IN THE MATTER OF: Sections
104, 104B, 106 and 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991
MATTER OF: A
resource consent application made by Urban Edge Planning Ltd on behalf of Clark Kennedy Investments Ltd for subdivision and land use
consent to demolish existing buildings on site and construct a multi-unit
development of six dwelling houses (comprising three principal dwelling units
and three studio units) at 4-6 Bolton Street, Petone.
described as Lot 1 DP 75882 and Lot 24 DP 1533 in computer freehold registers
WN42C/777 and WN363/91)
PANEL OF HUTT CITY COUNCIL
for the above matter, held in the Council Chambers, Hutt City Council on 1
2 The Site and Locality
3 The Application
4 Consents Sought
Land Use Consent.
5 Notification and Submissions
6 The Hearing
7 Statutory Requirements for Assessment
Relevant Statutory Provisions
Existing Environment and Permitted
Assessment Matters for Discretionary
8 Issues in Contention
Effects on Residential Amenity Values
Effects on Residential Character
Servicing and Engineering Effects
Traffic and Parking Effects
Subdivision Design and Layout
Earthworks Effects and Effects upon
Natural Features and Topography
Effects on Sites of Significance and
Natural Hazards and Site Contamination
Temporary Construction Effects
Summary of Findings on Effects
9 Assessment against Relevant Plan Provisions
Subdivision Objectives and Policies
Land Use Objectives and Policies
Transport Objectives and Policies
Other Relevant Objectives and Policies
Plan Change 43 to the District Plan
Section 106 of the Act
Other Plans and Policies
10 Part 2 of the Act
11 Conclusion and Decision
Appendix I Conditions of
In accordance with a delegation by Hutt City Council (HCC),
pursuant to the provisions of section 34 of the Resource Management Act 1991
(the RMA), as there were not less than three members present, the Hearings
Panel had power to act in determination of the following proceedings. The
following resolution represents Council’s decision on the resource consent
That the Hearings Panel, acting under delegated authority
from Council and pursuant to sections 10, 104B, and 108 of the Resource
Management Act 1991, GRANTS CONSENT, subject to conditions, to the
resource consent application made by Urban Edge Planning Ltd on behalf of Clark
Kennedy Investments Ltd for subdivision and land use consent to demolish
existing buildings on site and construct a multi-unit development of three
dwelling houses (comprising three principal dwelling
units and three studio units) at 4-6 Bolton Street, Petone.
The reasons for the decision on the application are
discussed more fully below.
The site comprises two lots legally described as Lot 1 DP
75882 and Lot 24 DP 1533, the adjacent lots of the application site are
situated at 4-6 Bolton Street, Petone. Both lots are flat and are
rectangular in shape, with 4 Bolton Street being 390m2 in area, and
6 Bolton Street being 579m2 in area. The lots have a combined
area of 969m2 and are located towards the southern end of Bolton
Street, on the eastern side, close to the intersection with The
Esplanade. They each currently contain a single storey dwelling with an
accessory building and have grassed open areas with mature planting primarily
to the rear of the lots. The lots are zoned General Residential –
Medium Density, with no further restrictions or notations listed with the City
of Lower Hutt District Plan (the District Plan) that may affect the proposal.
The certificates of title have no interests registered on
them that may affect the proposal.
The surrounding area is predominantly residential in
character, with a combination of older bungalows interspersed with more modern
two storey dwellings, including several multi-unit developments on the western
side of the street. In general terms, the even-numbered (eastern) side of
Bolton Street is characterised by standalone residential dwellings located
towards the front of larger, rectangular sites, and there is evidence of more
intensive development (for example, at 14-16 and 18-18A Bolton Street).
The odd-numbered (western) side has a more varied streetscape, with several
multi-unit developments and several dwellings that have accessory buildings or
garages within their front yard, fronting the street.
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 southeast of the site
(being 7 Tory Street) is BK’s Esplanade Motor Lodge on the corner of The
Esplanade and Tory Street, comprising a large visitor accommodation building
and a car park, the latter adjoining the rear of 4 Bolton Street. To the
rear of 6 Bolton Street is a residential dwelling at 9 Tory Street.
Full details of the locality can be found in the
application and the Council Planner’s s42A report.
Full details of the proposal are contained in the
application and in the Section 42A Council Planner’s Report.
In summary, the applicant seeks resource consent to
construct a multi-unit development and its subsequent subdivision. All
existing structures on the two lots will be demolished, and vegetation
cleared. In their place, three two-storey buildings are proposed, each
containing a primary three-bedroomed dwelling unit and an attached one-bedroom
studio unit. In accordance with the definitions of the District Plan, and
as agreed to by all parties at the Hearing, this development will result in a
total of six dwelling houses on the subject site.
The applicant is also seeking to subdivide 4 and 6 Bolton
Street into three fee simple allotments to contain the three buildings:
Lot 1 of 273m2, Lot 2 of 271m2 and Lot 3 of 426m2.
Access to Lot 1 will be via a private driveway directly from Bolton Street,
whereas a shared right-of-way along the southern boundary of (currently) 4
Bolton Street will provide access to Lots 2 and 3. Each primary dwelling
will include a single car garage integrated into the building, with no on-site
parking being provided for the studio units.
The proposal includes landscaping across the subject site,
as well as 127.5m3 of earthworks to prepare suitable building
platforms, enable the installation of services, and provide adequate access to
each dwelling. All dwellings will be fully serviced by three waters,
power and telecommunications.
An existing power pole within the road reserve in front of
6 Bolton Street will be shifted to allow for the new vehicle crossing to
proposed Lot 1. Shifting the pole is a permitted activity under the
utility rules of the District Plan and as such does not require resource
Under the RMA, subdivision and land use of sites in Hutt
City are managed under the District Plan. The site is within the General Residential – Medium Density Activity Area
(GR – MDAA). The relevant rules are contained within
Chapters 4A (General Residential), 11 (Subdivision chapter) and 14 (General
Rules including earthworks and transport).
The proposed subdivision is a Discretionary
(Unrestricted) Activity in accordance with Rule
11.2.4(i). Subdivision is a controlled activity within this activity
area, subject to compliance with several standards. However, the
subdivision proposal does not meet the minimum allotment design requirements as
the minimum size for a controlled activity subdivision (126.96.36.199(a)) is 300m2
and proposed Lots 1 and 2 are less than 200m2. Proposed Lot 3
does not meet the minimum shape factor. Furthermore, the proposal does
not comply with right-of-way standards specified under 188.8.131.52(b), as the
proposed access leg servicing proposed Lots 2 and 3 will be only 3m wide,
instead of the required 6m (with a 5m formed width). The earthworks also
require resource consent as part of the subdivision application as up to 127.5m3
of earthworks is proposed (the permitted maximum amount is 50m3 per
lot, a total of 100m3).
Land Use Consent
The proposed land-use activity is a Discretionary
(Unrestricted) Activity in accordance with
Rules 4A 2.4(a), 4A 2.4(m) of the District Plan. Residential activity is
a permitted activity within this activity area, subject to compliance with
several permitted activity conditions. The permitted activity conditions
that the proposal does not meet include 4A 2.1.1:
net site area;
In addition, the proposal does not meet the following
permitted activity conditions under Chapter 14A:
Standard 1(c) Service lanes, private ways, pedestrian accessways
Standard 2(a) Vehicle access;
Standard 4(a) Carparking
The proposal also does not meet the following permitted
activity condition under Chapter 14I:
Rule 2.1.1(b) Earthworks
Overall, both the subdivision and land-use consent are Discretionary
(Unrestricted) Activities and have been assessed
and determined as such. We note no parties were in dispute of this
The application was limited notified on 30th
October 2018 to the owners and occupiers of 2 and 8 Bolton Street,
Petone. Both these owners submitted in opposition to the proposal and
were present at the Hearing.
