windows of the proposed dwelling on lot 1 where it adjoins the access way so they do not open more than 100mm into the access way. Council will register a consent notice to this effect on the certificate of title of lot 1, as allowed for under section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
10. That 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.
§ The engineering approval plans shall include the design of the proposed private way including proposed stormwater reticulation. The stormwater pipes may need to discharge to the stormwater main in the road depending on the final private way design.
§ The proposed memorandum of easements table shall be updated and submitted with the engineering plans for approval.
11. 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.
12. That the consent holder provides underground telephone and electrical services to each lot in accordance with the specifications and requirements of the relevant authority.
13. 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.
14. 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.
§ This will apply to any services from neighbouring properties if, during construction works, these are found to be within the site.
15. That the consent holder provides appropriate easements for private services where necessary, with easements 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.
§ Easement “A” shall be extended to cover the sewer from lot 1 and the memorandum of easements amended to only include relevant services, maintenance and rights of way.
§ If lot 1 retains the rights of way over the private way, then the private way will have to be formed (including appropriate stormwater controls measures) in advance of requesting a section 224(c) certificate. If the private way only serves lots 2 and 3 then it will still be necessary for the design of the private way to be approved at engineering approval stage however it will not be necessary to complete the construction of the private way in advance of requesting a section 224(c) certificate.
§ Easement “B” is only to provide for services and rights of way for lot 2.
§ The memorandum of easements in gross for the sewer main is not needed as the proposed sewer manhole is to be located in road reserve.
16. 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.
17. That the consent holder provides appropriate easements for maintenance, or modifies the right of way conditions as necessary, to allow for the maintenance of the southern side of the new dwelling on lot 1; and engages a lawyer at the consent holder’s expense to prepare the easement or right of way documents.
18. That the consent holder moves all buildings clear of the new boundaries before applying for a section 224(c) certificate.
§ The consent holder shall provide written confirmation from a surveyor or engineer that the eaves of the existing dwelling at Nº 8 Bolton St do not cross boundary into the site and that the existing garage has been altered / relocated clear of the boundary.
19. 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, and volume following the format set out in Council form RAS-FORM-014.
20. 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.
21. The, in accordance with s221 of the Resource Management Act 1991, a consent notice be imposed on the certificate of title for Lots 1-3. This shall state that, unless permitted under the District Plan or provided for through the resource consent process, the one bedroom studio units shall not be utilised for the formal provision of visitor accommodation.
22. That the consent holder meets the cost of registering consent notices.
23. 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 new mains, the location of all service connections and new work within private property relative to the lot boundaries.
24. 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.
§ Where this cost is to be covered by remissions, a valuation must still be provided to determine the value of the reserves contribution that must be covered.
Land use conditions
1. That the proposal is carried out substantially in accordance with the information and approved plans (Project no. J0577, sheets RC01, RC01.1, RC03-RC13, RC14A, and RC15-RC18, all prepared by Moore Architecture and dated 25 October 2018) submitted with the application and held on file at Council.
2. That the consent holder undertakes all landscaping substantially in accordance with the information and approved plans (Project no. 2761, drawing no. 01, Rev.4, and drawing no. 02 and 03, both Rev.2, all dated 25 October 2018; and the ‘Planting Schedule’ and ‘Planting Specification’ dated 8 August 2108; all prepared by David Goodyear Landscape Architect) submitted with the application and held on file at Council. All planting must be undertaken as soon as the seasons make practicable, but within six months of completing construction on each dwelling. The consent holder shall replace any seeding or planting that fails to become fully established or perishes within 12 months of completing construction each residential dwellings.
§ Where the approved landscaping plan shows a 1.2m boundary fence along the northern boundary of proposed Lot 1 this shall be amended to a fence 1.8m in height.
3. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, the consent holder shall submit a Construction Management Plan to the Council for certification by the Team Leader Resource Consents. The purpose of the Construction Management Plan is to ensure construction effects including noise, dust and sediment control, vehicle traffic and vibration are effectively managed over the course of works. The plan must address, but is not limited to, the following matters:
§ Hours of operation and anticipated duration of works;
§ Detail how any adverse effects arising from construction will be managed to avoid and mitigate effects from dust, noise, vibration and construction traffic;
§ Detail the installation and maintenance of sediment control measures in accordance with Greater Wellington Regional Council’s erosion and sediment control guidelines.
§ Detail notification procedures that will be followed prior to the commencement of demolition, earthworks and pile driving
§ Contact details for site manager; and
§ Complaints procedures and register.
Note: the consent holder is advised to consult with Council’s Environmental Health Team to discuss the construction method and ways to minimise any noise and vibration disturbance to the surrounding properties.
4. That all construction works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan.
5. That the consent holder ensures all development and construction work complies with the provisions of NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics - Construction noise and that notwithstanding this standard, machinery operating hours, including machinery start-up times, are limited to between 7am and 6pm Monday to Saturday, with no work on Sundays or public holidays except for remedial or preventive work as required.
6. 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).
7. That the consent holder ensures earthworks do not affect the stability of adjoining properties.
8. That during site works the consent holder takes measures to ensure stormwater and surface water run-off does not affect adjoining properties, and that afterwards surface water is controlled, to the satisfaction of the Council, through the use of onsite management systems (which may include but is not restricted to, the use of curbing, channelling, permeable surface and/or installation of drains and pipes) to an approved outlet.
9. 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 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.
10. There shall be no deposition of earth, mud, dirt or debris on any public road or footpath resulting from earthworks and construction activity on the subject site. In the event that such deposition does occur, it shall immediately be removed. In no instance shall roads or footpaths be washed down with water without appropriate erosion and sediment control measures in place to prevent contamination of the stormwater drainage system, watercourses or receiving waters.
Note: If site conditions require, the following methods may be adopted to prevent or address discharges should they occur:
· Provision of a stabilised entry and exit point for vehicles; and
· Provision of wheel wash facilities.
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.
§ The consent applies to the application as approved by Council. The consent holder should notify Council if there are changes to any part of the plans. Council may require that the consent holder submits a new resource consent application.
§ The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of the city’s District Plan. Bylaws may apply to the proposal that may require separate approval from Council before starting any site works. See huttcity.govt.nz for a full list of bylaws.
§ The proposal has not been checked for compliance with the Building Act 2004. No associated building work should start without first getting a building consent.
§ 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.
§ Advice note from Heritage New Zealand: 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.
§ Before commencement of any work within the legal road corridor, including the laying of services, application is to be made for a Corridor Access Request (CAR). A CAR request can be made through contacting BeforeUdig either on their website: www.beforeudig.co.nz or 0800 248 344. Work must not proceed within the road reserve until the CAR has been approved, including the approved traffic management plan if required.
§ Constructing, modifying or repairing a vehicle crossing requires separate Council approval, in addition to the approved resource consent. The vehicle crossing is to be constructed in accordance with Council’s standards and codes. For more information contact the Transport Division via (04) 570 6881 or click the following link:
Resource Consents Planner