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 relatively greater density and intensity of the
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 regarding 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
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 accessway will restrict
on-site manoeuvring and create potential for conflict with pedestrians and
On-site 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
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.
In regard to the last matter, as we outlined in paragraph 5.2,
we are unable to consider whether the application should have been limited to
other persons and are confined to considering the effects on 2 and 8 Bolton
The key issues raised in the submission from 8 Bolton
Street (Mr Eveleigh and Ms Perica) are as follows:
The proposed development would result in six dwellings along the
The proposed dwellings breach the recession plane along the
shared boundary with 8 Bolton Street – this will adversely affect their
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; and
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.
We were advised by the Reporting Officer that survey plans
submitted with the application show that the garage at 8 Bolton Street extends
across the boundary into 6 Bolton Street. Legal advice provided to
Council has confirmed that this should be resolved via a civil process.
A pre-hearing meeting was held on Monday 14 January 2019;
we were supplied with the minutes of this pre-hearing meeting. We note
that this meeting did not result in any real agreement on the issues discussed
or potential mitigation.
We record that we read the submissions and the above
minutes in full, prior to the Hearing and had regard to them all as part of our
evaluation of the application.
The resource consent application was heard by a panel
comprising Councillor Margaret Cousins (Chair), Councillor Lisa Bridson and Mr
Robert Schofield (Independent Planning Consultant).
The Hearing was held in the Hutt City Council Chambers, at
Hutt City Council, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt, on Friday 1 February 2019.
We closed the Hearing after deliberations occurred on the same day.
The following persons presented submissions and evidence to
For the Applicant: Mr
James Beban, Director, Urban Edge Planning Ltd
Baylee Pakau, Consultant Planner, Urban Edge Planning Ltd
Jamie Devereaux, Urban Designer, Urban Edge Planning Ltd
Grant Clark, Architectural Designer, Moore Architecture
David Kennedy, Applicant
For the Submitter: Mr
Kelly Parekowhai, Planning Consultant, 4Aight Consulting
Joe Serci, Submitter 2 Bolton Street
C Archer, Submitter, 2 Bolton Street
Glenn Eveleigh, Submitter 8 Bolton Street
Kristen Perica, Submitter 8 Bolton Street
For the Council: Ms
Kerry Wynne, Resource Consents Planner
Stephen Dennis, Principal Resource Consents Planner
Bill Barclay, Consultant Traffic Engineer
Morten Gjerde, Consultant Urban Designer
The section 42A officer’s report was prepared by Ms
Kerry Wynne. We were assisted in an administrative capacity by Mrs
Heather Clegg, Hearings Administrator for HCC.
All of the material presented by the above parties is held
on file at HCC. We took our own notes of the oral presentations and the
answers to our questions. Mrs Clegg provided detailed written Minutes of
the Hearing. For the sake of brevity, we have not produced that material
verbatim in this decision. We do, however, refer to relevant matters
raised in the material in subsequent parts of this decision.
All the Commissioners undertook a site visit on Wednesday
30 January 2019 before the Hearing. We record that we were not accompanied
by the applicant, submitter or officers.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
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:
identify the relevant section 104 matters;
part of the overall discretion in section 104B, weigh the relevant matters
under section 104.
We consider that the relevant section 104 matters are as
· Any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing
the activity: and
· The relevant provisions of the District Plan, objectives,
policies and rules; and
· The relevant provisions of a National Policy Statement; and
· The relevant provisions of the Regional Policy Statement; and
· Part II of the Act.
In addition, section 108 sets out the requirements for
imposing conditions of consent.
Section 106 of the Act provides for a territory local
authority may refuse to grant subdivision consent if it considers that:
The land in respect of which a consent is sought, or any
structure on the land, is or is likely to be subject to material damage by
erosion, falling debris, subsidence, slippage or inundation from any source; or
Any subsequent use that is likely to be made of the land is
likely to accelerate, worsen, or result in material damage to the land, other
land or structure by erosion. Falling debris, subsidence, slippage or
inundation from any source; and
Sufficient provision has not been made for legal and physical
access to each lot created by the subdivision.
We were advised by the Reporting Officer that there are no
matters under section 106 which would warrant the proposed subdivision be
We have undertaken an assessment of the effects of the
proposal in section 8 below, focussing on the
issues in contention. We then address the consistency of the proposal
with the relevant objectives and policies of the District Plan and other
relevant statutory documents, with our conclusions set out in section 9 of this decision. Finally, we turn to the
question of whether the proposal is consistent with the purpose and principles
of the RMA, contained in Part 2 of the Act; our conclusions are set out in
section 11 of this decision.
Environment and Permitted Baseline
Our assessment of the actual or potential adverse effects
of the proposed development and subdivision must be based on the nature of the
existing environment, which is outlined above under Section 2.
In addition, our assessment of effects may be informed by
the nature of effects that would occur as-of-right by development that would
fully comply with the permitted activity conditions of the District Plan.
Section 104(2) states:
“…when forming an opinion for subsection 1(a) [in regard to any actual and potential effects on the
environment of allowing the activity], 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.”
This is referred to as the ‘permitted
baseline’. While the ability to apply a permitted baseline is
discretionary (i.e. we “may disregard”), the permitted baseline
identifies what is permitted to occur on a parcel of land without needing
consent, so often provides a useful tool to quantify the difference in effects
between what is proposed and what is permitted to occur as-of-right.
We consider there is a relevant permitted baseline in that
we were shown that the lots could be developed with two large two-storeyed
dwelling houses with separate garages built on the road frontage. This
type of development is entirely feasible and therefore it is appropriate to
consider the adverse effects from a form of residential development that is
provided for and permitted in the Medium Density Area and could occur
We find that there is no basis to exclude the use of the
permitted baseline for considering resource consent applications for a discretionary
activity or for a proposal involving multiple non-compliances with permitted
activity conditions: neither the Act nor regulation directs that
exclusion. Accordingly, we consider that the permitted baseline would be
useful to identify what type and magnitude of effects
could occur as-of-right to compare with the magnitude of effects that could be
created by the proposed development. This comparison would assist in
determine the extent to which the effects of the various non-compliances,
individually and cumulatively, would exceed those that could be reasonably
anticipated by a permitted activity development.
We find the permitted baseline to be:
40% site coverage per site, excluding eaves;
4 Bolton Street: 156m2 footprint;
6 Bolton Street: 231m2 footprint;
1m side and rear yard setbacks, and no setback for accessory
buildings up to 6m in length;
A front yard of 3m;
8m in height;
Buildings up to 20m in length subject to compliance with building
A minimum permeable surface area of 30% of the net site area;
Recession plane requirements being 2.5m and 45 degrees on
all boundaries; and
Earthworks can be no greater than 50m2 and must
have cut or fill no greater than 1.2m in height.
We note that these conditions relate purely to building
bulk and location, and that there are no permitted activity conditions around
the appearance and design of the buildings. There is only guidance on
design and appearance by way of the District Plan’s Design Guide for
Medium Density Housing, which applies to resource consent applications for
multi-unit development: this guidance therefore cannot be considered as part of
the permitted baseline.
We further note that there are no protected trees on the subject
site and no controls over the proposed removal of the mature vegetation on the
site, so the removal of this vegetation is also part of the permitted baseline.
We were provided with evidence on a possible development of
the two lots that could occur as-of-right as a permitted activity, which was
for two large two-storeyed fully complying dwelling houses, one on each lot,
and with each having a garage fronting the street. We consider that such
a development would not be fanciful as there are examples of such development
in the neighbourhood. We therefore determined it is appropriate to
disregard the effects of such a permitted development in determining the scale
and magnitude of the effects of the proposed development.
Matters for Discretionary Activities
Under Rule 5A 2.3.1, the District Plan identifies the
following assessment matters for discretionary activities:
matters contained in Sections 104 and 105, and Part II of the Act shall apply.
degree of compliance or non-compliance with any relevant Permitted Activity
In addition, section 184.108.40.206 of the Subdivision Chapter
identifies the following assessment matters for discretionary activities:
matters contained in sections 104 and 105, and in Part II of the Act shall
with the engineering design standards.
degree of compliance or non-compliance with any relevant Permitted and
Controlled Activity Standards and Terms.
matters listed in the Assessment Criteria for Controlled Activities.
The above matters have been considered in the following
assessment as relevant.
Based on the material provided in the application, the
submission, the s42A report and evidence presented to the Hearing, we consider
that the principal issues in contention to be:
Residential amenity effects;
Residential character effects;
Servicing and engineering Effects;
Traffic and parking effects;
Subdivision design and layout;
Effects upon natural features and topography and sites of
Natural hazards and site contamination effects;
Temporary construction effects, including noise effects; and
At this point, it is relevant to raise the issue of whether
we are assessing three dwellings versus six dwellings. In terms of the
definitions of the District Plan, the development is for six dwelling
houses. However, the applicant contended that the development will be
viewed primarily as being three buildings or dwelling houses, due to the
integrated nature of the studio units with each main dwelling. We accept
that point insofar as it is relevant to considering the design and appearance
of the development and its effects on the neighbourhood character. It is
also relevant to consider the special nature of these studio units, to take
into account their intended and likely use as one-bedroomed units attached to
the larger dwelling units and contained within the same title. However,
for other purposes, we are bound to consider the development as six dwelling
houses, such as in considering vehicle movements and parking.
We concur with both the Reporting Officer and the
Applicant’s Statements of Evidence with regards the degree of
non-compliances with the District Plan bulk and location standards and note
there was no disputing of these by the submitters. For a full description
of all non-compliances, we refer to the information supplied with the
application, and in the s42A Report.
on Residential Amenity Values
We note the proposal breaches a number of bulk and location
standards of the District Plan. The submitters raised concerns with the
cumulative effect of these breaches, which, in their opinion, would create
adverse effects on both their properties and the wider neighbourhood. We
assess each of the following potential effects in terms of residential amenity:
visual amenity, shading, vegetation, privacy and overlooking, noise and
perceived activity levels. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
proposed breaches of the permitted activity conditions.
Visual amenity includes the impact on views and the amount
of building coverage (density).
We acknowledge the submitters’ concerns in respect of
loss of views, especially relating to the sky and mature trees. We
however accept the Reporting Officer’s advice that case law has
established that there is no absolute right to 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 amenity
values. Further, as noted, there are no controls to prevent the loss of
the vegetation at any time.
The construction of a large two-storeyed complying dwelling
house would have similar effects in terms of the impact on views. We
acknowledge that the total amount of building visible from either neighbouring
property would be larger than a permitted development but consider the effects
on outlook would be mitigated by the well-articulated pattern of buildings, the
variation in design and cladding, and the setback from boundaries. In
addition, the proposed landscaping would include several trees that will grow
between 3m-8m in height, which will aid in screening and reducing any perceived
bulk of the proposed buildings. As well, the landscaping will incorporate
a mix of soft and hard landscaping measures to help delineate private living
areas for the inhabitants. We find that the proposed landscaping will
help to maintain the visual amenity values of the area and have imposed a
In terms of density, we find that the proposed development
will be viewed as three buildings, and that the District Plan currently permits
up to three dwellings on an allotment of the size of the subject site (albeit
with compliance with the bulk and location standards). The proposed net
site areas per dwelling range from 70.3m2-201.7m2.
However, the integrated nature of the primary and studio units reduces
perceptions of density to three buildings on site whereby overall allotment
size (271m2-323m2) provides a better guide as to
perceived density and associated adverse visual amenity effects. We were
advised that if the site was not being subdivided, there would be no net site
area non-compliance. We were also advised that site coverage based on the
proposed allotment sizes for three buildings results in figures for Lots 1
– 3 of 48.5%, 55.9% and 53.5% respectively, compared with the permitted
site coverage in the MDAA of 40%.
The proposal includes fencing, private outdoor areas and
compliance with all external yard setback requirements. The proposed
buildings will all be sited further from the common boundaries with 2 and 8
Bolton Street than the existing dwellings are, leading to a wider degree of
separation. We find that due to the alignment of the proposed buildings
(north/south on Lot 1 and east/west on Lots 2 and 3), the higher site coverage
non-compliances will not affect streetscape visual amenity. From our site
visit, we agree with the Reporting Officer that the proposed buildings will not
be fully visible in their entirety as viewed from any one direction, further
limiting perceptions of building bulk.
We find that perceived density and associated adverse
visual amenity effects are similar to those that could arise from a reasonably
anticipated development on the subject site, particularly given the medium
density overlay. We also note that there are other examples of multi-unit
two-storeyed development in Bolton Street.
To address the cumulative effect concerns of the
submitters, we have assessed the mitigating factors proposed by the
applicant. Fencing is proposed along all external and internal
boundaries. The applicant contended the fencing will provide
privacy. At the Hearing, we learnt that the submitters from 2 Bolton
Street were concerned that a 1.8m fence along the common boundary would create
excessive shadowing and an enclosed feeling on their property. They
offered to accept a compromise on fence height between 1.5m and 1.8m in height.
We concur with this and have imposed a condition accordingly.
The proposed landscaping includes a variety of trees,
shrubs and plants which will 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. Private outdoor living
areas will be located to the north of the proposed dwellings and a 3.0m wide
right-of-way to the south of the subject site will combine to provide buffers 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 be 0.45m narrower
than permitted under the District Plan, these separation distances will provide
viewshafts 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.
The façades of the proposed dwellings have been
modulated, with variable setbacks from allotment boundaries with distinct
dwelling and roof forms. 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 perceived building bulk.
The recession plan breaches are largely related to eaves
and roofs of the buildings, except 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. 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. We consider that this
separation assists in mitigating the effects of cumulative building bulk along
the southern boundary of 8 Bolton Street.
Cumulatively, we consider that the recession plane breaches
are 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. Accordingly, we find that the effects of the proposed
development on visual amenity would be no more than minor.
We were advised by the Reporting Officer that the District
Plan does not seek to ensure that developments prevent all shading of
neighbouring properties; rather, it uses recession planes to ensure development
provides an acceptable level of daylight/sunlight to neighbouring
properties. Any development, particularly of two-storeyed buildings, will
create some level of shading on adjoining properties at certain times of the
year, at certain times of the day.
The submitters expressed concern that the proposal could
permanently reduce sunlight/ solar gain to the outdoor areas of their
As we determined, the actual degrees of non-compliance with
the recession planes on the external boundaries are small in scale and any
effects be no more than minor. The applicant provided a set of diagrams
highlighting the portions of the proposed buildings that would exceed the
recession planes. They also provided a set of shading diagrams to
demonstrate the shading effects at mid-summer, mid-winter and the equinox,
along with a comparison of a complying development. The effects of
shading from the proposed fencing are also provided. Upon analysis, these
diagrams showed that the effects of shading on the property at 8 Bolton Street
are comparable to the permitted baseline during most of the year. The
extent of shading that occurs in mid-summer that is greater than the permitted
baseline is limited to a portion of the rear yard for a limited time in the
We note that the proposed fencing would produce much of the
shading when the sun is at lower angles, and these fences could be erected
as-of-right regardless of the type of development occurring.
Shading on 2 Bolton Street will be less than the permitted
baseline in mid-winter with the exception of the gable pitch roof of the
dwelling on Lot 1. This will shade the northern side of the roof of the
dwelling on 2 Bolton Street from 9.30am and reduces over the day until
1pm. For the rest of the northern elevation, shading will be less or the
same as the permitted baseline, with any shading arising from a complying
perimeter fence. We consider the siting of the proposed dwelling on Lot 1
being at least 3m from the common boundary with 2 Bolton Street, and the
separation provided by the right-of-way to be sufficient to mitigate adverse
shading effects for persons at 2 Bolton Street to an acceptable level.
For these reasons, we find that the effects of additional
shading from the proposed development, compared with a permitted development,
will be no more than minor.
The submitter from 2 Bolton Street expressed concern about
the proposed loss of an established Pohutukawa towards the east (rear) of the
subject site, and the effects of that loss on their amenity. While the
District Plan policies seek to retain existing vegetation where practicable,
the removal of this tree allows for vehicle access to the rear site and the
construction of the third building, and as such its retention is not considered
We note that none of the trees on site are protected, and the
mature specimens are not remnants of the original vegetation. Their loss
will be comparable to a permitted activity on the site. We also accept
that the proposed landscaping will mitigate the loss of existing vegetation to
Noise and Perceived Activity
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.
It is noted that no windows breach the northern or southern
recession planes, and thus will not exacerbate overlooking effects from a
permitted development. From the first-floor level, any overlooking of 2 Bolton Street would be from bedrooms
and/or bathrooms, not principal living areas. The exception is the
primary dwelling on proposed Lot 2 where additional windows associated with the
first-floor landing/hallway and reading nook would be visible. 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.
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.
Fencing and hard and soft landscaping is proposed
throughout the development, providing screening. Strategic placement of
windows ensures there is no overlooking of neighbouring properties from the
living areas of the proposed dwellings. In comparison, a fully complying
3 dwelling development could have living areas on the first-floor level, with
no controls on the amount, orientation and size of windows.
There was no evidence that noise from activities that would
occur on the site would be in breach of the noise standards in the District
Plan or that the level of activity from the use of the residential units would
be particularly unusual or out of character from that expected in a residential
In conclusion, we find that the cumulative effect of all
breaches of permitted activity conditions on residential amenity values would
not be significant. We find that any effects arising from these
non-compliances will be less than minor.
on Residential Character
A new development can have an adverse effect on the
character of a residential neighbourhood, particularly if it is an established
older suburb. Such effect can be created by being obtrusively out of the
character with the existing nature of residential development, or by having an
obtrusive impact on streetscape.
Our site visit confirmed that, within proximity of the
site, there is a dominance of standalone residential dwellings and associated
accessory buildings on individual allotments. On Bolton Street, sites and
dwellings are generally oriented east-west, with dwellings fronting close to
the street, with open gardens to the rear. Dwellings tend to be older
bungalow houses and are generally (although not exclusively) single
storey. In particular, the eastern side of Bolton Street between The
Esplanade and Adelaide Street displays a very regular pattern of single
storeyed older residences. Development forms along The Esplanade are generally
more intensive with larger two-storey and often modern dwellings more
prevalent, usually oriented north-south.
We note that the MDAA requires 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 Consultant, 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. In particular, we concur with the Urban
Design Consultant that the dwellings are designed and arranged on the site in a
rational manner, that adequate private outdoor areas are provided for each
residential unit, and that appropriate landscaping is proposed to offset the
number of fences, walls and impervious surfaces. We also concur that the
proximity of the site to The Esplanade would assist in integrating the
development into the neighbourhood, given the different scale, age and
orientation of buildings along The Esplanade.
We heard from the Reporting Planner that, whilst the
proposed dwellings are two-storeyed in an area of predominantly single storey
dwellings, the neighbourhood has not been identified as being of special
character (be it historic or otherwise) and nothing precludes the existing
residential sites being redeveloped with two storey, more modern dwellings, or
with forms of infill housing. Indeed, we saw some examples in the
neighbourhood on our site visit.
We acknowledge that, while the existing Bolton Street
residential character is characterised by dwellings predominantly built in a
similar era, the residential permitted baseline enables the redevelopment of
these properties into two-storeyed residences. We note 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. We find that the proposed two storey form and
modern architecture of the proposed dwellings is generally consistent with the
anticipated character of Medium Density Activity Area.
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, we consider the proposed garage placement to not be
inconsistent with the established residential character of the surrounding area
and is therefore acceptable.
Another aspect of residential amenity is landscaping.
We are satisfied the submitted plan with the application details the proposed
landscaping and find the proposed landscaping to be sufficient to mitigate the
perceived bulk of the buildings, and to add to the amenity of the area.
The use of trees as well as smaller plantings will help to give a sense of
scale to the development, denote the main entrance routes to the dwellings, and
help to soften the appearance of the driveway areas. We note the
landscaping plan has been prepared as an integral component of the
We have assessed all the non-compliances and the degree of
each non-compliance. All the lots will be less than the permitted minimum
for medium density residential developments. As part of this proposal,
the applicant has provided the design of the units that will be constructed on
the new lots. These designs show that the allotments are suitable in their
size and shape to accommodate a good standard of residential development.
We find that the allotment design and layout effects will be less than minor.
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. If a future resident proposes to use the studio unit
for commercial visitor accommodation, they would have to seek resource consent,
and the effects of that proposed activity would be assessed at that time.
Accordingly, we do not consider it necessary to impose a condition to restrict
the use of these studio units but consider an Advice Note would be appropriate.
With regard to the proposed subdivision into 3 lots, we
find that this proposal is offering another style of residential accommodation,
and one that is consistent with the Design Guide. Despite the minimum net
site areas not being met, we consider each allotment is of sufficient size to
accommodate the proposed residential unit and provide a suitable living environment
for their inhabitants.
A detailed landscape plan shows the proposed planting has
been designed to help alleviate any perceived bulk of the buildings. We
note the overall bulk and form of the proposal is consistent with what could be
established on the site as a permitted activity, and that the development is
planned as an integrated whole.
Our site visit confirmed the information provided by the
application and the submitters that 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.
Proposed dwelling on Lot 1 complies with the minimum yard
setbacks and recession plane requirements of the District Plan. Whilst it
is slightly closer to the front boundary than the majority of dwellings in the
street, the modulated front elevation produces varied front yard
setbacks. A low front fence would mimic the rhythm of the surrounding
streetscape. The front entrance to the dwelling faces the street and
combined with the large living room doors opening onto the front courtyard
area, provide passive surveillance of and visual connection to the street.
The proposed dwellings on the rear lots will be partly
screened by the proposed front dwelling and sufficiently separated from the
public domain so as to minimise adverse streetscape effects due to perceived
We acknowledge many buildings in the vicinity are single
storeyed, but we are mindful that two-storeyed construction is permitted by the
District Plan and can be anticipated especially in the MDAA. This end of
Bolton Street also contains a number of two-storeyed single and multi-unit
For these reasons, we find that the proposed development
would not be out of character with the neighbourhood, and that any effects
arising from these non-compliances will be less than minor.
Servicing and Engineering Effects
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. This is standard
We note Wellington Water Ltd (WWL) had advised The
Esplanade is part of an “inundation area under
investigation”. To mitigate this, the applicant has ensured a
finished floor level of all the buildings to be higher than the crown of Bolton
Street carriageway. WWL did not raise any concerns with the increased
demand upon the surrounding water, stormwater and wastewater networks, nor on
the low level of permeable surface proposed by the development.
We note the proposal has been assessed and is supported by
Council engineers, subject to the imposition of several conditions.
Based on the above, we find that any adverse effects
arising from the servicing of the site and the proposed shortfall in permeable
surfaces will be mitigated to an acceptable extent.
and Parking Effects
The proposal provides one on-site carpark for each primary
dwelling by way of garages built as part of the principal units. In
addition, the front unit would have a driveway that could accommodate a
vehicle, although this was not included in the applicant’s assessment of
parking. No on-site carparks are proposed for the studio
units. The District Plan requirement is the provision on one on
site carpark for each dwelling house, resulting in the proposal being short of
3 carparks, and thus non-complying with the permitted activity conditions.
Both submitters raised concerns about the extent of
pressure this non-compliance may place on the on-street parking facilities
within the surrounding area. They further raised concerns that the extra
number of dwellings and associated vehicle movements could cause congestion on
the surrounding network. As well, the submitters were concerned about the
width of the proposed right-of-way: as this right-of-way would serve 4
dwellings, the Plan requires a 6m wide right-of-way, with a minimum of 5m of
formed driveway. The proposal is for a 3m wide formed right-of-way.
The submitters were concerned at possible adverse effects on circulation and
manoeuvring this would present.
We were presented with numerous parking surveys by both the
applicant and submitters. We were informed by the submitters that often
Bolton Street has very few carparks available, due to the parking of
workers’ cars, overspill from residents, and visitors to the beach and
residents. We are mindful of the busyness of The Esplanade, and the
proximity of the subject site to the Jackson Street shopping area and Weltec
campus. We understand there may be an overall loss of one street carpark
as a result of the proposed second road crossing providing access to the front
Mr Bill Barclay, Council’s Traffic Engineer, has
assessed the proposal. He accepted the results of the applicant’s
survey and confirmed there is enough on-street parking available in the
immediate vicinity to mitigate the effects of the 3 on-site carpark shortfall
to an acceptable level. Mr Barclay also assessed the capacity of the
roading network to accept the additional traffic movements anticipated from the
proposal. He concluded the small number of vehicle movements per day
expected to be generated from the proposal would generate very minor effects on
road safety or efficiency. We accept his expert opinion.
The Reporting Officer advised Council’s Network
Operations Traffic Engineer had advised no alterations to on-street parking are
proposed in the portion of roadway adjacent to the subject site, and that any
proposed changes in the future may be centred around the Jackson Street and
Adelaide Street intersections. We are satisfied these will not impact the
immediate vicinity of the subject site.
We note that although the proposed right-of-way will
service four dwellings, only two have designated on-site carparks
(garages). 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. Mr Barclay did provide his
overall support for the proposal as there would be adequate visibility, with
virtually indefinite sightlines, a wide footpath, lack of street trees, a flat
site and large separation distance to the closet intersection. As well,
Mr Barclay stated vehicles can manoeuvre on site so as to enter and exit in a
front ways manner. He considered the right-of-way to be functional for
its intended purpose and use.
In answer to questions from the Panel, Mr Barclay did
advise that larger service vehicles (for example, fire trucks or large delivery
trucks) would be unable to access the right-of-way. However, the
Reporting Officer advised all proposed dwellings are located close enough to
fire hydrants on Bolton Street.
We note the proposal will result in vehicular access to the
rear of 8 Bolton Street being stopped: current access to the rear of 8 Bolton
Street is via driveway to 6 Bolton Street. Whilst this is unfortunate,
this situation could equally arise from a fully complying development on the neighbouring
property, or with the erection of a legal fence along the boundary. We
note that there is a parking pad for two vehicles in the front yard of 8 Bolton
Overall, we find that the traffic and parking effects are
acceptable, with any effects being minor or less than minor.
Subdivision Design and Layout
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, we agree with the
Council’s Reporting Officer and Urban Designer that each allotment will
be of sufficient size and shape to support the intended dwellings, on-site car
parking proposed, outdoor living and landscaping, and that the subdivision
design and layout is generally consistent with the Design Guide.
All proposed dwellings will be connected to water,
wastewater, stormwater, power and telecommunications, and physical and legal
access to the road network.
We find the proposed subdivision design and site layout is
acceptable, with the allotments fit for their intended residential purpose.
Effects and Effects upon Natural Features and Topography
We heard that a minimal amount of earthworks is proposed
for the development, due to the flat nature of the site. The depth of
earthworks is within the permitted activity standard. An area of 127.5m3
of earthworks is proposed, which is 27.5m3 over the permitted
baseline amount of 100m3 (50m3 per lot). The site
is 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.
Any temporary effects due to earthworks, such as dust or
sediment control, can be mitigated through the Construction Management Plan
that the applicant has proffered.
Once the development is complete, the effects of the
earthworks on the flat site will not generate any adverse visual effects.
The proposed landscaping will enhance the visual amenity of the site and screen
Overall, we find that any adverse effects of earthworks to
be less than minor.
on Sites of Significance and Heritage
The site is not known to contain any historical or cultural
resources and has no natural character nor is it identified as being subject to
any specific Statutory Acknowledgement Area. As such, we consider the
likelihood of the proposed earthworks and construction disturbing sites of
significance to be minimal and therefore acceptable.
Neither of the existing dwellings are scheduled Heritage
items. We do note that much of Petone has been affected by pre-1900
activity, which means that an archaeological authority from Heritage New
Zealand may be required for the proposed development. During the Hearing,
the applicant agreed to conditions relating to accidental discovery and
We find that with adherence to the conditions, the effects
upon heritage to be less than minor.
Natural Hazards and Site Contamination Effects
We were advised that Council records do not indicate that
the application site has a known history of erosion or land instability and is
located well outside of the Wellington Fault Special Study Area. We find
that due to the modest scale of earthworks proposed, they are unlikely to
create or exacerbate natural hazard risk.
We acknowledge the subject site is within the 1:440 flood
extent associated with the Hutt River. We were advised GWRC and WWL
raised no concerns with the proposal and we consider any adverse effects due to
loss of floodplain storage or flood risk to have been avoided or mitigated and
Construction of any development will result in temporary
disturbance for the surrounding area, with potential for noise, vibration,
dust, sedimentation and traffic effects to be generated. Indeed, the
submitters raised such concerns, including hours of work on the site.
In response, the applicant has proposed to develop a
Construction Management Plan (CMP) prior to the commencement of site works to
avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of construction. We agree
that this would be an appropriate means to manage the effects of construction
and have imposed a condition accordingly.
The CMP is to detail how traffic, dust, noise, vibration
and machinery effects associated with construction activities will be managed,
provide the contact details of person on-site should a complaint be lodged, as
well as contact details of the Council’s Monitoring and Compliance
Officer. The CMP will also identify the hours of operation of the
construction activity and require notification to neighbours prior to
commencement of the most disruptive works (including pile driving and the
commencement of demolition or earthworks).
In addition, the applicant offered to provide a copy of the
CMP to both submitters for their comments, prior to lodgement with the Council
Officers, and that any such comments will be forwarded to Council at the same
time as the CMP is lodged for approval.
We acknowledge that any construction activity on such a
large site would create noise. However, we are mindful of the
construction of a permitted development on the lots could produce similar
effects: for example, the construction of complying large dwellings and
accessory garages could produce similar noise levels during construction.
There are NZ Standards for construction noise, and the applicant has agreed to
abide by such standards.
We acknowledge the estimated construction timeframe (up to
12 months for each building, due to contracting labour shortages) is probably
longer than might be expected, and the fact that the residents of 2 Bolton
Street often work from home. However, the District Plan sets no limits of
construction periods, including for a fully complying development.
Accordingly, we find that, with adherence to the relevant
conditions, adverse temporary effects arising from construction will be no more
than minor and are therefore acceptable.
We concur with the applicant’s and Council’s
planners that the proposed development will provide for housing close to main
transport links, a suburban shopping area and recreational opportunities; and
will be using existing infrastructure. We also concur that the proposal
allows for the development potential of the site to be met and will increase the city’s supply of housing
stock, within an area identified for more intensive housing developments.
The development will also provide the opportunity to support flexible living
arrangements for larger families (for example, the studio units could
accommodate dependent elderly persons), thereby widening the diversity of the
City’s housing stock.
of Findings on Effects
Overall, we find that the adverse effects of the proposal
will be minor or less than minor.
We consider the applicant has proposed adequate mitigation
of the amenity effects of the proposed development through the layout and
design of the dwellings and associated outdoor areas, accessway and parking and
landscaping. We agree with the Council’s Urban design adviser that
the development is well designed and would provide a good level of amenity for
We also find that all other effects, including noise and
earthworks effects, can be mitigated by way of imposing appropriate
conditions. We find that there will not be
adverse effects on the residential character of the area by consenting this
multi-unit residential development. In addition, we consider this
proposal will not detract from the amenity values of the wider area.
We now turn to assessing the proposal against the relevant
objectives and policies of the District Plan. There was agreement between
the Reporting Planner and the Planning Consultant for the applicant as to the
relevant District Plan Objectives and Policies. We concur with their
views. Our assessment draws on the more detailed assessments of the
proposal that were undertaken in the s42A report and the resource consent
Subdivision Objectives and Policies
Objective 11.1.1 -
that land which is subdivided can be used for the proposed use or development.
ensure that allotments have minimum design standards such as minimum size,
shape and frontage, which are suitable for the proposed use or development.
The subdivision layout was based on the design of the
proposed dwellings within each proposed lot, resulting in lots of an
appropriate size and shape for the development. Once final subdivision is
complete, we acknowledge the lots will not comply with the net site area or
shape factor requirements of the District Plan. However, the boundaries
of these proposed lots will reflect the layout of the proposed dwellings.
We have found these dwellings to be generally consistent with the outcomes sought
by the Design Guide for multi-unit developments. We therefore find that
the proposed lots are of a suitable size and shape to accommodate their
proposed use for residential activities and, on this basis, we find the
proposal is consistent with the above Objective and Policy.
Objective 11.1.2 -
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
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.
The applicant informed the Hearing that all proposed dwellings
will be serviced in terms of sewer, water, stormwater, power and
telecommunications. Where necessary these will be protected via the
necessary easements. We have imposed conditions accordingly.
The proposed right-of-way does not comply with the minimum
access width requirements of the District Plan. However, we find that
there is adequate room for resident’s vehicles to manoeuvre on site,
vehicles can enter and exit the site in a forward manner, and good lines of
sight will be provided, thereby assuring traffic safety. We therefore find that the proposal is
consistent with this Objective and Policy.
Objective 11.1.3 – Natural Hazards
that land subject to natural hazards is subdivided in a manner that the adverse
effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.
Subdivision of land subject to flooding is discouraged as this can lead to
of use and development and have adverse effects on the environment.
The floor levels of the proposed buildings have been
assessed by the relevant council engineers and consultants and deemed to be
sufficient to mitigate any potential inundation risk associated with the
development of the site to an acceptable level.
Land Use Objectives and
4A 1.1.1 Residential Character and Amenity Values
maintain and enhance the amenity values and residential character of the
General Residential Activity Area of the City.
opportunity be provided for a diversity of residential activities.
ensure residential amenity values are retained, protected and enhanced through
the establishment of a net site area per dwelling house.
adverse effects arising from noise, dust, glare, light spill and odour be
vegetation and trees which add to the particular amenity values of the area be
retained where practicable.
the clearance of vegetation be managed to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse
effects on the intrinsic values of ecosystems.
The proposal is inherently residential in nature and scale
and provides additional diversity in the City’s housing stock through by
of residential activities (various dwelling sizes). The boundaries of
each lot have been designed to reflect the layout of the proposed
dwellings. We acknowledge existing vegetation is to be removed but note
the landscape plan submitted with the application proposes planting specimens
suited to a residential seaside environment. We further note the site
does not have any identified intrinsic ecosystems.
Temporary adverse effects arising from construction noise,
dust, glare, light spill and odour can be managed by a Construction Management
4A 1.1.2 Medium Density Residential
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
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.
avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of higher dwelling densities on
the surrounding area, caused by height of buildings, intensity, scale and
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
1.2.1 Building Height, Scale, Intensity and Location
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.
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.
ensure all new development is of a height and scale, which is compatible with
surrounding residential development.
ensure a progressive reduction in height of buildings the closer they are
located to a site boundary, to maintain adequate daylight and sunlight to
manage the siting of all buildings so as to minimise detraction from the character
and visual attractiveness of the surrounding residential activity area.
manage the siting of all buildings so as to minimise detraction from the
amenities of adjoining properties.
establish a minimum permeable surface area to assist with the sustainable
management of stormwater.
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 on-site amenity, integration of buildings and landscaping in
respect to open space and compatibility with surrounding development patterns
and low environmental impact.
The proposal is located within easy walking, cycling and driving
distance of major transport routes and a commercial centre. It would
provide for a greater choice within the residential housing market through the
provision of primary dwellings and attached studio units.
While the proposed development results in net site areas
below that anticipated by the District Plan (70.3-201.7m2) we consider the lots
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, with the underlying site layout considered similar to that which can
be reasonably anticipated for the General Residential – Medium Density
activity area. The density of development is not out of character with
other recent developments in the neighbourhood. The application proposes
a number of mitigating factors to reduce any perceived adverse effects from
intensity and scale including:
treatment to soften the visual appearance;
on the style, modulation, colour cladding, massing, and orientation of the
with the side and rear setback requirements;
the driveway along the southern side, providing for the buildings to be setback
from the southern boundary;
the second storeys smaller in size than the ground levels; and
the second storey of the front dwelling setback further from the street
Objectives and Policies
A safe and
efficient transport network that is integrated with land use patterns, meets
local, regional and national transport needs and provides for all modes of
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
subdivision and development should not cause significant adverse effects on the
connectivity, accessibility and safety of the transport network, and, where
seek to improve connectivity within and between communities; and
walking, cycling and access to public transport.
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, landuse, subdivision and development should provide for all
The proposed development is located within walking distance
of the Jackson Street retail precinct 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.
The District Plan requirement is one vehicle park per
dwelling, with which this proposal does not comply. All parking and
manoeuvring areas are sealed in an attractive manner, resulting in a visually
attractive development. The Consultant Traffic Engineer concluded that
the 3-carpark shortfall can be adequately accommodated within the existing
roading network as there are often vacant kerbside spaces available within a
short walk of the site. We find the accommodation of the shortfall of
on-site carparks on the existing roading network will not compromise the
traffic safety and efficiency of the local area.
The proposal has been assessed by the Consultant Traffic
Engineer on behalf of Council, who concluded there is adequate provision for
on-site turning, and that the effect of a vehicle reversing from the single
dwelling associated with dwelling 1 will be comparable to a permitted
development and that there are adequate sightlines. We concur with his
opinion and find that, overall, the proposal is not considered to be contrary
to the above Transport related objectives and policies.
Relevant Objectives and Policies
14I 1.1 Natural Character Objective
To ensure that
earthworks are designed to maintain the natural features that contribute to the
ensure that earthworks are designed to be sympathetic to the natural
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
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.
The subject site is flat, and does not contain any
significant scarps, steep hillsides, coastal features and due to its location
on the valley floor. The minimal earthworks will be hidden from view by
the proposed buildings, landscaping and right-of-way. We were informed
the application site is not situated in a Significant Natural Resource as
identified in the District Plan and contains no ecologically significant stands
of vegetation. The site is also not located in an identified Significant
Cultural or Archaeological Resource as identified in the District Plan.
Due to the previous history of development on site we consider the likelihood
of works disinterring artefacts of historical, cultural or spiritual
significance to be minimal. However, to cover the unexpected we have imposed
a condition relating to the Accidental Discovery Protocol.
For these reasons the proposal is considered to be
generally consistent with all the above objectives and policies.
Change 43 to the District Plan
Plan Change 43 was publicly 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, and therefore we can
give little weight to its provisions. Irrespective of the question 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 on-site amenity, as well as the amenity of the
street and surrounding properties and impacts upon infrastructure.
106 of the Act
When assessing this section of the Act, we were informed by
the applicant the site is within the 1:100-year flood extent as depicted on the
maps prepared by the Greater Wellington Regional Council. We have
assessed the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant and find these
measures will ensure the land will be protected from inundation.
We have found that legal and physical access can be provide
to the proposed lots via the proposed right-of-way.
We therefore find that none of the matters under s106 of
the Act should lead to a refusal of subdivision consent.
Other Plans and Policies
Regional Policy Statement
The Wellington Regional Policy Statement (RPS) was made
operative in April 2013.
We find there are several relevant objectives and policies
of the Regional Policy Statement.
19 – The risks and consequences to people, communities, their businesses,
property and infrastructure from natural hazards and climate change are
20 – Hazard mitigation measures, structural works and other activities do
not increase the risk and consequences of natural hazard events.
21 – Communities are more resilient to natural hazards, including the
impacts of climate change, and people are better prepared for the consequences
of natural hazard events.
– Avoiding inappropriate subdivision and development in areas at high
risk from natural hazards.
– Minimising the risks and consequences of natural hazards.
– Minimising adverse effects of hazard mitigation measures.
The applicant has demonstrated it will adequately reduce
the impact of natural hazards (flooding) while avoiding exacerbating the effect
on the surrounding area.
22 - A compact well designed and sustainable regional form that has an integrated,
safe and responsive transport network and:
development in existing urban areas, or when beyond urban areas, development
that reinforces the region’s existing urban form;
– Identifying and promoting higher density and mixed-use development.
– Achieving the region’s urban design principles.
– Maintaining a compact, well designed and sustainable regional form.
The proposal is generally consistent with the relevant
objectives and policies of the RPS in that it:
not impact on air quality, fresh water, historic heritage, indigenous
ecosystems or soils and minerals;
not result in any significant modifications to the natural landforms;
not impact on natural hazards or unnecessarily increase risk to people from natural
support a consolidated regional form, design and function with a development
that is appropriate to the residential character of the area. This
proposal helps to achieve that objective through providing infill development
within an existing urban area. The subject site is close to public
transport and shops and can be serviced by existing infrastructure.
National Policy Statements
The National Policy Statement for Urban Development
capacity is relevant to the application. In particular, Policies PA1,
PA2, PA3 and PA4 which state:
authorities shall ensure that at any one time there is sufficient housing and
business land development capacity according to the table below:
term development capacity must be feasible, zoned and serviced with development
term development capacity must be feasible, zoned and either:
Serviced with development infrastructure; or
The funding for the development infrastructure required to
service that development capacity must be identified in a Long-Term Plan
required under the Local Government Act 2002.
term development capacity must be feasible, identified in relevant plans and
strategies, and the development infrastructure required to service it must be
identified in the relevant Infrastructure Strategy required under the Local
Government Act 2002.
The subject site is zoned for medium density residential
development, and the development will contribute to the housing stock of the
city and will be serviced using existing and proposed on site
infrastructure. We consider the proposal is consistent with this policy.
authorities shall satisfy themselves that other infrastructure required to
support urban development is likely to be available.
The proposal is able to be serviced within existing
infrastructural networks, as confirmed by the relevant asset managers. We
consider the development is consistent with this policy.
making planning decisions that affect the way and the rate at which development
capacity is provided, decision-makers shall provide for the social, economic,
cultural and environmental wellbeing of people and communities and future
generations, whilst having particular regard to:
for choices that will meet the needs of people and communities and future
generations for a range of dwelling types and locations, working environments
and places to locate businesses;
the efficient use of urban land and development infrastructure and other
as much as possible adverse impacts on the competitive operation of land and
The site is within a medium density residential activity
area, which allows for a range of housing developments to be provided.
The proposal will provide housing choice that will meet the needs of people and
their communities. The proposal will not adversely impact on the
competitive operation of land. Therefore, we
consider the proposal is consistent with this policy.
PA4 When considering the effects of urban development,
decision-makers shall take into account:
benefits that urban development will provide with respect to the ability for
people and communities and future generations to provide for their social,
economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing; and
benefits and costs of urban development at a national, inter-regional, regional and
district scale, as well as the local effects.
9.28 This proposal achieves this policy through providing infill
housing with minimal adverse effects on the surrounding communities to provide
for their social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing. The
subject site is close to public transport, local retail facilities and
businesses, recreational facilities and community facilities, thereby providing
for the social,
economic and cultural wellbeing of
people. We find the benefits of the proposal are on a local and district level scale, providing additional and varied
housing stock for the city. Therefore, we consider the proposal is
consistent with this policy.
We consider there to be no other plans or policies relevant
to this application, including relevant national environmental standards; other
regulations; national policy statements; New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
2010; or plan/proposed plan.
We are aware of the non-statutory 2017 Petone Spatial Plan (Petone 2040), which states this
area of Bolton Street is within area “3b)”. The
characteristics of this area are stated as being generally cohesive, intact
residential environments, with older dwellings conforming to specific
types. We do note the Plan cautions against multiple plot developments
and loss of green space and gaps between houses. We find the proposal is
for the redevelopment of just 2 lots and will provide greater distance between
buildings on the adjacent sites than exists at present. We are satisfied
the proposed landscaping will add to the green outlook for the area.
Whilst we acknowledge the proposal includes two-storey
buildings, we are mindful this is not inconsistent with other dwellings in the
street or neighbourhood. We observe the proposed dwellings will have
gable ends, will face predominantly east/east, use a mix of buildings materials
including weatherboard and metal roofing and have lower fencing to the street,
all of which are stated characteristics of the existing built
environment. We are also mindful of the assessment and conclusions
from the Council’s Urban Designer, which found the proposal is largely
consistent with the Design Guide for Medium Density Housing and that the
development fits into the neighbourhood.
We find that we cannot place any weight on the 2017 Petone
Spatial Plan, as it has no statutory status and there have been no Plan Changes
associated with it.
The 2013 Hutt City Council Urban Growth Strategy encourages
6000 houses to be constructed over the next 20 years, with a significant number
constructed through more intensive residential development of existing
sites. While this Strategy has no statutory status in respect of this
application, and this is made clear in the introductory statement of that
document, we find the proposal is in line with the Urban Growth Strategy.
When considering an application for a resource consent and
any submissions received, our assessment is subject to Part 2 of the Act,
purpose of the Act (section 5);
of national importance that the consent authority must recognise and provide
for when determining a resource consent (section 6);
matters the consent authority must have particular regard to (section 7); and
principles of the Treaty of Waitangi that must be taken into account (section
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.”
We consider the proposal has positive effects in that it
will provide infill housing on a residentially zoned site, close to public transport
and amenities, thereby enabling people and communities to provide for their
social, economic and cultural wellbeing.
Section 6 of the RMA sets out the matters of national
importance. The scale and location of the proposal is such that there are
no matters of national importance, other than 6(h), which is “the management of significant risks from natural
hazards”. We have
found that the risks from natural hazards (flooding) will be appropriately
mitigated by the proposal.
Section 7 of the Act lists a number of other matters that
Council shall have particular regard to when considering the application, with
the following matters considered applicable:
(b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical
maintenance and enhancement of amenity values …
(f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the
We find the proposal is consistent with s7(b) as it makes
use of an existing residentially zoned site, which is an efficient use and
development of existing resources and infrastructure.
We also find that the proposal is consistent with sections
7(c) and (f) as the subdivision and development would maintain the amenity
values of the surrounding area and the quality of the local environment.
In relation to section 8 of the Act, the site is not
identified in the District Plan as containing any wāhi tapu or sites of
significance to Māori. It is noted the subject site is not adjacent
to any land subject to the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Act 2009.
In overall terms, we find the subdivision and proposed
residential development to be consistent with the purpose of promoting the
sustainable management of the City’s natural and physical resources in
accordance with section 5. It involves creating multiple medium density
dwelling units within an established urban area. The units will be
compact in form, well designed and on balance will meet the aims of the design
guide for medium density housing providing for the development potential of the
site to be achieved.
That the Hearings Committee, acting under delegated
authority from Council and pursuant to sections 104, 104B, 106 and 108 of the
Resource Management Act 1991, GRANTS CONSENT subject to conditions to the
discretionary activity resource consent application made by Urban Edge Planning
Ltd on behalf of Clark Kennedy Investments Ltd for subdivision and land use
consent to demolish existing buildings on site and construct a multi-unit
development of six dwellings (comprising three dwelling units and three studio
units) at 4-6 Bolton Street, Petone.
This decision is made for the reasons discussed above and,
in summary, because:
(a) The activity
that is granted is unlikely to have any significant adverse effects on the
environment provided the conditions imposed are fully implemented;
to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the activity is consistent with
the provisions of the operative City of Lower Hutt District Plan; and
activity is consistent with the purpose and principles of the Resource
Management Act 1991.
MJ Cousins (Commissioner) Chair)
this 25th day of February 2019
APPENDIX I –
CONDITIONS OF CONSENT
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).
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.
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.
the consent holder supplies water reticulation as necessary and supplies
separate minimum 20mm NB connections for each residential lot that meets
Council’s code for domestic supply and the firefighting capability
required under the New Zealand Fire Service code of practice (SNZ PAS
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.
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.
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 the existing sewer lateral for
Nº 6 Bolton St is 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 will need to be
confirmed at the time of sealing off the abandoned pipework.
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
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.
That the consent holder secures the ground-floor windows of the proposed
dwelling on lot 1 where it adjoins the accessway so they do not open more than
100mm into the accessway. 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.
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
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.
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.
That the consent holder provides underground telephone and electrical services
to each lot in accordance with the specifications and requirements of the
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.
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
This will apply to any services from neighbouring properties if,
during construction works, these are found to be within the site.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
That the consent holder meets the cost of registering consent
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
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
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
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 RC15RC18, all prepared by Moore Architecture and dated 25
October 2018) submitted with the application and held on file at
The consent holder shall note that the neighbouring buildings such as
the garage at 8 Bolton Street may be partially located on the adjoining
boundary with 6 Bolton Street and are advised to seek advice of their
obligations under the Property Law Act 2007.
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
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.
Fencing, which should not affect access to neighbouring properties but
be sufficient to contain dogs and provide a reasonable level of privacy at ground
level, is to be established around the works area prior to the work
commencing. The nature of this fencing shall be specified in the
Construction Management Plan under condition 31.
That in the event of an
“accidental discovery” of suspected archaeological material, the
consent holder is to undertake the following steps:
a) All activity
affecting the immediate area shall cease and the Regional Archaeologist of
Heritage New Zealand shall be notified;
b) Steps shall be
taken to secure the site and ensure that archaeological matter remains
c) Works at
the site shall not recommence until an archaeological assessment has been made
and archaeological material has been dealt with appropriately;
d) If any
archaeological remains or sites of interest to Maori are identified, no further
modification of those remains shall occur until Heritage New Zealand Regional
Archaeologist and Tangata Whenua have been consulted and appropriate response
has been advised.
burials/koiwi, steps a) to d) above shall be taken and the Regional
Archaeologist Heritage New Zealand, the New Zealand Police, and the Iwi
representative(s) for the area contacted immediately.
consent holder is advised that under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga
Act (2014) an archaeological site is defined as a place associated with
pre-1990 human activity where there may be evidence relative to the history of
New Zealand. For pre-contact Maori sites this evidence may be in the form of
bones, shells, charcoal, stones etc. In later sites of European origin
artefacts such as bottle glass, crockery etc. may be found, or evidence of old
fountains, wells, drains or similar structure. Burials/koiwi tangata may be
found from any historic period.
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. A copy of the Construction Management Plan shall be provided to
the submitters who shall have 10 working days to comment on it in writing to
the Team Leader Consents at Council.
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, including fencing;
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.
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.
That all construction works shall be undertaken in accordance with the
approved Construction Management Plan.
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.
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
That the consent holder ensures earthworks do not affect the stability
of adjoining properties.
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 on-site 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.
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.
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.
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.
This resource consent is subject to payment of a Development
Contribution Fee under the Council's Development and Financial Contributions
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.
The scope of this consent does not include the use of the
dwelling houses for visitor accommodation.
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
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: