|
Attachment 1
|
S42a Report 48-50 Mills Street, Boulcott
|
Officer’s
section 42a report for resource consent application for the construction of a
multi-unit residential development, to carry out earthworks, and for a 14 lot
subdivision at 48 – 50 Mills Street Boulcott (RM180503).
Address: 48
-50 Mills Street Boulcott (Lots 6 & 7 DP 4230)
Applicant: S & P
Faisandier
Proposal: CONSTRUCTION
OF A MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATED 14 LOT SUBDIVISION
1. Emily Bayliss states:
1.1. I am a Contract Resource
Consents Planner at Hutt City Council, and Director of Bayliss Consulting. I
hold a Bachelor of Resource and Environmental Planning (BRP) (Hons) from
Massey University, and a Master of International Community Development (MICD)
from Victoria University, Melbourne.
1.2 I was employed by Hutt City
Council in the Resource Consents Department from 2006 – 2008. I have over
13 years’ experience assessing and submitting planning applications.
1.3 I have visited the site and am familiar with the surrounding area.
2. Summary of the proposal
2.1 The development plans are identified
as Revision G, dated 24.09.2019 (Project number 1843 prepared by Voxell),
Sheets 1.01 – 1.07; 2.00 – 2.06; 3.01 – 3.09; and BIOME
Landscape Scheme, Pages 1 - 4 Revision 08/07/19.
2.2 The
applicant is seeking land use and subdivision consent for a multi-unit
residential development at 48 and 50 Mills Street, Boulcott. All existing
structures on these two properties will be demolished. In their place, six two
storey buildings are proposed, each containing two attached townhouses, with
the exception of Dwellings 1 – 3, which are contained in a block of three
attached townhouses flanking the Mills Street frontage, making a total of 13
dwellings proposed across the existing two titles.
2.3 An
associated 14 lot fee-simple subdivision, being the 13 proposed dwellings and
one lot accommodating the proposed Right of Way (ROW) and other shared services
to be held in joint ownership by Lots 4 - 13 is proposed.
2.4 Dwellings
1 – 3 will be provided with direct pedestrian and vehicle access from
three proposed vehicle crossings from Mills Street. These dwellings will be set
back from Mills Street a minimum of 3.0 m with landscaping buffers proposed
adjacent to the pedestrian pathways leading to the dwelling entrances.
2.5 Pedestrian
and vehicle access for Dwellings 4 – 13 will be provided via a right of
way along the south eastern (side) boundary, comprising a 5.0 m wide shared
vehicle and pedestrian accessway, punctuated by letterboxes and screened refuse
and recycling enclosures spaced incrementally along the driveway. Landscaping
buffers on either side of the accessway are provided along the length of the
driveway, with larger areas of planting proposed next to the front doors of the
dwellings.
2.6 The proposed development
has the following parameters:
|
Unit and Lot No.
|
Ground Floor Area
(footprint) (m2)
|
Net site area / Allotment
size (m2)
|
Open space/yard area (m2)
|
|
1
|
72
|
140
|
30
|
|
2
|
71
|
121
|
30
|
|
3
|
72
|
148
|
35
|
|
4
|
70
|
122
|
34
|
|
5
|
70
|
122
|
34
|
|
6
|
72
|
123
|
33
|
|
7
|
72
|
123
|
33
|
|
8
|
70
|
122
|
33
|
|
9
|
70
|
122
|
33
|
|
10
|
71
|
123
|
33
|
|
11
|
70
|
131
|
36
|
|
12
|
70
|
129
|
35
|
|
13
|
91
|
183
|
45
|
|
14
(ROW)
|
633.5
|
633.5
|
n/a
|
2.7 The
proposal will have a maximum height of 7.5 m above natural ground level (NGL).
The proposal will have an overall site coverage of 41.06% and an overall
permeability of 31.8%. Site coverage and permeable surface calculations based
on net site areas are outlined below.
2.8 Private
open space (yards) will be provided to each dwelling at ground floor level,
with the yards for Dwelling 4 – 13 being afforded a northly aspect, and
for Dwellings 1 – 3, these areas will be to the west of their respective
dwellings.
2.9 A
range of internal configurations have been proposed with subtle variations, but
broadly, the ‘pairs’ of dwellings are mirrored and adhere to a
common typology. Dwellings 1 – 3 will be constructed in a group of
‘three’. Dwellings 1 – 13 will all feature a single garage,
open plan kitchen/living and dining at ground floor, and at first floor, three
bedrooms and two bathrooms. Small juliet balconies at first floor will address
Mills Street with respect to Dwellings 1 – 3, and Dwellings 12 – 13
will feature balconies addressing the common accessway.
2.10 The proposal also includes
landscaping across the subject site, as well as 780 m3 of earthworks
to prepare suitable building platforms, enable installation of services, and
provide adequate access to each dwelling. The earthworks will raise the natural
ground level by up to 350 mm at the title boundary, and up to 610 mm measured
internally to the site.
2.11 All dwellings will be fully
serviced with the three waters, power and telecommunications.
2.12 Resource consent is
required for bulk and location non-compliances, and subdivision non-compliances
relating to the access and earthworks rules of the District Plan.
3 The
site and locality
3.1 The subject site is located
at 48 and 50 Mills Street, Boulcott, and is legally described as Lots 6 and 7,
DP 4230 in Records of Title WN393/191 and WN287/85. When combined, the two
allotments have an overall area of 2325 sqm, with 48 Mills Street measuring
1098 sqm and 50 Mills Street measuring 1227 sqm. There are no interests listed
on either record of title that will affect the processing of this
consent.
3.2 Each property currently
contains a dwelling and outbuildings. Mature trees are concentrated towards the
north and western allotment boundaries. Both dwellings, all outbuildings, and
all vegetation is proposed to be demolished or removed as part of the
application. For the purposes of this application, both allotments are
considered to be the subject site.
3.3 The site has an irregular
orientation, trending south-west to north-east. For consistency, the author has
adopted the simplified orientation conventions on the applicant’s
development plans, with west being the Mills Street orientation.
3.4 The subject site is
nominally flat in topography. The site abuts residential properties to its
north and south, and abuts the Hutt River reserve to the north east.
3.5 The immediate locality is
residential in character, with a combination of older, single storey bungalows
interspersed with more modern dwellings. At 37 Mills Street, ‘Paterson
Court’ comprises 12 units in a two-storey apartment style development.
Further west of the site along Mills Street are examples of infill residential
development, with dwellings built on rear lots with long access
driveways. The site lies at the junction between Mills and Connolly
Streets, with the rear yards of Connolly Street properties abutting the subject
site to its south east, creating an interface which is informed by outbuildings
and rear yards, with the dwellings on those properties localised and orientated
towards Connolly Street.
3.6 To the north of the site,
sharing a boundary of approximately 15.5 m, is the Hutt River reserve and
stopbank. This area is located within the River Recreation Activity Area, and
is identified as being within the Secondary River Corridor.
3.7 Mills Street is described
as an ‘Access Road’ in the Hutt City District Plan Road Hierarchy,
terminating in a dead end approximately 70 m north west of the site.
3.8 The wider locality features
commercial development and corresponding building forms concentrated at the
intersection of Connolly Street, Rutherford Street and Melling Road, some 500 m
south west of the subject site.
3.9 The subject site and those
surrounding it are zoned General Residential Activity Area and are within the
Medium Density Residential annotation, of the City of Lower Hutt District Plan
(herein referred to as the District Plan) with the exception of the reserve
land to the north west.
3.10 There are no other
restrictions or notations listed within the District Plan that will affect the
processing of this consent application. The site and surrounding area are
within the 0.23% Annual Exceedance Period (AEP) Flood Hazard as mapped by
Greater Wellington Regional Council.
4 Consents sought
4.1 The appropriate planning instrument
for assessing the proposed activity is the City of Lower Hutt District Plan.
The site is within the General Residential – Medium Density activity
area, and rules relevant to this activity area are contained in Chapters 4A, 11
and 14.
4.2 The proposed development consists of
the 13 proposed dwellings, earthworks, 14 lot subdivision and associated access
and landscaping works. It is considered that these components of the
application are mutually inclusive. In accordance with the bundling principle,
the activity status of the proposal is a Discretionary Activity in accordance
with the following Rules:
• Restricted Discretionary under Rule 4A 2.3(a) for
residential development of 3 or more dwelling houses on a site within the
General Residential Activity Area and Medium Density Residential Areas;
• Discretionary under Rule 4A 2.4(a) for
an activity that fails to comply with the relevant Permitted activity
conditions and relevant rules of Chapter 14 – General Rules;
• Restricted Discretionary under Rule 14A 5.1(b) for
an activity that does not comply with the relevant access standards of the
District Plan.
• Restricted Discretionary under Rule 14I 2.2(a) for
earthworks that fail to comply with the relevant permitted activity conditions
of the District Plan.
The rules are
triggered by the breach of the following permitted activity conditions and
standards:
4A 2.1.1(a) Net site
area – 300m2
The net site area associated
with the subdivision falls short of the 300m2 required under the
District Plan, with proposed lots measuring between 122m2 and 183m2.
4A 2.1.1(b) Yard
setbacks – 3m front yard, 1m all other yards; 5m to garage
The
garages for Dwellings 1 – 3 addressing Mills Street are to be setback 3.0
m from the Mills Street boundary, falling short of the requirement by 2.0 m.
The first floor setback to Mills Street with respect to Dwellings 1 – 3
is 2.9 m, falling short of the requirement by 0.1 m.
Where
retaining walls upon boundaries exceed 0.2 m in height, then combined with the
proposed 1.8 m high boundary fencing, they result in a yard encroachment,
localised to approximately 5 m along the southern boundary adjacent to
Dwellings 8 and 9. (Refer DWG 1.06)
4A 2.1.1(c) Recession
planes – 2.5m + 45°
A portion
of the development penetrates through the recession plane envelope along all
four external boundaries;
West
(Mills Street)
Dwellings
1 – 3 exceed the envelope by 1.7 m at the apex of the roof forms.
North
(side)
Dwelling
3 falls outside the envelope by 1.6 m, and Dwellings 4 – 12 by up to 0.2
m.
Dwelling 13
falls outside the envelope by 0.7 m to the north and approximately 2.55 m to
the north-east (in common with Hutt River Reserve).
East (rear)
Dwelling
13 protrudes outside the envelope by a height of up to 1.6 m.
4A 2.1.1(e) Site
coverage – 40%
The
proposal will have an overall site coverage of 41.19%. On completion of the
subdivision, each of the proposed lots will have a site coverage exceeding 40%,
ranging from 49 – 59%.
The proposal
also results in technical non compliances with respect to the internal boundary
between the two titles in terms of yard and recession plane non compliances.
The creation of the proposed net site areas through the proposed subdivision
will also result in technical internal yard and recession plane non compliances
as well as those non compliances identified above.
As a result of
the application’s failure to comply with the Permitted Activity Conditions
at Rule 4A 2.1.1, the proposal is determined to be a Discretionary
Activity pursuant to rule 4A 2.4 (a).
General
Rules
Chapter 14A,
Standard 1 (c) – Private Ways – 7m legal width, and 5m carriageway
and 1m footpath where serving ten dwellings
The private way
will have a legal width of 6m and a carriageway width of 5 m. This is a breach
of 1m in legal width, and with no footpath.
Chapter
14A, Standard 2 (a) – Vehicle Access – Maximum two per site
covering less than 50% of frontage
A total
of four vehicle crossings are proposed to Mills Street, being three separate
accesses for Dwellings 1 – 3 and the right of way serving Dwellings 4
– 13. The vehicle crossings have a separation distance which exceeds 1 m.
When combined they exceed 50% of the road frontage.
The
failure to comply with Transport Standards Appendix Transport 1
Standards 1 (c) and 2 (a) is determined to be a Restricted
Discretionary Activity under Rule 14A 5.1 (b). Council’s discretion
is limited to the effect of the standards not met, being the under width
private way, the number of vehicle accessways and the extent of the road
frontage occupied by vehicle crossings.
14I 2.1.1(b) Earthworks quantity – 50m3
The application is for a total of 780
m3 of earthworks. The natural ground level will not be altered by
more than 1.2 m measured vertically at any point. A resource consent is
therefore required as a Restricted Discretionary Activity under Rule 14
l 2.2, as it fails to comply with permitted activity Rule 14l 2.1(b) which
permits only 50m3 of earthworks per site, or 100m3 across
both titles.
In accordance
with the above, the overall activity status for the land use component is Discretionary.
Subdivision consent
The
proposed subdivision has the following activity statuses under the District
Plan:
Discretionary under Rule 11.2.4(i) for a
subdivision that is not a Permitted, Controlled or Restricted Discretionary
activity.
The proposed
subdivision breaches the following standards and terms of the District Plan:
11.2.2.1(a) Allotment Design
None
of the proposed lots comply with the minimum allotment size of 300 m2,
being between 121.5 m2 and 183m2 in area. The lots do not
comply with the shape factor requirement (9m x 14m rectangle). The proposal
does not comply with the permitted activity conditions of the General
Residential – Medium Density activity area (see land use consent, above).
11.2.2.1(b) Engineering Design
The
shortfalls with respect to Chapter 14A Transport are discussed above. No
additional non compliances are created as a result of the proposed subdivision.
11.2.2.1(e) Earthworks
The extent of earthworks is discussed
above. No additional non compliances are created as a result of the proposed
subdivision.
In accordance
with the above, the overall activity status for the proposed subdivision is Discretionary.
Conclusion
The proposed
land use and subdivision components of this application are considered to be
mutually inclusive, with it being unlikely that one part of the proposal would
proceed separately from the other. In accordance with the bundling principle, I
have given regard to the highest activity status and as such, the overall
activity status is considered to be Discretionary.
5.0
Consideration under the Resource Management Act 1991
5.1 As
a Discretionary activity the application must be assessed in accordance with
the provisions of sections 104 and 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991
(the Act). The process for considering a Discretionary activity is as
follows:
(i) To
identify the relevant section 104 matters;
(ii) As
part of the overall discretion in section 104B, weigh the relevant matters
under section 104.
5.2 I
consider that the relevant section 104 matters are as follows:
· Any
actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity:
· The
relevant provisions of the District Plan, objectives, policies and rules;
· Any higher order documents;
and
· Part
II of the Act.
5.3 An
assessment of effects of the proposal on the environment and the identification
of the issues/matters raised by submitters is detailed in sections 6 and 7
below. The District Plan’s objectives, policies and rules are of
particular relevance in terms of section 104(1)(b), and together with the Part
II criteria listed in sections 8 and 9 of this report, form the basis of
determining any adverse effects.
6.0
Submissions
6.1 The
application was limited notified to neighbouring parties on 25 July 2019;
specifically;
• The owners and occupiers
of 52 and 54B Mills Street
• The owners and occupiers
of 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 2/53, and 55 Connolly Street
6.2 At
the conclusion of the notification period, a total of ten (10) submissions were
received in opposition to the proposal, with most submitters subsequently
confirming that they wished to be heard. These parties are:
|
Name
|
Address
|
|
Matthew and Rebecca
McDowell
|
52 Mills Street
|
|
Karen Chapman
|
54B Mills Street
|
|
Niraj Joshi
|
2/53 Connolly Street
|
|
Yueh-Li Chang
|
49 Connolly Street
|
|
Susan Roy
|
45 Connolly Street
|
|
Tse Ko Tin
|
41 Connolly Street
|
|
Amanda Banks
|
53A Connolly Street
|
|
CB and PG Wright
|
51 Connolly Street
|
|
James Sutcliffe
|
47 Connolly Street
|
|
Victoria Werohia
|
43 Connolly Street
|
6.4 A
summary of the key issues raised in the submissions from the affected persons
are as follows:
· Earthworks impacts and exceedance of permitted
activity standards for earthworks;
· Construction impacts;
noise, sediment and stormwater runoff, property damage during construction,
construction traffic volumes;
· Impacts on
stormwater/runoff as a result of increased ground level;
· Removal of existing
vegetation;
· Strain on existing
infrastructure capacity;
· Traffic and parking
impacts, loss of on-street parking, demand of the proposal on on-street parking
which is already in short supply;
· Dwelling density; noise,
increased activity, loss of privacy;
· The proposed development is
not in keeping with the Design Guide for Medium Density Housing;
· Neighbourhood character
impacts;
· Building bulk, visual
amenity impacts;
· Shading/solar access
impacts;
· Refuse bin storage; odour,
vermin;
· Onsite amenity impacts,
enjoyment of property;
· Extent of breaches to
District Plan standards relating to site coverage, net site area (lot size),
permeability, recession planes and yard encroachments;
· Loss of views, loss of
property values of surrounding properties;
· Loss of vegetation and bird
habitat;
· Displacement of existing
residents from the dwellings to be demolished;
· Pollution to Hutt River and
banks.
§ One submitter raised the
displacement of existing residents from the dwellings on the subject site as
being unfair to these residents. Council notes that the application has been
submitted with the permission and cooperation of the existing owners of 48 and
50 Mills Street. The Residential Tenancies Act governs the termination of
leases in the event of a property’s sale or development.
§ Concerns have been raised
by some submitters in regards to the proposal and the potential to devalue
surrounding properties. Potential change in property values should not be given
weight in consideration of a resource consent application as it results in
‘double counting’ of effects. Amongst other matters, property
values are shaped by the likes of visual amenity, shading and the character of
the surrounding area. The s104 assessment below covers the potential and actual
adverse effects of the proposal (including visual amenity, shading and
character).
§ One
submitter raised the pollution of surface water (and the Hutt River) from
impermeable surface runoff not captured onsite. I note that the District Plan
doesn’t have standards to measure, assess or control these by-products of
development.
6.5 The
matters raised within the submissions shall be addressed in section 7 of this
report.
Pre-hearing
meeting
6.6 A
pre-hearing meeting has not been held in relation to this application. Although
the applicant indicated willingness to engage with this process, it was
determined that as less than one third of the submitters were available to
attend, that the issues would be better addressed at the hearing.
7.0
Assessment of actual and potential environmental effects
An assessment of effects on
the environment, including the issues/matters raised by submitters, is detailed
within the assessment below. The District Plan’s objectives, policies and
rules are of particular relevance in terms of section 104(1)(b), and together
with the Part II criteria listed in section 9 of this report, form the basis of
any determination as to whether an adverse effect may be regarded as acceptable
(or otherwise).
7.1
The following definitions contained in the Act apply in this
case:
“Environment” is defined as
(a) Ecosystems
and their constituent parts, including people and communities; and
(b) All
natural and physical resources; and
(c) Amenity
values; and
(d) The
social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural conditions which affect the matters
stated in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this definition or which are affected by
those matters.
“Amenity
values”
are defined as
those natural and physical
qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s
appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence and cultural and
recreational attributes.
7.2 The
environmental effects which Council considers relevant when assessing this
proposal are as follows:
· Residential
character effects;
· Residential
amenity effects;
· Streetscape
amenity effects;
· Servicing
and engineering effects;
· Esplanade Strips and
Reserves;
· Contaminated land;
· Traffic
and parking effects;
· Subdivision
design and layout;
· Effects
upon natural features and topography;
· Natural
hazards effects;
· Protecting Significant
Sites;
· Construction
effects; and
· Positive
effects
Permitted
baseline
7.3
Section 104(2) states “…when forming an opinion
for the purpose of subsection 1(a), a consent authority may disregard an
adverse effect of the activity on the environment if [[a national environmental
standard or]] the plan permits an activity with that effect.”
7.4 In
this instance, the permitted baseline is for four residential double-storey
dwellings and associated accessory buildings, two located on each established
legal property at 48 and 50 Mills Street. To proceed without a resource consent
these dwellings must comply with the relevant bulk and location standards in
Chapter 4A of the District Plan, and general rules in Chapter 14.
7.5 The
permitted baseline also provides for a total of 50m3 of earthworks that result
in a vertical change in ground level of no more than 1.2m. If development was
to proceed independently on each established legal property (48 and 50 Mills
Street), 50m3 of earthworks could be permitted on each section (i.e. a total of
100m3). I consider this permitted baseline to be of relevance for assessing the
effects of the proposed earthworks.
7.6 Permitted
forms of subdivision include minor boundary adjustments provided no additional
allotments are created and no permitted activity rules of the underlying zone
are breached. This subdivision seeks to create 11 new allotments and therefore
cannot be considered a minor boundary adjustment. This permitted baseline is
not relevant for assessment of the effects of the proposed subdivision.
7.7
With respect to both the land use and subdivision component
of the application, it is clear that increased dwelling density, as well as
corresponding increased bulk and massing impacts, are contemplated by the
District Plan, but the permitted baseline is of limited use in contemplating
the proposal, as the scope of works far exceeds those contemplated by the
permitted baseline.
Comparable
Development Model
7.8 The
subject site is zoned for General Residential – Medium Density use.
Within the General Residential – Medium Density activity area, the
creation of residential allotments 300m2 in size could be undertaken
as a controlled activity subdivision (which would have to be granted by
Council), with construction of compliant dwellings subsequently occurring as a
permitted activity. This comparative model of development is not a permitted
baseline, as it relies upon a controlled activity subdivision being granted.
However, it does demonstrate the density and scale of development that the
District Plan foresees for the site.
7.9
The applicant has advanced a ‘controlled activity’
development of six dwellings based on a site size of 2,325m2, with
each dwelling afforded a minimum net site area of 300 sqm and constructed to
accord with the permitted activity standards has been modelled by the
applicant.
7.10 I
consider this to be an acceptable method of assessing effects upon the
surrounding environment, given the substantial size of the application site and
its associated capacity for containing greater development than a standard
sized residential site.
The existing
environment
7.11 As
noted in section 3 above, the application site currently accommodates two
dwelling houses and accessory buildings. The remainder of the application site
generally consists of paved or grassed outdoor areas, whilst there are a number
of mature tree specimens to the rear of the application site. All buildings and
vegetation on the site can be removed as-of-right.
Assessment
of environmental effects
7.12 No
persons have provided written approval to the proposal.
Residential
character effects
7.13 Character
is influenced by the layout of sites, including allotment size, dwelling form
and development grain (density). The construction of the proposed 13 units and the
associated subdivision and earthworks has the potential to affect the existing
character of the area and the residential amenity of nearby residential
properties. On this basis an assessment must be undertaken to determine the
scale of effects.
7.14 The
application site is located in an area predominantly residential in nature.
Within proximity of the site there is a dominance of standalone residential
dwellings and associated accessory buildings on individual allotments, as well
as scattered finer-grain apartment style and infill developments. The site lies
at the junction between the roughly north-south orientated properties facing
Connolly Street, which abut the subject site to its south, and the east-west
orientated properties on Mills Street. With respect to the Connolly
Street interface, dwellings are situated towards the Connolly Street frontage
with open gardens to the rear. To the site’s northwest, 52 and 54B Mills
Street present their side (southern) boundaries to the common boundary, and in
both instances feature single dwellings with open gardens to the rear. In terms
of the immediate abuttals, dwellings tend to be older bungalow houses and are
generally (although not exclusively) single storey.
7.15 The
proposal represents a departure from the permitted development density as
evidenced by the undersized net site areas (121m2-183m2).
Whilst these fall below the 300m2 anticipated under the District
Plan they would not be exclusive examples in the local environment, with 12
apartments at 37 Mills Street (Paterson Court) being located upon a 1012m2
parcel.
7.16 However, the proposed
buildings are of a similar scale and location on the site to what could be
constructed under the comparative development model put forward by the
applicant, noting that under the comparative model, dwellings could be
constructed closer to shared boundaries with adjoining properties than is
proposed by this application.
The comparable model does not form part of the permitted baseline and
would only be subject to assessment against the provisions of the Design Guide
for Medium Density Housing if the dwellings were erected prior to subdivision.
The proposed development has been assessed against the Design Guide by Dr Peter
Parkes, Council’s Urban Design Advisor, who concluded the proposal is
consistent with the provisions of the Design Guide and specifically the
requirements of “Fitting with the Neighbourhood”, those
clauses most relevant to character.
7.17 In terms of
the intensity of use of the site, the layout of the lots and dwellings is such
that internal and external living spaces will be located at the ground floor
level, and largely screened from view from adjoining properties by boundary
fencing and landscaping. While the number of units is greater than permitted,
the associated visual effects will be mitigated by the setback of units,
screening from fencing and landscaping, and the layout of buildings on the
site, and will be similar to what would be generated by the comparative
development model. I consider that with the arrangement of units in pairs, the
bulk of the buildings are not dissimilar to larger two storey residential
dwellings despite accommodating multiple dwelling units.
7.18 Dr Peter
Parkes, Council’s consultant urban designer, has reviewed the proposal
and supports the proposal with regards to the proposal’s fit with the Design
Guide for Medium Density Housing, (The Guide) which will be discussed
further below (and is attached as an appendix to this report). Dr Parkes
considers that the development will fit in well with the character of the
established neighbourhood, noting that the site configuration will help to
ameliorate the visual effects arising from the increased density, and asserting
that the proposal will substantially open up the site and produce long vistas,
where currently the long, narrow site has limited visibility from the street.
7.19 With
respect to internal amenity effects, I note that each of the new dwellings are
of a size and have been located such that indoor and outdoor spaces will retain
a good level of privacy and receive reasonable solar penetration with
landscaping further integrating the development into the site and improving
residential amenity. A further assessment of the consistency of the development
with the Design Guide for Medium Density Housing will be made further below in
the report.
7.20 Overall,
I consider that the character and visual effects of the residential development
on any party will be acceptable.
Residential
amenity effects
7.21 For
the purposes of this assessment, residential amenity effects are considered to
include: visual amenity (including outlook, and building bulk and dominance),
shading, and additional general amenity effects including privacy and
overlooking, noise and perceived activity levels.
Outlook
7.22
Whilst acknowledging the concerns raised in respect of loss of views –
case law has established that there is no absolute right of the preservation of
a view, although consideration of matters such as building bulk, location and
subsequent effects upon outlook are relevant to the maintenance of views.
Viewlines from properties to the south of the site (specifically 41 – 57
Connolly Street), looking north will be informed by the proposal. The proposal
will also be readily appreciable from 52 and 54B Mills Street, looking south.
The assessment below has taken these matters into consideration.
Visual
Bulk and Dominance
7.23 The proposed
dwellings all comply with the 8m height limit. When viewed from the south (41
– 57 Connolly Street), and north (52 and 54 B Mills Street) the proposal
will read as a series of pairs of townhouses, with breaks in form between the
pairs, as well as modulation provided by variations in setbacks, cladding
treatments and roof forms, which create visual interest and diffuse visual bulk
and massing effects. It is noted that the ‘comparable development’
model includes wider spacing between the building forms, however, the proposed
spacing between buildings, coupled with the façade treatments and
landscaping along the driveway are considered to adequately mitigate visual
bulk and dominance effects when viewed from the street and from properties to
the south to an extent that the effects are considered to be acceptable.
7.24 When
viewed from the north and north west, the visual bulk and dominance of
Dwellings 4 – 13 will be mitigated through the proposed setback to the
northern boundary, coupled with the modest landscaping treatments in the back
yards, and the modulated and articulated façade treatments. The northern
side of Dwelling 3 will be readily appreciable from the street looking south
east, and from 52 Mills Street looking south.
7.25 The proposal does not meet the permitted
activity standards relating to yards, recession planes and site coverage. The
proposal also results in internal technical non compliances relating site
coverage, yards and recession planes on the proposed net site areas, and when
measured internally between the two lots which make up the subject site. When
combined, these non compliances give rise to potential visual bulk and
dominance effects where massing is proposed or concentrated in areas that are
not anticipated by the District Plan. Before addressing the permitted activity
standards that are applied from the ‘subject site’ boundaries, I
address the internal ‘technical’ non compliances in turn;
Existing
title boundary non compliances
7.26 As the ‘subject site’ is
made up of two titles, a technical yard and recession plane non compliance is
created longitudinally through the site, bisecting proposed Dwelling 1 and
evidenced on the Location Plan TP0.10 of the development plans. The technical
yard and recession plane non compliances are not considered to result in undue
adverse effects noting that these rules encourage separation between built
forms with respect to neighbouring sites, and the proposed layout accords with
this principle.
7.27 The development of these sites in a
manner which complied with the internal yard and recession plane requirements
would be terminal to this application, and would likely result in a development
which displaced built form closer to the northern and southern site boundaries,
which would result in additional adverse amenity impacts for neighbouring properties
when compared to the proposal. A break in form longitudinally through the site
would not result in a significant degree of relief from potential bulk and
dominance effects, considering the orientation of the subject site relative to
the neighbouring allotments to the north and south. The concentration of
massing in the centre of the site as a result of this technical non compliances
is not considered to adversely affect the environment beyond an extent that is
acceptable.
7.28 When viewed from Mills Street, the
absence of separation at the existing title boundary is not considered to
result in undue bulk or massing which would adversely affect the streetscape,
noting that spacing between the sites to the north and south is achieved by the
proposal. The impacts of the proposed development on the Mills Street
streetscape are discussed in greater detail below.
Proposed
net site area non compliances
7.29
The proposed subdivision creates non compliances relating to yards and
recession planes,
measured internally from the proposed net site area (subdivision)
configuration. The absence of yards and recession planes between Dwellings 1
and 2, and 2 and 3 create potential bulk and dominance impacts on the Mills
Street streetscape, however I do not consider these effects to be unacceptable.
The ‘terrace’ configuration of Dwellings 1 – 3 addresses
Mills Street and serves to soften the appearance of the remainder of the
development while providing visual interest, and activation of the public realm
through the orientation of Dwellings 1 – 3 to Mills Street. A more
technically compliant scenario could see Dwellings 1 – 3 oriented
north-south to match Dwellings 4 – 13, however this would reduce the
extent of articulation and visual interest contributed to the streetscape
through the proposed terraced treatment of Dwellings 1 – 3 and would be
an unfavourable outcome.
7.30 Visual separation is provided through
compliant side yards between each ‘pair’ of dwellings, and the
spacing between Dwellings 1 – 3 and 4, creating an appropriate degree of
relief between forms, allowing viewlines through the property, and breaking up
the bulk and massing to an acceptable degree. In the comparable development
model, six large dwellings could be located on the site in a manner which
resembled the proposed configuration.
7.31 The application has been assessed by
Council’s Consultant Urban Designer, Dr Peter Parkes, who has considered
the spatial characteristics of the proposal and found the application to accord
with The Guide, specifically
the objectives relating to fitting in with the neighbourhood, which are discussed in
greater detail below.
Site
coverage
7.32 The proposal
will result in an overall site coverage of 41.19%, which marginally exceeds the
permitted site coverage of 40% for sites within the General Residential- Medium
Density Activity Area. The extent of non-compliance equates to 11 m2,
which over the total site is not considered to be discernible from a compliant
development.
7.33 When the
subdivision is complete, individual lots will result in site coverage
calculations which exceed 40% of the proposed net site areas, ranging from 49%
to 59% site coverage. This leads to a concentration of massing which could give
rise to adverse bulk and massing impacts upon the surrounding area.
7.34 It is
noted that as the proposed subdivision will result in a fee-simple arrangement
with Lot 14 jointly owned by Lots 4 – 13, the site coverage calculations
based on the net site areas do not give a true picture of the extent of massing
proposed, as the area of Lot 14 (183 m2) is not included in this
calculation. As evidenced by the overall site coverage, it is considered that
the proposal is generally consistent with the density/massing expectations of
the District Plan in this locality. The individual net site area non
compliances result in a concentration of massing which exceeds these
expectations, however a review of the site layout demonstrates that the
southern landscaping and access leg (Lot 14) and the provision of open space
areas to the north of Dwellings 4 - 13 result in the separation of
massing away from title boundaries, thereby reducing the potential adverse
effects on neighbouring properties.
7.35 Combined, the fencing and landscaping
(including the planting of tall-growing Plagianthus regius adjacent to the
entries of Dwellings 4 – 13) is considered to screen and soften the
appearance of the proposed development, partially mitigating the effects of the
higher site coverage and more intensive development form. The extent to which
planting will screen and soften the appearance of the proposal from the east
and south is limited due to the removal of existing mature specimen from the
site, and within the need to have low growing plants to preserve sightlines
within the driveway, coupled with the need to achieve pedestrian access to the
rear yards of Dwellings 1 and 3. Additional opportunities for planting along
the northern (side) boundary of Dwelling 3, and the rear yards of Dwellings 4 -
13 to soften the appearance of the buildings when viewed from the north have
been balanced with the creation of access to the rear yard of Dwelling 3, and
maximising the usable outdoor spaces for Dwellings 4 – 13.
7.36 The exceedance of site coverage on
Dwelling/Lot 3 will give rise to potential adverse effects with respect to the
abutting property, being 52 Mills Street. The ground floor setback of 1.46 m,
and the 5.12 m
rear yard, which when coupled with the contiguous rear yards for Dwellings 4
– 13 will provide an adequate degree of separation between the proposed
massing and the neighbouring property in order to adequately offset potential
bulk and massing effects associated with higher numeric site coverage on
Dwelling 3 and Dwellings 4 – 13. The inclusion of side yards between each
pair of dwellings would result in a more compliant site coverage calculation,
but it is not considered that such a change would result in an appreciable
increase in the mitigation of adverse bulk effects associated with site
coverage when viewed from neighbouring properties to an extent that warrents
further modification of the proposal.
7.37 While the
numeric site coverage calculations for the proposed net site areas exceed the
40% permitted activity standard, I do not consider the exceedance to result in
unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding environment.
Yards
7.38 The
shortfall in the front setback of the Dwelling 1 – 3 garages and first
floor is discussed in greater detail below (streetscape amenity impacts). It is
considered that the proposed setbacks to Mills Street will not adversely affect
the environment to an extent that is unreasonable, noting the absence of an
established setback character in the locality, the very minor exceedance in the
first floor setback requirement (0.1 m), and the incorporation of design
elements such as the juliet balconies for Dwellings 1 – 3 which protrude
into the required setback but which serve to activate the streetscape and
provide visual interest and articulation to Mills Street which on balance is
considered to result in an enhanced outcome in terms of streetscape, such that
the potential adverse effects associated with the front yard encroachments are
considered to be acceptable.
7.39 Where
retaining walls on title boundaries exceed 0.2 m in height, they will create
yard non compliances when combined with the proposed boundary fencing (1.8 m in
height), as structures which exceed 2.0 m in height are classified as
‘buildings’ by the District Plan. The extent of these
‘buildings’ will be confined to a 5 m stretch of the southern
boundary fence where the extent of retaining wall height is at its greatest
(610 mm), resulting in a total ‘building’ height of approximately
2.4 m. This non compliance will be appreciable from neighbouring properties,
however the visual bulk effects will be comparable to a 2.0 m high fence, and
these works are adequately set back from the Mills Street interface, and as
such the adverse effects of the yard non compliances created by the retaining
walls and fencing are considered to be acceptable.
Recession
planes
I
assess the actual and potential adverse effects of each recession plane non
compliance in turn;
The proposal
will result in the following recession plane non-compliances with respect to
the northern (side) boundary);
· Dwelling 3 falls outside
the envelope by 1.6 m;
7.40 The
applicant submits that due to the orientation of the site, the recession plane
non compliances along the northern elevation will have limited impact upon the
properties to the north in terms of shading. A shading study submitted by the
applicant demonstrates that the extent of shading cast by the proposal will be
confined to 52 Mills Street, and limited to the early part of the morning,
during the summer solstice. The shading study shows the shadows receding below
window height at 9 am (refer DWG 5.00), and clear of shading impacts for the
remainder of the modelled time periods. I consider the impact of the proposal
in terms of shading to be acceptable on this party.
7.41 The
recession plane non compliance also gives rise to potential bulk and massing,
and privacy effects with respect to 52 Mills Street. Version G of the
development plans show increased sill heights along the northern elevation of
Dwelling 3 to 1700 mm above the Finished Floor Level of the first floor. I
consider the proposed increased sill heights for Dwelling 3 along this
elevation to mitigate potential loss of privacy effects to an extent that they
are acceptable with respect to the above properties, taking into account the
exacerbating extent of the recession plane breach in terms of its impact on
potential loss of privacy/ overlooking effects.
7.42 Lateral
Building Section B (DWG 4.00) show the extent of non compliance with respect to
Dwellings 4 – 12 is confined to the apex of the roof, with a maximum
height of approximately 200 mm. Given the minor nature of the non compliance,
the impacts of this non compliance are considered to be acceptable.
Dwelling 13
Dwelling 13
will result in recession plane non compliances with respect to the east (rear),
and north-east boundaries of this dwelling.
While the
angled nature of the north eastern boundary exacerbates the extent of non
compliance when measured from this boundary, it is considered that the proposal
will not have an undue impact upon the Hutt River reserve to the north east of
the site in terms of bulk and dominance. Users of the recreation reserve are
likely to be traversing past the site on foot or bicycle, and will only have a
limited view of the proposal.
7.43 Dwelling
13 is considered to be sufficiently removed from the interface with 54B Mills
Street such that any impacts of the recession plane non compliance are
considered to be acceptable.
The eastern
boundary recession plane non compliance has a maximum height of 1.65 m to the
master bedroom, however the length of the non compliance is limited in its
extent and is located opposite the northernmost portion of 53 A and 55 Connolly
Street. I consider the extent of this non compliance, coupled with the degree
of sensitivity of the neighbouring sites, to on balance be acceptable in terms
of bulk and massing, subject to a screening treatment to the balcony /eastern
windows of Dwelling 13 discussed below.
The
recession plane non compliance relating to the Mills Street elevation is
discussed elsewhere in this report.
Shading
7.44 The
proposal results in recession plane non compliances along all external
boundaries, as well as technical recession plane breaches from the net site
area boundaries of the proposed units. The application includes shading
diagrams demonstrating the extent of shading generated by the proposed units.
Comparative diagrams have also been provided that show the shading that would
be generated by the creation of 300m2 lots through a controlled
activity subdivision (which would have to be granted by the Council) and
associated compliant dwellings. This comparative model of development is not a
permitted baseline, as its model for buildings on the site relies on a
controlled activity subdivision first being granted. However, it does
demonstrate the density and scale of development that the District Plan
foresees for the site. I consider this to be an acceptable method of assessing
shading effects on the surrounding environment, given the substantial size of
the application site and its associated capacity for containing greater
development than a standard sized residential site.
7.45 It
is considered that shading effects arising from the proposal will be limited to
those properties immediately adjacent to the application site, as well as the
adjacent street frontage. Effects upon the wider environment are considered to
be acceptable due to separation distance from the subject site. With respect to
the adjacent public domain, any shading effects are considered to be
acceptable, and will be confined to persons walking along the footpath past the
development. The extent of the western recession plane non-compliance
with respect to Dwellings 1 – 3 is modest in size and building volume,
with the extent of the non compliance having a maximum height of 1.7 m and a
maximum depth of 1.7 m, and localised to the apexes of the split-gable roof
forms of Dwellings 1 -3, as well as a modest portion of the first floor of
Dwelling 3. The buildings are well modulated and articulated, which aids in
breaking up the form and massing to an extent that any shading effects
resulting from this recession plane non compliance are considered to be less
than minor with respect to the public domain.
41
– 57 Connolly Street
7.46 The
shading diagrams provided by the applicant demonstrate that shading on all
other properties on Connolly Street will either be comparable to that generated
by the comparative model of dwellings built on 300m2 sections
following controlled activity subdivision, or will be at the end of the day,
shortly before sunset. I therefore consider that the shading effects on any
other property in Connolly Street will be acceptable.
52
and 54 B Mills Street and Hutt River Reserve
7.47 The
applicant has submitted a Shading Study demonstrating the extent of shading
cast onto 52 Mills Street. The Study shows that with the exception of the 9 am
summer solstice, where a minor degree of shadow is cast onto the southern side
setback of 52 Mills Street by Dwelling 3, that the proposal will not result in
shading impacts upon this property given the subject site’s position to
the south of these properties. Given the extent of shading and the fact that it
will quickly recede from this area, coupled with the extent of shading cast by
the comparable model submitted by the applicant, I consider the shading effects
of the proposal on this property to be acceptable.
7.48 Any
shading effects on 54B Mills Street or the Hutt River Reserve are considered to
be acceptable, given the separation distance and orientation of the sites in
relation to each other.
Internal
Shading:
7.49 The
height of the proposed units, density of the development and site layout will
result in the proposed units being shaded by other units in the development at
various parts of the day. It is expected that people choosing to live in the
development will be aware of the likely shading to be generated by the
buildings on the site and accept the associated effects. I do note however,
that the application has been designed with dwellings and outdoor spaces
oriented to receive good sun at various points in the day. Dwellings 1 and 2
will receive more morning than afternoon sun due to the orientation of the
outdoor recreation spaces for these dwellings, but on balance this is
considered to be acceptable and will ensure a suitable level of amenity for
residents of the development.
7.50 Overall,
I consider that the shading effects of the proposed development, both on
external sites and within the application site will be acceptable for the
reasons discussed above.
Overlooking
and privacy effects
7.51 Given
the number of units proposed and the two storey nature of the buildings, there
is the potential for overlooking and privacy effects from the proposal into
adjoining properties, as well as internal overlooking/privacy effects with
respect to the proposed dwellings.
7.52 The
District Plan allows for four dwellings of up to 8m in height to be built on
the subject site as a permitted activity. As such, I consider that overlooking
and associated privacy effects generated by up to two dwellings on any given
property to be of a degree anticipated by the District Plan. This would be on
the proviso that all windows or elevated areas where overlooking could take
place, met the recession plane and yard setbacks required by the Plan.
52 and 54B Mills
Street
7.53 A setback
of 1.0 m is proposed to the northern site boundary with respect to Dwelling 3,
encroaching into the prescribed recession plane and resulting in a reduced
separation distance to the southern elevation (and windows) than could be
expected based on a permitted baseline, giving rise to potential loss of
privacy / overlooking effects with respect to 52 Mills Street.
7.54 Version
G of the development plans show increased sill heights along the northern
elevation of Dwelling 3 to 1700 mm above the Finished Floor Level of the first
floor. The nominated use of the rooms which correspond with these windows,
being a bedroom, stairwell and ensuite lend themselves to occasional use when
compared to living rooms which are occupied for larger periods of the day and
evening. I consider the proposed increased sill heights for Dwelling 3 along
this elevation to mitigate potential loss of privacy effects to an extent that
they are acceptable with respect to the above properties, taking into account
the exacerbating extent of the recession plane breach in terms of its impact on
potential loss of privacy/ overlooking effects.
7.55 Dwellings
4 – 13 will be set back a minimum of 4.47 m, and a maximum of 5.18 m from
the common boundary with 52 and 54B Mills Street, which I consider to be
a sufficient intervening distance, coupled with the nominated use of the first
floor north-facing rooms, which are shown as bedrooms and bathrooms, and the
proposed louvres/screening treatments to these windows, to adequately mitigate
potential overlooking/privacy impacts to the extent that they are acceptable.
Appropriate fencing along the shared boundary will ensure that privacy is
maintained between the outdoor living areas of the proposed allotments and 52
and 54B Mills Street.
41 – 55
Connolly Street
7.56 As
evidenced on the development plans and raised by a number of submitters, the
properties at 41 – 55 Connolly Street are laid out so that their open
yard/recreation space is located at the rear of their respective dwellings, in
common with the southern boundary of the subject site.
7.57 The
applicant’s submission states that south facing windows will be treated
with opaque glass (for bathrooms) or with screening treatments to windows and
balconies. Coupled with the intervening distances between the windows and the
above properties, the additional screening / sense of separation offered by the
boundary fencing and landscape treatments, and the absence of recession plane
breaches along the southern elevation with respect to Dwellings 1 – 12,
the potential overlooking effects are considered to be acceptable.
7.58 A
setback of 8.2 m is proposed to Dwellings 1 – 12 from the southern side
boundary of the subject site, in order to accommodate the proposed driveway,
bin storage and landscaping treatments. Dwelling 1 presents kitchen and living
room windows to the common boundary, which will be screened from direct views
by a retaining wall, 1.8 m high timber fence, and landscaping treatments.
With respect to Dwellings 4 – 12, at ground floor, garage doors, water
closets (WCs) and dwelling entries are proposed along the southern boundary,
and at first floor, bedrooms and bathroom windows address the common boundary
with the above properties, and are proposed to be treated with operable
louvres/screens. With respect to the southern elevation of Dwelling 13, a
juliet balcony leading from a bedroom on the western elevation of Dwelling 13
has been treated with an operable screen respect to the southern elevation. The
treatment of the east-facing first floor balcony of Dwelling 13 is discussed
further below.
7.59 Taking
into account the proposed boundary and façade treatments, the uses of
these rooms and the intervening distance between the windows and the
neighbouring properties, the proposal is considered to adequately mitigate
potential adverse privacy/overlooking effects to an extent that they are
acceptable.
53A
and 55 Connolly Street
7.60 Dwelling
13 will encroach on the prescribed recession plane setbacks along its north
eastern and eastern elevations, bringing the proposal, and its windows, closer
to the common boundary with 55 and 57 Connolly Street than is anticipated by
the District Plan.
7.61 Dwelling
13 is proposed to be set back 1.23 m from the eastern (rear) boundary, and 1.03
m from the north eastern boundary of the site. With respect to the
southern elevation, one highlight (1700 mm above FFL) window is proposed to the
south facing bedroom, and a juliet balcony leading from a bedroom on the
western elevation of Dwelling 13 has been treated with an operable screen
respect to the southern elevation.
7.62 The
east-facing first floor windows (three bedrooms including a balcony) will be
located in common with the northern-most portion of the outdoor space for 55
Connolly Street. Oblique views into the rear of 55 Connolly Street may also be
possible from the north-facing window in Bedroom 2. The rear portion of 55
Connolly Street is undeveloped and features lawn and some landscaping, and the
proposed windows are removed from the dwelling and primary outdoor recreation
area of 55 Connolly Street. However, the construction of a second dwelling at
the rear of 55 Connolly Street is a permitted activity, and as such it is
considered that additional screening treatments to the first floor eastern
windows at the southern end of Dwelling 13 is warranted, given the reduced
setback and consequential recession plane non compliance. I have recommended a
condition of consent requiring the east facing balcony to be treated with
opaque screening to mitigate potential loss of privacy effects with respect to
55 Connolly Street.
Coupled
with the occasional uses of this room, being bedrooms, the boundary treatments
which include fencing and landscaping, the locations of outbuildings at 53A and
55 Connolly Street which will further mitigate potential sightlines into these
properties, and contrasted with the permitted baseline of full-height,
unscreened first floor windows on a compliant development, the extent of
overlooking is considered to be acceptable.
Internal Overlooking/Privacy and
General Amenity Effects
7.63 1.8m
high timber slat fences will be constructed on the external northern, southern
and eastern boundaries of the site, as well as internally to the site between
the yards for each dwelling. At first floor, the proposal incorporates
operable louvres/screens to balconies and windows which will afford future
residents additional protection from overlooking opportunities. I consider that
the boundary and first floor window treatments proposed will screen the outdoor
areas and windows of the proposed units from view from adjoining sites and from
internal overlooking opportunities to an extent that overlooking and privacy
effects on any property resulting from use of the yard areas and ground floor
of the proposed units will be less than minor and therefore acceptable.
7.64 The
proposal will give rise to an increased dwelling density and with it, an
increased number of occupants on the site, which is likely to result in an
elevated ambient noise level. The proposed dwelling configuration co-locates
the open space areas (yards) of Dwellings 4 – 13 along the northern
boundary of the site, in common with the dwellings and open spaces (yards) of
52 and 54B Mills Street. I consider the potential noise effects to be
acceptable noting that the proposal is zoned for residential use, and the
proposal is residential in nature; that additional dwellings (and therefore
additional residential density and corresponding noise effects) are anticipated
on the site by the District Plan; that the compact footprint of the townhouses
lend themselves to a lower occupancy rate than the large dwelling forms
proposed in the ‘comparative model’; and that the proposed fencing
and landscaping treatments will provide some visual and acoustic relief between
the open space areas of each respective dwelling. On balance I consider the
potential adverse noise effects to be acceptable.
7.65 The proposed dwelling density and
configuration of the subdivision, featuring a common vehicle and pedestrian
accessway to Dwellings 4 – 13 gives rise to additional vehicle and
pedestrian movements in proximity to the common boundary with the above
properties. Given the transient use of this space by residents, visitors and
associated vehicles, coupled with the boundary treatments, and taking into
account the comparative model of up to six dwellings on the site, the potential
privacy and noise effects associated with the proposal are considered to be
acceptable.
7.66 Renders
provided by the applicant showing the proposal in situ demonstrate that,
despite the number of non-compliances, the development will not result in an
overly bulky or dominant form when viewed from the wider environment. Any
adverse visual amenity effects will thus be acceptable for the wider area.
7.67 The
proposed earthworks are a maximum 610m high, although at most points along the
title boundaries they measure approximately 350 mm; and thus comply with the
maximum change in ground level permitted under the District Plan. The permitted
baseline provides for a total of 100m3 of earthworks to be
undertaken (50m3 on 48 and 50 Mills Street, respectively). The
proposal is for 780m3, with this volume spread out over the 2300 m2
site in a manner that is not considered to change the ground level to an extent
that will adversely affect the visual amenity of the surrounding sites. The
building heights and recession planes have been applied from Natural Ground
Level (pre-development) level, and as such the earthworks will not exacerbate
the visual bulk effects created by the proposal. However, given these volumes I
consider a requirement for the application to formulate and adhere to an
Earthworks Management Plan (EMP), as well as associated conditions relating to
earthworks management to mitigate potential adverse effects during these works
to be warranted. The works are required to create building platforms, outdoor
areas, driveways and access, and will not change the overall landform to an
extent that would result in undue adverse effects on the surrounding
environment. At the completion of works any exposed surfaces will be
paved, built over or landscaped whereby adverse visual amenity effects are
considered to be less than minor and therefore acceptable.
7.68 On
the basis of the above analysis, I conclude that whilst the proposal will
generate adverse visual amenity effects due to a change in outlook, perceived
building bulk and dominance, these will be mitigated to an acceptable level for
all persons.
Streetscape
amenity effects
7.69 Dwellings
within Mills 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 fencing defining the front boundary and providing for passive
surveillance and a visual connection to the public domain.
7.70 With respect to the proposed
development, it is considered that the site layout will mitigate perceptions of
excessive building bulk at the front boundary. Dwellings 1 – 3 are
orientated in a terrace-like massing which softens and screens the remainder of
the development from some streetscape views, and creates an activated and visually
interesting interface to the street. While the tops of the split-gable
roofs of Dwellings 1 - 3 will protrude slightly into the recession plane from
the site’s external western (street facing) boundary, these protrusions
will be modest in size and building volume, with the extent of the non
compliance having a maximum height of 1.7 m and a maximum depth of 1.7 m.
7.71 The recession plane breach with respect
to the northern elevation of Dwelling 3 will be partially screened from public
views by 52 Mills Street, and will not result in undue bulk and dominance
effects on the streetscape, noting the relatively minor exceedance of the
recession plane and the limited oblique views to this elevation. The
split-gable roofing treatment allows the western-most (non compliant) portion
of Dwelling 1 to be visually recessive, when compared to the principal roof
form which is clad in feature cedar cladding and projects forward of the
western portion of the building.
7.72 Garaging and vehicle parking on neighbouring
sites is highly visible from the street interface within the locality. Examples
of garages protruding forward of their respective dwelling, or located on the
same plane as the dwelling are visible at 39 Connolly Street (opposite the
subject site), and 39A, 41, 54A and 56 Mills Street. A carport is located in
front of the dwelling at 48 Mills Street. The area can therefore be said to be
heavily informed by the presence of vehicle parking and garaging.
7.73 The garages for Dwellings 1 – 3
are set back 3.0 m, where a 5.0 m setback is required. The proposed shortfall
is not considered to result in undue impacts upon streetscape amenity, noting
the character of the area which is heavily informed by visible garaging and
vehicle parking provisions, and through the integration of the garaging into
the overall design of the Mills Street façade, which allows the garage
doors to be viewed within the context of a textured and visually interesting
interface.
7.74 The inclusion of juliet balconies
at the first floor of Dwellings 1 – 3 contribute visual interest,
residential scale and passive surveillance to the public realm and streetscape,
and balance the reduced setback of the proposed garages at ground floor. The
traffic safety effects of the reduced setback to the garages of Dwellings 1
– 3 have been assessed by Council’s Consultant Traffic Engineer
David Wanty, and are discussed below.
7.75 Dwellings 4 – 13, as well as the
side of Dwelling 3 will be visible from oblique angles from the south and west.
The buildings are well modulated and articulated, which aids in breaking up the
form and mass of the buildings so that they will not appear as a long blank
wall along the boundary. The setback and screening provided by the proposed and
existing landscaping will aid in integrating the buildings into the surrounding
residential context to a degree that I render the bulk and dominance effects of
the proposal on the Mills Street streetscape and public realm to be acceptable.
7.76 Dwellings
1 – 3 are oriented towards the street frontage, reflecting the rhythm and
development pattern of the surrounding dwellings, creating opportunities for
passive surveillance and connections between the public (streetscape) and
private realms.
7.77 The
“stacked” site layout whereby Dwellings 4 – 13 are arranged
behind each other mitigates perceptions of development intensity at the front
boundary (including both building bulk and density). The rear Lots and
dwellings thereon will be partly screened and sufficiently separated from the
public domain so as to minimise adverse streetscape effects due to perceived
building bulk. Renders provided by the applicant showing the development
in context demonstrate that the building form will not be overly dominant in
relation to Mills Street. Council’s Urban Designer Dr Peter Parkes, in
undertaking an assessment of the proposal against Council’s Design
Guide for Medium Density Housing [DGMDH], asserted;
Units 1 to 3 have short separate
driveways for each of the garages and together with front door entrance paths
relate directly to Mills Street. These units will have a strong street presence
and owing to the retention of an existing mature tree in the verge to Mills
Street will have a leafy amenity.
All the rest of the units have garage doors and front door
entrances facing directly to the shared common driveway. All these units will
have a minimal Street presence but will be capable of being viewed from the
street down the driveway. Together they will form a strong repetitive terrace
row like massing. This terraced mass is alleviated by the welcomed careful
articulation and variations of their upper level elevations facing the driveway
and planting between the units at their front door entrances
7.77 The
proposed dwellings are all two storey in form, and thus will be visible above
the roofs of the dwellings immediately to the north and south. However, the
District Plan anticipates two storey dwellings on sites within the General
Residential – Medium Density activity area.
7.78 For
these reasons I consider any adverse streetscape effects will be mitigated to
an extent that is less than minor and therefore acceptable for all persons.
Servicing
and engineering effects
7.78 The
applicant has proposed to extend water supply, wastewater, stormwater, power
and telecommunication services to all allotments.
7.79 The
application has been assessed by Sylvio Leal and Steve Mann, Council’s
Subdivision Engineers, and Marlene Roberts-Saidy, engineer at Wellington Water.
7.80 Wellington
Water did not raise any concerns in relation to increased demand upon the
surrounding water, stormwater, and wastewater networks. Subsequent to the close
of submissions, many of which raised the strain of the proposed development
upon existing infrastructure, Wellington Water was invited to comment further
on infrastructure capacity, and vulnerability to overloading or blockages.
Wellington Water provided a list of historical blockages in the private waste
water and stormwater drains on a number of properties between Connolly Street
and the stopbank, but confirmed that there have been no reported issues with
the public network. Wellington Water confirmed that there is capacity in the
downstream network to support the anticipated increased demand upon the
surrounding water infrastructure as a result of the proposal.
7.81 Concerns have
been raised in the submission with regards to stormwater runoff and the amount
of impermeable surfaces being provided within the development. Council’s
Subdivision Engineers, Steve Mann and Sylvio Leal, have confirmed that conditions (should
consent be granted) will require the development to achieve stormwater
neutrality, so the extent of stormwater discharge from the site will be no
greater than the current volumes discharged from the site.
7.82 The
proposal has been assessed and is supported by Council’s Subdivision
Engineers subject to conditions. I consider these conditions necessary and
appropriate to be imposed under s220 of the RMA to ensure that all proposed
dwelling units are adequately serviced at the completion of works.
7.83 Based
on the above I consider that any adverse effects arising from servicing of the
site and the proposed shortfall in permeable surface will be mitigated to an
acceptable extent at the completion of works.
Traffic
and parking effects
7.84 The
applicant has been referred to Council’s Consultant Traffic Engineer,
David Wanty, Director of Wanty Transportation Consultancy Ltd. Mr Wanty has conducted
his own assessment of the application, which has been circulated with this
report, and attached as an appendix.
Onsite Parking
7.85 The application accords
with the provision of vehicle parking prescribed by Appendix Transport 1 of the
District Plan, specifically Standard 4 which requires 1 space per dwelling
house, which is provided for by the application. Mr Wanty also asserted, the
proposal has relatively small units for 3 bedrooms with the smallest bedroom
typically 9-10 m2 that may be used more as a study or spare room. It is likely
then that resident parking demand might be less than for other nearby
residences. I concur with Mr Wanty’s view that the compact footprint
of the dwellings, and particularly the dimensions of the smallest bedrooms lend
themselves to a reduced occupancy rate and therefore a lower car ownership
rate, however I note that the proposal complies with the requirement for 1
space per dwelling, so further analysis of the anticipated parking demand is
not warranted.
7.86 The locations and design of
these spaces accord with the Standard. There are no visitor parking provisions
prescribed by the District Plan for a proposal of this scale. It is noted
that some submitters raised concerns about the accessibility and dimensions of
the proposed garages. Council’s Consultant Traffic Engineer has assessed
the dimensions and access to the garages and found them to comply with the
relevant standards and fit for their proposed purpose.
Private Way Width
7.87 The
Right of Way (private way) serving Dwellings 4 – 13 falls short of the
prescribed 7 m legal width, 5 m carriageway width and 1 m footpath.
Council’s Consultant Traffic Engineer has recommended that the proposed
private way be increased in width to 5 m through the deletion of 1 m of
landscaping treatment adjacent to the retaining wall south of Dwelling 1.
7.88
The applicant has accepted this proposed change, (and it is shown on Version G)
and I consider the shortfall in the legal width of the right of way, and the
absence of a 1 m footpath to be acceptable, noting that vehicles will be
travelling at low speeds and that adequate sight lines exist to allow motorists
and pedestrians to share the private way without unreasonable risk of
conflict.
7.89 The
deletion of a portion of the landscaping treatment adjacent to Dwelling 1 will
require the treatment of the additional area of sealed driveway via the
proposed drainage infrastructure on the site. I consider any adverse effects
associated with this change to be acceptable.
Vehicle Crossings to Mills
Street
7.90 The
provision of vehicle access for Dwellings 1 – 3 directly from Mills
Street, and the exceedance of 50% of the frontage being occupied by vehicle
crossings is not considered to adversely affect any party, and any potential
effects on the wider environment are considered to be less than minor. This is
due to the fact that the permitted baseline would allow for four dwellings on
48 and 50 Mills Street as well as four separate vehicle crossings provided they
were each separated by at least 1m and did not cover 50% of their respective
frontages.
7.91 Mr
Wanty has not identified potential traffic or pedestrian safety concerns
relating to the number of vehicle crossings proposed to Mills Street, and it is
considered that the crossings are adequately separated from one another and
allow adequate sightlines entering and exiting the site. I conclude that
the potential adverse effects associated with the exceedance of the frontage
being occupied by crossings to be acceptable.
Parking
Demand
7.92 A number of submitters
identified a shortage in the availability of on-street parking in the locality,
and raised concerns that the proposal would exacerbate this issue. Mr Wanty
observed a saturation of on-street parking availability during periods of the
daytime, however noted that some of the demand is attributable to commuter
parking or is associated with nearby medical and childcare centres. I consider
that the loss of two on-street spaces will not result in an unreasonable
adverse effect on the on-street parking supply in the locality, noting the
site’s proximity to a range of services and public transport which is
likely to bring about a reduced reliance on private motorised transport.
Although it is beyond the scope of this application, I further note that
existing parking restrictions give rise to commuter parking and overflow from
nearby commercial uses occurring in Mills Street, which could be explored with
Council’s Roading and Traffic department.
7.93 As noted above, the four
proposed vehicle crossings could be carried out as a permitted activity.
7.94 Mr
Wanty put forward a suggested condition that the turning head at the
termination of Mills Street be linemarked for the creation of an additional six
on-street parking spaces, and that the existing parking restrictions in the
locality be revisited by Council. Mr Wanty recommended requiring the
linemarking works to be carried out at the expense of the applicant on Council
land at the termination of Mills Street, north of the site. I consider these
works to be beyond the scope of what could be imposed as a condition of
consent, and note that any works on Council land would be subject to the
consideration and approval of Council’s Roading and Traffic Departments.
At the time of writing, this department has not had the opportunity to review
Mr Wanty’s recommendation in this regard.
Traffic
Congestion
7.95 A
number of submitters raised concerns about increased congestion within Mills
Road and the surrounding road network. This was assessed by Mr Wanty who
asserted:
From
overview (Google Earth) data supplied by Council, in May 2012 the average daily
traffic (ADT) on Connolly Street just south of Mills Street was 8980 vehicles
per day (vpd) and on Mills Street east of Connolly Street was 1240 vpd; the
latter was 1340 vpd in September 2018. The ADT on Connolly Street north of
Mills Street (at the stopbank) was 8770 vpd in July 2014 and 10,500 vpd in
December 2017.
The
Application did not evaluate the additional traffic or its effects. I opine
that the impact of the less than a dozen additional motor vehicle trips in the
peak periods is expected to be minimal and should not compromise the safety of
either Mills Street or Connolly Street.
I
concur with this assessment and consider congestion effects to be acceptable.
7.96 It is also noted that
while the proposal will require the removal of street parking to facilitate the
proposed vehicle crossings, the alteration of street signs, light posts and
markings is outside of the scope of the resource consent and will need to be
approved through the HCC Road and Traffic subcommittee. Further, it is noted
that the District Plan would allow for two vehicle crossings to be provided on
48 and 50 Mills Street as of right (provided they were each separated by 1m and
did not cover 50% of their respective frontages).
Subdivision
design and layout effects
7.97 The
proposed allotments comply with the minimum frontage standard of the District
Plan, However all lots fall short of the 300m2 minimum allotment
size and cannot comply with the relevant 9 x 14m shape factor requirement.
Nevertheless each allotment will be of sufficient size and shape to support the
intended dwellings, onsite car parking proposed, outdoor living and landscaping
that is generally consistent with the Design Guide.
7.98 All
proposed dwellings will be connected to water, wastewater, stormwater, power
and telecommunications, and physical and legal access to the road network.
7.99 On
this basis I consider the proposed subdivision design and site layout is
acceptable; the allotments will be fit for their intended residential purpose.
Effects
upon natural features and topography
7.100
At approximately 300mm deep at the Mills Street property
boundary, and a maximum of 610 mm inside the site, the earthworks will make a
modest alteration to the existing natural ground level, less than the 1.2m
permitted under the District Plan. Noting that the subject site is generally
flat and devoid of distinctive topographical features such as escarpments,
steep hillsides, extensive tracts of native bush or coastal features, any
adverse effects upon natural features and topography are considered to be less
than minor and therefore acceptable.
Effects
upon sites of significance
7.101
The subject site does not contain any identified site of
historical or cultural significance, nor is it identified as being subject to
any specific Statutory Acknowledgement Area. As such, I consider the likelihood
of the proposed earthworks and construction disturbing sites of significance to
be minimal and therefore acceptable. As much of Lower Hutt has been
affected by pre-1900 settlement, the applicant is advised to contact Heritage
New Zealand to determine whether an archaeological authority is required.
Natural
hazards effects
7.102 Council
records do not indicate that the application site has a known history of
erosion or land instability, and the subject site is located outside of the
Wellington Fault Special Study Area. However the proposed earthworks have the
potential to create or exacerbate the risk of land instability.
7.103 The
applicant has agreed to conditions requiring all work be undertaken in accordance
with an approved construction management and earthworks plan. This will include
measures to control sedimentation and runoff factors that can contribute to
land instability. I consider the condition necessary and suitable to be imposed
under s108 of the RMA 1991, and note that this will ensure ongoing site
stability during works. Given also that the proposed earthworks will result in
a modest change in ground level (approximately 450mm) and noting that the
subject site is generally flat, it is considered that the site will remain in a
stable condition at the completion of works. Associated natural hazards effects
are thus considered to be less than minor and therefore acceptable.
7.104
With respect to inundation risk, the subject site is partly
subject to the 1:440 flood extent associated with the Hutt River. However,
Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) do not impose minimum floor levels
unless a site is located within a 1:100 flood extent. Given that the natural
ground level will be partially raised (by up to 450mm) during the preparation
of building platforms, I consider that any adverse effects due to loss of
floodplain storage or flood risk to be acceptable due to the modest volume
change in ground level and low return period of any 1:440 flood event.
7.105 Subsequent
to the close of submissions, Council’s Infrastructure Engineer Steve Mann
was invited to comment further on the potential impacts of the changes in
ground level. He asserts;
In
terms of raising the ground levels I believe the impact will be less than minor
due to the following:
Raising of
the site to approx. MSL 8.3m at the rear will create positive fall in the order
of 600mm from the rear of the site towards Mills Street. This will enable the
stormwater runoff from the roofs and the majority of hardstand areas to be
collected and discharged into a new internal stormwater system which will
discharge (via stormwater attenuation tanks) to the existing stormwater main in
Mills Street. We do not envisage any discharge onto the neighbouring
properties.
There is
also currently no discharge onto the subject site from the neighbouring
properties. Runoff form the properties at 52 and 54B currently
can’t drain into the subject site because of concrete nibs and timber
retaining along the common boundary. The proposed ground levels at the rear of
the site will be similar to the existing ground levels at 52B Mills Street
which has also been raised to create positive fall out to Mills Street. The
properties from 41 to 53 Connolly Street generally fall from the rear out to
Connelly Street. The existing fencing is such that currently no water drains
between the subject site and these properties (either way). The new accessway
serving the development will be constructed adjacent to this boundary and
appropriate stormwater control measures installed.
7.106 I
concur with the views of Mr Mann and conclude that the effects of the proposal
on natural features and topography are acceptable.
7.107 The
application has also been assessed by Council’s Stormwater Enforcement
Officer, Gordon George, who observed;
The rear decked areas all
slope towards the neighbours and are all permeable and elevated (up to 400mm)
wrt neighbours. This retaining will need a subsoil cutoff drain to protect the
neighbours and the retaining wall must not be free draining. None of the boundary
walls should be free draining walls.
I consider it reasonable to
recommend a condition of consent requiring the applicant to devise an
appropriate drainage solution to ensure that retaining walls and boundary walls
are not free draining to mitigate potential runoff to neighbouring properties
from retaining and boundary walls.
7.108 For
the reasons outlined above, I consider any natural hazard risks to be avoided
or mitigated to an extent that is less than minor and therefore acceptable.
Site contamination
effects
7.109 The
site is not listed in the GWRC Selected Land Use Register (SLUR) as being a
site known to have contained or potentially contained an activity that may have
resulted in ground contamination. Council records do not indicate that any
activity from the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) has been
undertaken on site. As a result I consider the likelihood of works onsite
uncovering contamination to be negligible and therefore acceptable.
Esplanade
strips and reserves
7.110
The District Plan requires provision of an esplanade strip
or reserve where a property adjoins identified waterways, lakes, or the Coastal
Marine Area. Although the site technically abuts the Hutt River, given the
intervening distance between the Hutt River waterway, the access to the
waterway provided by the Hutt River Reserve, an esplanade strip or reserve is
not warranted in this case.
Construction
effects
7.111 Construction
will result in temporary disturbance for the surrounding area, with potential
to create noise, vibration, dust and sedimentation, and traffic issues. The
submission from a number of parties raised these as areas of concerns, as well
as the effects of stormwater and sediment runoff during construction, pile
driving and heavy machinery, hours of work and tracking of sediment onto the
adjacent street.
7.112 The
permitted baseline provides for the construction of four dwellings and four
accessory buildings on the application site, and beyond compliance with the
relevant noise standards the District Plan does not place limitations on the
duration of construction.
7.113 The
applicant has proffered a suite of conditions requiring that all works be
undertaken in accordance with an approved Demolition and Construction
Management Plan (DCMP); Construction Traffic Plan (CTP); Construction Noise
Management Plan (CNMP); and an Earthworks Management Plan (EMP) These plans
will detail limitations on working hours and days, and will detail how the
effects associated with construction traffic, sediment runoff and erosion, and
noise will be managed on site, to the satisfaction of Council’s
Compliance Monitoring Officer.
7.114 The
applicant has also agreed to the imposition of a condition to ensure that no
earth, mud, dirt or debris shall be deposited on the road or footpath as the
result of works, and requiring any accidental discharges to be immediately
removed.
7.115 I
consider such a condition reasonably necessary and suitable to be imposed under
s108 of the RMA 1991. I would also consider it necessary to impose
conditions relative to the control of stormwater during works, dust mitigation,
and requiring all sedimentation and erosion methods to be installed and
maintained in accordance with Greater Wellington regional council’s
erosion and sediment control guidelines.
7.116 I
note that some submitters raised the potential for property damage during
construction, particularly in relation to construction vibration effects. There
is no New Zealand Standard which manages construction vibration. Specific
vibration management measures have not been proffered by the applicant, however
I consider it appropriate to recommend a condition requiring the
construction effects associated with the current proposal in terms of vibration
to accord with the British Standard (BS) 5228-2:2009 “Code of practice
for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites Part 2:
Vibration.” It is noted that any construction vibration effects will
be temporary in nature and are additionally controlled by standard
measures imposed on developers under the Building Act 2004 at the building
consent stage.
7.117 For
the reasons outlined above, I consider that any adverse construction effects
arising from the proposal will be mitigated to a less than minor extent for all
persons and are therefore acceptable.
Positive
effects
7.118 The
proposal will result in the construction of 13 residential dwellings within the
Lower Hutt area. These dwellings will provide for increased housing choice due
to the construction of compact three bedroom dwellings which will suit a range
of household typologies. These units will increase the city’s supply of
housing stock as well as complimenting the consolidated urban form in an area
identified for more intensive housing developments. The subject site is located
within proximity of the Hutt City retail precinct, recreational opportunities
associated with the Hutt River environs, and will serve the economic, social
and cultural needs of future inhabitants.
Conclusion
7.119 Based
on the above assessment I consider that the scale and scope of the proposed
non-compliances, both individually and on a cumulative basis, will be
acceptable.
8. Relevant
plan provisions
Design
Guide
8.1 As
the proposal is for a multi-unit development within the General Residential
– Medium Density activity area, the Design Guide for Medium Density
Housing (the Design Guide) applies, identified within Appendix General
Residential 18 of the Lower Hutt City District Plan. The intent of the design
guide is to ensure that higher density development provides quality living
spaces that meet the needs of inhabitants whilst maintaining and enhancing the
amenity values and character of the surrounding area.
8.2 Some
submitters raised concerns about the extent to which the proposal meets the
provisions of the Design Guide. The following assessment is considered to
respond to these concerns.
8.3 The
applicant had prepared a detailed assessment against the Design Guide (see
Appendix C of the applicant’s Assessment of Environmental Effects). The
proposal and assessment have subsequently been reviewed by Council’s
urban design advisor, Dr Peter Parkes. A copy of Dr Parkes’s revised
assessment has been circulated with this report as an appendix. In summary, Dr Parkes concluded that the proposed
development will meet the intent of the Design Guide, with Dr Parkes’
findings summarised below;
· Fitting
in the neighbourhood – The proposal would appear as a more intensive,
newer form of development when compared to the receiving environment. The
strong lineal terraced massing of the house units is likely to contrast with
most of the neighbourhood of detached housing on single lots, despite the
presence of a small block of flats immediately across the road. The proposed
landscaping treatment, particularly in the front garden areas facing the street
and along the eastern side of the driveway, would help integrate the new
development over time as it grows and matures.
· Dwellings 1 – 3 have been orientated to
address Mills Street and provide an activated frontage, and the development
assumes a form and massing of a similar scale to what could be anticipated on
neighbouring allotments, with the terrace row of three houses
‘banding’ across the front of the site, in a manner compared by Dr
Parkes to the pattern of development along Connolly Street, tempered through
the integration of modulating façade treatments, including feature
windows and roof forms, fencing and landscaping, creating a strong street
presence.
· Integrated
buildings and spaces
– Indoor and outdoor living areas are oriented to the north for maximum
solar gain. Outdoor living areas will be defined through the use of fencing and
planting and provide opportunities for passive recreation. Whilst the proposed
outdoor areas associated with some of the dwellings are less than 35m2
in size, they are considered to adequately address the recreational needs of
future residents, noting the quality of these spaces and the proximity of the
site to Hutt River reserve. As discussed elsewhere, I consider that the garages
will not visually dominate the street frontage as while three single garages
for Dwellings 1 - 3 will be visible, they will be read within the context of
the development, with sufficient relief along the front façade in order
for the garages to be adequately visually recessive and integrated into the
development.
· Vehicles
- Dr Parkes concurred with the applicant’s assessment that the site
layout reduces the dominance of accessways, manoeuvring areas and garages from
the street and within the development through the concealment of garaging for
Dwelling 4 – 13 behind the body of Dwellings 1 – 3, such that it
will only be visible from oblique angles. Dr Parkes also observed that
opportunities have been created for landscaping treatment and articulated /
varied paving materials in the driveway to add visual interest and break up the
extent of hard stand.
· Fences
and Walls – Dr Parkes concluded that the 1.8m fences along the site
boundaries, and between the internal yards were appropriate, striking a balance
between passive surveillance and privacy.
· Site
facilities – All proposed dwellings will be provided with washing
lines, rubbish storage facilities on site that are well separated from primary
outdoor living areas. Dr Parkes recommended that additional treatments be integrated
into the development to further screen the washing lines from the primary
outdoor living areas, and suggested that the crushed rock/gravel medium under
the clothes lines be replaced with a smooth surface to improve the
serviceability of this area.
· I consider that optimal
solar access and ease of accessibility for future residents to the clothes
lines would be precluded by the addition of screening treatments, noting that
the 1.8 m high fencing between each yard will adequately screen clotheslines from
neighbours’ views to an extent that is envisaged by the Design Guideline.
Further, the gravel surface medium supports permeability objectives found
elsewhere in the District Plan, and for these reasons I consider that the
proposal is consistent with the ‘site facilities’ objectives and
policies in its current form.
· Privacy
and safety – Dwellings 1 - 3 are oriented towards the street frontage
thereby contributing to passive surveillance and safety. All dwellings will
have private entrances with paths and landscaping used to define entry. Dr
Parkes noted the use of louvres and exterior screening to windows as being an
appropriate response.
· Landscaping
and vegetation
– In response to Dr Parkes’ initial comments, the applicant
modified the landscaping plan, incorporating additional recommendations
relating to the landscaping treatments along the southern elevation in common
with the vehicle access for Dwelling 4 – 13, Dr Parkes considered the
proposed landscaping plans to be appropriate for the site.
Dr
Parkes concluded that his concerns with the proposal were satisfied and
determined that the development met the minimum standard of the Design Guide.
8.6 Concerns
were also raised in regards to rubbish storage and collection facilities given
the location in proximity to neighbouring properties. The Design Guide requires
only that adequate provision of storage facilities; beyond this the management
of rubbish is not a matter controlled by the District Plan. Despite this, it is
acknowledged that the number of dwelling units on site has the potential to
create adverse amenity effects on rubbish day. This issue has also been raised
by some submitters. It is therefore considered appropriate that should the
proposal be granted, a waste management plan be required as a condition of
consent. I concur with Dr Parkes’ conclusion that the proposal satisfies
the onsite amenity and neighbourhood character outcomes anticipated by the
Design Guide.
District
Plan
8.7 The
key objectives and policies for the relevant to the proposed multi-unit and
subdivision within the General Residential – Medium Density activity area
relate primarily to: allotment design and engineering; residential character,
amenity and the scale of a development in relation to its surroundings; the
safety and efficiency of the transport network; and earthworks.
8.8 The
following objectives and policies 11.1.1(a), 11.1.2(a) and 11.1.3(b) are
relevant to the proposed subdivision element of the proposal:
11.1.1
Allotment Standards
Objective
To ensure
that land which is subdivided can be used for the proposed use or development.
Policy
(a)To ensure
that allotments have minimum design standards such as, minimum size, shape and
frontage, which are suitable for the proposed use or development.
11.1.2
Engineering Standards
Objective
To ensure that utilities provided to
service the subdivision protect the environment and that there are no adverse
effects on the health and safety of residents and occupiers.
Policy
(a)To ensure
that utilities provided comply with specified performance standards relating to
such matters as access, street lighting, stormwater, water supply, wastewater,
gas, telephone, electricity and earthworks.
11.1.3
Natural hazards
Objective
To ensure that land subject to natural
hazards is subdivided in a manner that the adverse effects are avoided,
remedied or mitigated.
Policy
(b)Subdivision
of land subject to flooding is discouraged as this can lead to greater
intensity of use and development and have adverse effects on the environment.
8.9 Whilst
the proposed allotments do not all meet the minimum allotment size or shape factor
control, they are considered to be of sufficient size and shape to support
their intended residential dwellings, including the provision of onsite
landscaping, parking and manoeuvring, and will achieve outcomes consistent with
the provisions of the Design Guide. As such they are considered to be suitable
for the intended residential use.
8.10 All
proposed allotments will be provided with connections to the three waters,
power, and telecommunication services. Where necessary these will be protected
via the necessary easements. The proposal has been reviewed and is supported by
Sylvio Leal and Steve Mann, Council’s subdivision engineers, who have
confirmed the proposal will be adequately serviced, subject to compliance with
a number of conditions imposed under s108 and 220 of the RMA 1991. Mr Mann also
determined that the proposed floor levels are sufficient to mitigate any
potential inundation risk associated with infrastructure or the Hutt River to
an acceptable level, noting;
The
historic flood levels reached at the Connelly / Melling / Rutherford
intersection appear to be approx 7.0m which represents the height of the
secondary flow path to the south. The minimum floor levels for the proposed
development are 8.0m which is approx. 0.5m above the road crown in Mills Street
and appear to be acceptable.
8.11 The
subject site is located within a 1:440 flood extent, however Greater Wellington
Regional Council do not require or impose minimum floor levels for such events.
Furthermore, I consider the low frequency return period (0.23% per annum) and
noting that the modelled flood extent will be largely concentrated upon the
proposed right of way, such that the proposal is generally consistent with the
objectives and policies under 11.1.3.
8.12 The
following objectives and policies 4A 1.1.1(a), and (c)-(f), 4A 1.1.2(a)-(c),
and 4A 1.2.1(b)-(g) and (j) are relevant to the proposed multi-unit element of
the proposal:
4A 1.1.1
Residential Character and Amenity Values
Objective
To maintain and enhance the amenity
values and residential character of the General Residential Activity Area of
the City.
Policy
(a)That
opportunity be provided for a diversity of residential activities.
(c)To ensure
residential amenity values are retained, protected and enhanced through the
establishment of a net site area per dwelling house.
(d)That
adverse effects arising from noise, dust, glare, light spill and odour be
managed.
(e)That
vegetation and trees which add to the particular amenity values of the area be
retained where practicable.
(f)That the
clearance of vegetation be managed to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse
effects on the intrinsic values of ecosystems.
4A 1.1.2
Medium Density Residential Development
Objective
To ensure opportunity is made for
medium density residential development around some commercial centres, along
major transport routes, and where amenity values will not be affected adversely
and where there is appropriate servicing of development.
Policy
(a)That
opportunity for higher dwelling densities be made along major transport routes,
around some commercial centres, in the residential area between Jackson Street
and The Esplanade, Petone, where existing dwelling densities are higher, and
where amenity values will not be affected adversely and where there is
appropriate servicing of development.
(b)To avoid,
remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of higher dwelling densities on the
surrounding area, caused by height of buildings, intensity, scale and location.
(c)That
medium density development be encouraged where it is in general accordance with
the direction provided by the Design Guide for Medium Density Housing (Appendix
19) and maintains and enhances on site amenities and consistency with the
surrounding residential character and minimises impact on the natural
environment.
4A 1.2.1
Building Height, Scale, Intensity and Location
Objective
To avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse
effects caused by building height, intensity and location on the amenity values
of adjacent residential sites and the residential character of the surrounding
residential area.
Policy
(b) To
establish a minimum net site area and maximum site coverage to ensure
opportunity is provided for higher density residential development where
appropriate, without affecting adversely the amenity values.
(c) To
ensure all new development is of a height and scale, which is compatible with
surrounding residential development.
(d) To
ensure a progressive reduction in height of buildings the closer they are
located to a site boundary, to maintain adequate daylight and sunlight to
adjoining properties.
(e) To
manage the siting of all buildings so as to minimise detraction from the
character and visual attractiveness of the surrounding residential activity
area.
(f) To
manage the siting of all buildings so as to minimise detraction from the
amenities of adjoining properties.
(g) To
establish a minimum permeable surface area to assist with the sustainable
management of stormwater.
(j) To
ensure that the developments are in general accordance with the Design Guide
for Medium Density Housing (Appendix 19) to control other aspects of design,
such as quality of onsite amenity, integration of buildings and landscaping in
respect to open space and compatibility with surrounding development patterns
and low environmental impact.
8.13 The
proposed development provides for choice within the residential housing market
through the provision of compact townhouses with low maintenance outdoor areas
in proximity to a range of commercial and community facilities. Whilst the
proposed development results in net site areas below that anticipated by the
District Plan, they are considered to be of sufficient size to accommodate
their intended residential use in a manner consistent with the Design Guide.
Due to the attached nature of the proposed dwellings whereby they effectively
read as six buildings, the underlying site layout is considered similar to that
which can be reasonably anticipated for the General Residential - Medium
Density activity area, and has been advanced by the applicant in a
‘comparable development’ model.
8.14 The
proposed development will be inherently residential in nature and scale, and as
such is not anticipated to generate noise, dust, glare, light spill or odour
effects beyond what could be expected for any residential development on the
site.
8.15 Some
of the submitters have specifically noted the loss of an established mature
vegetation and bird habitat towards the north-east (rear) of the subject site.
The objectives and policies speak to retention of such vegetation where
practicable; the removal of this tree allows for vehicle access to the rear
site and as such its retention is not considered practical. None of the trees
on site are protected, and the mature specimen are generally remnant trees
rather than part of a larger, more heavily vegetated area. Their loss will be
comparable to a permitted activity on the site and is not considered to
undermine the intrinsic values of the ecosystem to an unacceptable degree.
8.16 The
District Plan provides for higher dwelling densities within this portion of
Boulcott, radiating out from High Street. The proposed development capitalises
on this opportunity, and as evidenced by the consistency with the provisions of
the Design Guide is considered to be generally in keeping with the anticipated
development form and minimum amenity standards for such sites.
8.17 The
proposed development represents an intensive development form on the subject
site particularly as it exceeds the yard, recession plane, site coverage and
permeable surfaces controls of the District Plan, and as discussed under
section 7 will result in adverse environmental effects for the adjacent
properties and surrounding area. However, the proposed development has been
laid out and designed to mitigate adverse visual amenity and shading effects
through the provision of wide yard setbacks to the north and south, view shafts
trending north-south through the subject site, and modulation and variation in
dwelling forms and cladding palette to provide visual interest and break up
perceived building bulk and dominance. Fencing and landscaping will further
assist in screening and softening the proposal.
8.18 Where
yard and recession plane non-compliances are internal to the subject site, they
are considered to have a lesser impact on the surrounding environment. Whilst
the proposed buildings will be taller than development on many surrounding
sites, the District Plan provides for the construction of two storey dwellings
within the area, and the scale and form of the dwellings is similar to more
intensive development along Connolly Street and larger two-storey dwellings in
Mills and Connolly Streets.
8.19 The
scale and extent of shading effects has been assessed in section 7 above. In
conclusion this found that whilst the proposal will result in shading of the
immediately adjacent sites, the effects of this will be acceptable.
8.20 The
proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the provisions of the
Design Guide for Medium Density Housing which aims to provide for
intensification of land use where this is well designed and integrated with
existing infrastructure.
8.21 The
following objectives and policies; 14A 3.1, 14A 3.5, 14A 4.2, 14A 4.3, 14A 4.6
and 14A 4.7 from the transport chapter are relevant to the proposed access
arrangements for the development:
Objective
14A 3.1
A safe, efficient,
resilient and well-connected transport network that is integrated with land use
patterns, meets local, regional and national transport needs, facilitates and
enables urban growth and economic development, and provides for all modes of
transport.
Objective
14A 3.5
Adverse effects on the
safety and efficiency of the transport network from on-site transport
facilities (vehicle access, parking, manoeuvring and loading facilities) are
managed.
Policy 14A
4.2
Land use, subdivision and
development should not cause significant adverse effects on the connectivity, accessibility
and safety of the transport network, and, where appropriate, should:
· seek to improve
connectivity within and between communities; and
· enable walking, cycling and
access to public transport.
Policy 14A
4.3
The transport network
should be located and designed to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on
the adjacent environment.
Policy 14A
4.6
Vehicle access, parking,
manoeuvring and loading facilities should be designed to standards that ensure
they do not compromise the safety and efficiency of the transport network.
Policy
14A 4.7
The transport network, land
use, subdivision and development should provide for all transport modes.
8.22 The
proposed development is located within walking distance of the Central Lower
Hutt retail precinct, within reasonable distance to the Melling railway station
and bus stops serviced by a number of routes to Wellington Central, Upper Hutt,
the airport, Eastbourne and the wider Lower Hutt suburbs. Whilst the
development provides for private vehicle use, it is considered to foster use of
public and active transport modes due to its location.
8.23 The
proposed access arrangements have been assessed and are supported by David
Wanty, Council’s consultant traffic engineer, as detailed elsewhere in
this report.
8.24 Due
to the modest size of the development (13 dwellings) it will not contribute
greatly to congestion given the sheltered traffic environment in Mills Street
and the carrying capacity of Connolly Street and the surrounding roading
network.
8.25 The
proposed transport arrangements are thus considered to maintain the safety and
efficiency of the roading network and are considered generally consistent with
the above objectives and policies.
8.26 The
following objectives and policies 14A 3.1, 14A 3.5, 14A 4.2, 14A 4.3, 14A 4.6
and 14A 4.7 relative to earthworks are relevant to the proposal:
14I 1.1
Natural Character
Objective
To ensure that earthworks
are designed to maintain the natural features that contribute to the
City’s landscape.
Policy
(a)To ensure
that earthworks are designed to be sympathetic to the natural topography.
(b)To
protect significant escarpments, steep hillside areas, and the coastal area by
ensuring that earthworks are designed to retain the existing topography, protect
natural features, and prevent erosion and slips.
14I 1.2
Amenity, Cultural and Historical Values
Objective
To ensure earthworks do not
affect adversely the visual amenity values, cultural values or historical
significance of an area, natural feature or site.
Policy
(a)To
protect the visual amenity values of land which provides a visual backdrop to
the City.
(b)That
rehabilitation measures be undertaken to mitigate adverse effects of earthworks
upon the visual amenity values.
(c)To
protect any sites with historical significance from inappropriate earthworks.
(d)To
recognise the importance of cultural and spiritual values to the mana whenua
associated with any cultural material that may be disinterred through
earthworks and to ensure that these values are protected from inappropriate
earthworks. Licy
8.27 The
proposed earthworks are relatively modest in scale (780m3, up to
0.61m vertical change), particularly as compared to the permitted baseline
(100m3, and 1.2m vertical change). The subject site is generally
flat whereby it does not contain any significant scarps, steep hillsides,
coastal features and due to its location on the valley floor does not provide a
visual backdrop to the city. At the conclusion of works the site will be paved,
built over or landscaped and will not result in exposed groundworks or
scarring.
8.28 The
subject site is not identified as a site of historical or cultural
significance. Due to the previous history of development on site I consider the
likelihood of works disinterring artefacts of historical, cultural or spiritual
significance to be minimal.
8.29 For
these reasons the proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the
above objective and policies.
Plan Change
43
8.30 Plan
Change 43 was publicly notified on 7 November 2017, and submissions finally
closed on 5 September 2018. A hearing was held on 2 – 4 September 2019,
although at the time of writing, no decision has been made in respect to this
plan change. As such the plan provisions relevant to the application site do
not have legal effect. Irrespective of the provision of weighting, and for the
reasons outlined in sections 7 and 8 above, the proposal is considered to be
generally consistent with the following objectives and policies of Plan Change
43: Objective 4A 2.2, Policy 4A 3.2; Objective 4A 2.3, and Policies 4A 3.3 and
3.4; Objective 4A 2.4 and policies 4A 3.5, 3.7 and 3.8; and Objective 4A 2.5
and policies 4A 3.9 and 3.10. These provisions primarily relate to the form of
buildings and the need to manage the height and bulk of development to protect
onsite amenity, as well as the amenity of the street and surrounding properties
and impacts upon infrastructure.
Other plans
8.31 As
determined by section 104(1)(b), I consider that the National Policy Statement
on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC) is relevant to this application. The
NPS-UDC directs consent authorities to consider if there is sufficient
development capacity to meet current and future demands.
8.32 The
applicant has included a description of the relevant policies of the NPS-UDC
(see p.22-23 of the applicant’s Assessment of Environmental Effects). In
the interest of brevity they will not be repeated here in full.
8.33
Policies PA1 and PA2 require local authorities
to ensure that there is sufficient land available for housing development which
will be suitably serviced by infrastructure. The proposal is considered to be
consistent with this policy. The subject site is zoned for medium density residential
development, and as determined by Wellington Water and Mr Leal and Mr Mann, can
be adequately serviced by the proposed and existing infrastructure.
8.34 Policy PA3
requires that the development provide for the wellbeing of people whilst having
regard to the need for diversity in dwelling typology and location, the
efficient use of land and infrastructure, and limiting adverse impacts on
competition within the free market. The proposal is considered to be consistent
with this policy. The site is within the medium density activity area, and
through the construction of 13 dwellings results in the efficient use of land
within the existing urban limit. The proposal will provide compact, low
maintenance three-bedroom townhouses, increasing choice within the housing
market and satisfying a larger range of needs. The proposal will not adversely
impact on the competitive operation of land and development markets.
8.35 Policy
PA4 requires consideration of the benefits of urban development on the
wellbeing of people, and the benefits and costs from the local to the national
scale. As the subject site is located within close proximity to shops and
businesses, recreation facilities, public transport, and community facilities
such as libraries and schools is it considered to provide for the social,
cultural, economic wellbeing of people. As discussed in section 7 and 8 above,
the proposal also includes a number of mitigation measures to ensure that the
environmental wellbeing of people is maintained at an acceptable level.
8.36 Due
to the scale of the proposal any costs and benefits will be limited to the
local and district level. It is considered that the proposal will provide
benefits through increasing housing stock in an area identified as suitable for
medium density development and where demand for housing exists.
8.37 Under
s104(1)(b)(v) of the RMA 1991 regard must be had to any relevant provisions of
a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement. The
applicant has provided an assessment of the proposal against the provisions of
the Wellington RPS, made operative in April 2013 (see p.24 of the
applicant’s Assessment of Environmental Effects). I accept and adopt this
element of their assessment, and consider the proposal to be generally
consistent with the Wellington RPS.
8.38 I
consider that there are no other relevant provisions of national environmental
standard, other regulations, national policy statement, or New Zealand Coastal
Policy Statement to which regard must be had.
Other
matters
8.39 Section
104(1)(c) requires the consideration of any other matters considered relevant
to determination of a proposal. Some submitters raised the possibility that the
proposed development will set a precedent for more intensive development within
the surrounding area.
8.40 Precedent
effects arise where a decision on an application creates a high probability
that similar applications subsequently lodged will attract the same tenor of
decision, and in doing so will undermine the integrity of the District Plan.
8.41 I
consider that the issue of precedent is, to an extent, determined by the
activity status of a proposal; it is considered that Non-Complying and
Prohibited activities are not anticipated by the District Plan whereby
precedent is a highly relevant consideration. The proposed activity has a
Discretionary activity status, and whilst this provides the consent authority
with full discretion over assessment matters and determination, it follows that
the District Plan does anticipate such activities (in this instance, medium
density residential development on a site zoned for such use).
8.42 The
proposal is also for a comprehensive development across what are currently two
legal parcels within the residential block. As such, the application site
(2325m2) is notably larger than the majority of land parcels within
the surrounding area. As discussed above the proposal exceeds a number of
allotment design, bulk and location and access standards of the District Plan.
The resulting density (13 dwellings) and intensity is recognised as creating
adverse effects upon the adjacent properties, although not to an extent
considered unacceptable (refer: section 7). On this basis the application
site is considered relatively unique, and associated adverse effects are
considered acceptable, thereby limiting the extent of any precedent set.
8.43 The
Hutt City Urban Growth Strategy (2012-2032) was approved to encourage construction
of 6000 new houses within Lower Hutt by 2032. The proposed development will
contribute towards desired growth outcomes through the establishment of 13
dwelling houses on a site zoned for medium density development. This will be
serviced by existing infrastructure, and is considered to be generally in
keeping with the Design Guide for Medium Density Housing.
9 Part
II of the Act
9.1 Part
II sets out the purpose and principles of the Act (section 5); matters of
national importance the consent authority must recognise and provide for when
determining a resource consent (section 6); other matters the consent authority
must have particular regard to (section 7); and provision for the principles of
the Treaty of Waitangi (section 8).
9.2 The
purpose of the Act as set out in section 5 is to promote “the
sustainable management of natural and physical resources while managing the
use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or
at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social,
economic and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while…
avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the
environment.”
9.3 The
proposal is considered to be in keeping with the sustainable management purpose
of the Act. At the conclusion of works, the proposal will provide additional
infill housing within the existing urban limits thereby fostering a
consolidated urban form. The application site is located in proximity to public
transport, shops, schools, recreation facilities and employment opportunities
thereby providing for the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of residents.
9.4 As
determined in sections 7 and 8 of this report, the proposed development has
been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the Design Guide for
Medium Density Housing. Previous assessment also concluded that the site layout
and dwellings have been designed in such a way as to limit perceptions of
density on the site, with yard setbacks, modulation and landscaping
incorporated to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed development intensity
upon adjacent sites and the wider environment.
9.5 Given
the above factors, the proposal is considered that the proposal is consistent
with section 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
9.6 Section
6 of the Act lists matters of national importance. It is considered that none
of the matters of national importance are relevant to this proposal.
9.7 Section
7 of the Act lists a number of other matters that Council shall have particular
regard to when considering such an application. Under section 7 the following
matters are considered applicable:
(b) The
efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:
(c)
The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:
(f) Maintenance
and enhancement of the quality of the environment:
It
is considered that the proposal is not contrary to section 7 of the Act. The
reasons for this are largely assessed in sections 7 and 8 above and will not be
repeated here. In the interests of brevity it is concluded that the proposal
provides for the efficient use of land within an established residential area,
and the proposal has been designed in such a way as to maintain amenity values
and the quality of the environment in a manner consistent with the medium
density overlay.
9.8 It
is considered section 8 of the Act requires that the Council, in achieving the
purpose of the Act, in managing the use, development and protection of the
natural and physical environment, shall take into account the principles of the
Treaty of Waitangi. It is considered the proposal is not contrary to section 8
of the Act. It is noted the subject site does not contain an identified
statutory acknowledgement area, nor any known sites of historical, cultural or
archaeological significance. It is therefore considered that this section of
the Act is not directly relevant to the proposal.
9.9 Overall
I consider the proposed multi-unit residential development and subdivision will
be consistent with Part II of the Resource Management Act 1991.
10 Conclusion
10.1 Resource
consent is sought for the construction of 13 dwellings and a 14 lot subdivision
at 48 and 50 Mills Street, Boulcott. The proposal breaches a number of bulk and
location, allotment design, access and earthworks standards. The proposal is a
Discretionary activity within the General Residential – Medium Density
activity area of the City of Lower Hutt District Plan.
10.2 Whilst
10 submissions were received in opposition to the proposal, I do not consider
that it should be declined. As discussed in section 7 these are considered to
be mitigated to an acceptable level.
10.3 I
believe the proposal represents an appropriate use on this site and that it is
generally consistent with the objectives and policies of the District Plan and
Part II of the Resource Management Act 1991.
10.4 My
recommendation is therefore that resource consent may be granted under section
104B of the Act, subject to the following conditions.
11 Suggested
conditions of consent
If the committee resolves
to grant resource consent, the following may be considered as conditions of
that consent:
Subdivision conditions
1. That
the proposal is carried out substantially in accordance with the information
and approved plans ’48 – 50 Mills Street Lower Hutt Resource
Consent Revision G, dated 24.09.2019 (Project number 1843 prepared by Voxell),
Sheets 1.01 – 1.07; 2.00 – 2.06; 3.01 – 3.09; and BIOME
Landscape Scheme, Pages 1 - 4 Revision 08/07/19. submitted with the
application and held on file at Council.
2. That the consent holder
pays Council an engineering fee to meet the cost of work carried out by Council
subdivision engineer in assessing, inspecting, testing and approving water,
sewer and stormwater services, access or any other aspect of the proposal so
assessed by the engineer or any representatives of the engineer (as distinct
from work which must be monitored as a result of any building consent). That
fee is 2.73 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.
Please note:
§ If this subdivision qualifies for
remission of Council fees it will still be necessary to calculate an amount and
provide that figure at time of application for 224(c) certification, so that an
internal transfer between Council accounts can be arranged.
3. That
the consent holder compacts all earthworks fill areas in accordance with the
Code of Practice for Earth Fill for residential Development (NZS4431:1989). A
completion certificate from a suitably qualified and experienced engineer
stating the earthworks have been completed to a satisfactory standard is to be
provided at time of application for 224c certification. Where the completion
report identifies any limitations or specific requirements such as specific
foundation design, consent notices in accordance with section 221 of the
Resource Management Act 1991, are to be registered on titles accordingly.
4. That
the consent holder undertakes all earthworks (including for trenching purposes)
in such a way that no sediment leaves the site or enters streams or the
stormwater system; and that the consent holder installs and maintains sediment
control measures in compliance with Greater Wellington Regional Council’s
erosion and sediment control guidelines (issued in April 2003).
5. 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.
6. That
the consent holder ensures all earthworks are carried out in a way that
prevents dust blowing beyond site boundaries. Control measures may include use
of a water cart, limiting the vehicle speed to 10 kilometres an hour, applying
water to exposed or excessively dry surfaces, or applying a coating of
geotextile, grass, mulch or the like.
7. That
the consent holder ensures vehicles and machinery leaving the site do not drop
dirt or other material on roads or otherwise damage road surfaces; and that if
such spills or damage happen, the consent holder cleans or repairs roads to
their original condition, being careful not to discharge the material into any
stream, stormwater system or open drainage channel in the process. (The term
“road” includes footpaths, vehicle crossings and berms.)
8. That
the consent holder installs the reticulation as necessary and connects separate
minimum 100mm NB sewer and stormwater service leads to the public mains for
each residential lot (and adjust existing services where necessary) in
accordance with Council’s codes and standards.
Please note:
§ All water, stormwater and sewer
reticulation services shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
‘Regional Standard for Water Services’, the ‘Regional
Specification for Water Services’ and the ‘Approved Products
Register’, including all associated amendments. Copies of the
latest version of these documents are available on the following website:
https://wellingtonwater.co.nz/contractors/technical-information.
§ It is now Council policy that only
existing sewer and stormwater laterals less than 25 years old can be utilised
for a new dwelling or new vacant lot, otherwise they are to be renewed or
sealed off at the mains if not replaced in the same location.
§ The proposed 150mm sewer reticulation
is to be transferred to Council’s ownership, therefore it shall be
designed to meet the required minimum grade of 1/90 and easements in gross
provided.
9. That
the consent holder ensures the development is designed to be stormwater neutral
to avoid impact on the downstream network. Stormwater neutrality is required
for both a 10 year and a 100 year rainfall event. The development must
therefore be provided with a stormwater management system(s). The
stormwater management design must be approved in writing by the HCC subdivision
engineer through the Wellington Water Land Development Team and the following
aspects must be met:
i. The
stormwater management system(s) must be designed so that the total stormwater
discharge post-development from the site in both a 10 year and a 100 year rainfall
event is less than or equal to the stormwater runoff flows prior to the
development.
ii. The
consent holder shall submit a detailed design of the proposed stormwater
management system for consideration and approval at the time of submitting
plans for engineering approval.
iii. The
consent holder must ensure that all connections to the system(s) are trapped to
minimise debris entering the system.
iv. Following
construction of the stormwater management system(s), an as-built plan and a
maintenance schedule must be made available for future property owners. The
plan and schedule must be approved by the Wellington Water Land Development
Team.
v. The
owner(s) of appropriate lots must follow the required operation, maintenance
and renewal of the system(s), set out in the maintenance schedule, to ensure it
is in full working order at all times.
vi. The
owner(s) of appropriate lots cannot increase stormwater discharge, through an
increase in non-permeable areas, without Council approval; as an increase in
stormwater discharge may result in failure of the stormwater detention systems.
Council
will register a consent notice, in accordance with section 221 of the Resource
Management Act 1991, on the certificate of title of appropriate lots specifying
the requirements (iv -vi) above. A
residents association may be required where systems are shared.
10. That the
consent holder supplies water reticulation as necessary and supplies separate
minimum 20mm NB connections for each residential lot that meets Council’s
code for domestic supply and the fire fighting capability required under the
New Zealand Fire Service code of practice (SNZ PAS 4509:2008).
Please note:
§ All water reticulation services shall
be designed and constructed in accordance with the ‘Regional Standard for
Water Services’, the ‘Regional Specification for Water
Services’ and the ‘Approved Products Register’, including all
associated amendments. Copies of the latest version of these documents
are available on the following website:
https://wellingtonwater.co.nz/contractors/technical-information.
§ It is now Council policy that only
existing laterals of polyethylene material can be utilised for a new dwelling
or new vacant lot. All existing non-polyethylene laterals, including the
tobies, are to be renewed and sealed at the main if not replaced in the same
position.
§ The consent holder must apply for new
water connections at the customer services counter of Council Building, 30
Laings Road, Lower Hutt. These applications are processed by Wellington Water
Ltd., which is a Council-controlled company in charge of Council water and
drainage assets. Their contact person is Chandra Koswatte (ph 04 912 4534). Wellington
Water Ltd. may impose special requirements or conditions for new connections
depending on, among other things, the existing reticulation system’s
condition and layout, flow rates, pressure zones and proposed future work. It
is important the consent holder makes an application early in the design or
construction phase. Council recommends that the consent holder makes this
application before submitting engineering plans to Council subdivision
engineer.
11. 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.
12. That the
consent holder constructs the private way, including a heavy-duty vehicle
crossing and necessary stormwater control in accordance with Council’s
codes and standards.
Please note: Before building any
retaining walls subject to traffic loading (or other surcharge) or are more
than 1.5 metres high, the consent holder must obtain a building consent. The
consent holder must submit a design prepared by a chartered professional
engineer with the building consent application, followed by a producer
statement on completion of the walls.
13. That the
consent holder removes the existing concrete vehicle crossings, constructs standard
concrete vehicle crossings to lots 1 to 3 in the position indicated on the
submitted scheme plan, and reinstates the kerb, footpath and berm, all in
accordance with Council’s codes and standards.
14. That the
consent holder secures the ground-floor windows of the proposed dwelling/garage
on lots 11 and 12 where they adjoin the right-of- way so they do not open more
than 100mm into the right-of-way. Council will register a consent notice to
this effect on the certificates of title of lots 11 and 12, as allowed for
under section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
15. 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.
Please note:
§ This condition is necessary, even for
minor works, as the engineering approval letter will list further engineering
requirements in regard to Corridor Access Requests, pipe materials,
inspections, as-built information, etc.
§ Engineering approval of the proposed
services and access up to the individual lot boundaries is completely separate
from any approval given under building consent and must be requested prior to
installation, irrespective of any building consent being issued.
16. That the
consent holder sandblasts off (not paints over) existing broken-yellow lines
and L-bars road markings outside the property.
17. That the
consent holder appoints a representative to carry out the design and
supervision of construction work, as well as certification upon completion, as
provided for by clause 1.4.1 of NZS 4404:2004; and that the consent holder
submits the name, contact details and experience of the representative to
Council subdivision engineer for approval before submitting engineering plans.
The consent holder must document the representative’s experience in a
resume and show the relevance of that experience to the works and services
required under this consent. The certification must include confirmation that
the materials, installation and testing meet Council’s codes and
standards.
18. 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.
19. That the
consent holder provides underground telephone and electrical services to each
lot in accordance with the specifications and requirements of the relevant
authority.
20. 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.
21. That the consent holder
provides Council with written confirmation from a surveyor that all existing
services have been adjusted so they are contained within the lot (or are
protected by an appropriate easement) and that the ends of all abandoned
lines have been sealed in accordance with council requirements, or
alternatively that the consent holder provides Council with written
confirmation from a surveyor that no such adjustments and sealing are
necessary.
22. That the
consent holder provides appropriate easements for public and private services
where necessary, with the easements shown as a memorandum of easement on the
land transfer title plan. The consent holder must show easements for public
services on a plan with a minimum three-metre width centred over the
service, or twice the depth of the trench, whichever is greater; show
Council as the grantee in gross; and engage a lawyer at the consent
holder’s expense to prepare easement documents. Please note that,
in accordance with the Regional Standard for Water Services, the easement width
shall be an increased where there is more than one service within that
easement.
23. 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.
24. That the
consent holder moves all buildings clear of the new boundaries before applying
for a section 224(c) certificate.
25. That, at
the time of requesting a section 224(c) certificate, the consent holder
provides a schedule of assets detailing each item to be transferred to Council
ownership as part of the subdivision process; and that the consent holder
supplies a full description of the item, material type, size, length, area,
volume, et cetera, following the format set out in Council form RAS-FORM-014.
26. That the
consent holder sets out the value of services to be taken over by Council to
enable the creation of a buyer-created tax invoice, with the details provided
to be in accordance with Council buyer-created tax invoice form RAS-FORM-015.
27. That, in
accordance with section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991, Council
registers a consent notice on the certificate of title of the affected lots to
ensure future owners are aware that the properties share private stormwater
drains and water pipes.
28. That, in
accordance with section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991, Council
registers a consent notice on the certificate of title of lots 12 and 13, which
share a boundary with Council reserve land, in order to exclude Greater
Wellington Regional Council from the cost of shared fencing under the Fencing
Act 1978 or equivalent legislation. That the consent holder meets the cost of
registering consent notices.
29. That the
consent holder provides Council with two copies of the as-built plan, certified
by a surveyor or engineer, showing, where applicable, the levels and alignment
of all the mains and road work, and the location of all service connections
(and, if applicable, new work within private property) relative to the lot
boundaries.
30. The
consent holder shall pay a contribution to Council’s Reserves Purchases
and Development Account at Council’s standard rate of 7.5% of the value
of the additional residential allotments or capped at $10,000 per allotment
whichever is the lesser. The amounts required will be determined on the basis
of a market value assessment from a registered valuer. It is the consent
holder’s responsibility to instruct the valuer and supply Council with
this assessment. The amount to be paid will be determined when the consent
holder submits the qualified valuer’s assessment.
Land use conditions
1. That
the proposal is carried out substantially in accordance with the information
and approved plans ’48 – 50 Mills Street Lower Hutt Resource
Consent Revision G, dated 24.09.2019 (Project number 1843 prepared by Voxell),
Sheets 1.01 – 1.07; 2.00 – 2.06; 3.01 – 3.09; and BIOME
Landscape Scheme, Pages 1 - 4 Revision 08/07/19. submitted with the
application and held on file at Council.
2. That
the consent holder undertakes all landscaping substantially in accordance with
the information and approved plans specified in Condition 1 above submitted
with the application and held on file at Council. All planting must be
undertaken as soon as the seasons make practicable, but within six months of
completing construction on each dwelling. The consent holder shall replace any
seeding or planting that fails to become fully established or perishes within
12 months of completing construction each residential dwellings.
Proffered Conditions:
Demolition and Construction Management
Plan:
3. At least 10 working days
before any works commence on the site, the consent holder must submit a
detailed Demolition and Construction Management Plan (DCMP) to the
Council’s Compliance Monitoring Officer. The DCMP must be certified by
the Compliance Monitoring Officer before any work begins.
The DCMP will establish acceptable
performance standards regarding public safety and amenity protection during the
construction process of this development. Such standards are expected to
include but not be limited to the following:
· A contact (mobile) telephone number(s) for the on-site
manager where contact can be made 24 hours a day / 7 days a week.
· Details of appropriate local signage/information on the proposed
work including the location of a large (greater than 1m2) noticeboard on the
site that clearly identifies the name, telephone number and address for service
of the site manager, including cell-phone and after-hours contact details.
· A communication and complaints procedure.
· Safety fencing and associated signage for the
construction site.
Construction Traffic Plan:
4. At
least 10 working days before any works commence on the site the consent holder
must submit a Construction Traffic Plan (CTP) to the Council’s Compliance
Monitoring Officer. The CTP must be certified by the Compliance Monitoring
Officer before any work begins.
The CTP must include
methods to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse construction traffic effects
during the development of the site. The CTP must include but not be limited to
the following matters:
· Timing of specific work phases.
· Key activities and anticipated traffic levels for each
work phase.
· Truck routes for the removal of demolition materials.
· Route restrictions for both large trucks and any
over-sized vehicles.
· Times and frequency of heavy vehicle movements.
· Any necessary limits on the days and hours of work for
heavy vehicles e.g. truck may be restricted to operate outside commuter traffic
peaks and school start and finish times.
· Locations of where construction related vehicles will
park, wait, turn and carry out loading and unloading of materials.
· Arrangements for temporary traffic management, including
pedestrians, car-parking and servicing.
· Temporary pedestrian safety measures, including
directional signage where applicable.
· Details of how servicing and access to adjacent site
activities will be provided for, specific to each development phase.
· Details of sensitive sites along the route(s), for
example schools or sports grounds.
Construction Noise
Management Plan:
5. At least 10 working days
before any works commence on the site the consent holder must submit a
Construction Noise Management Plan (CNMP). The CNMP must:
· Specify hours of operation,
a description of the main stages of work proposed, and the equipment to be
used.
· Include specific details
relating to methods for control of noise associated with the works. Demonstrate
that these controls adopt the best practicable option to reduce noise to a
reasonable level in accordance with section 16 of the Act and at all times be
formulated to so as far as practicable, comply with the recommended upper
limits for construction noise specified in NZS 6803:1999, Acoustics -
Construction Noise when assessed in accordance with this standard.
· Specify details of
complaint handling, communication procedures including notification and any
necessary monitoring.
Guidance on the preparation
of a Construction and Demolition Noise Management Plan can be found in the
guidance document enclosed with this decision, and in Annexure E2 of New
Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics— Construction Noise.
Any variations to the CNMP,
for example a requirement for working outside the normal hours of 7.30am to
6.00pm, must be agreed in advance by the Council’s Compliance Monitoring
Officer.
Earthworks Management Plan:
6. At least 10 working days
before any works commence on the site the consent holder must submit an
Earthworks Management Plan (EMP) that includes the following:
· An illustrated earthworks
plan that illustrates the key features of the EMP.
· A description of the broad
approaches to be used to prevent erosion, and minimise problems with dust and
water-borne sediment.
· Measures to limit the area
of earthworks exposed to the weather at any one time (sources of dust and
sediment).
· Details of the staging of
work.
· Measures to ensure
temporary excavations remain stable (slips and failures can significantly
increase sediment).
· Stabilisation of the site
entrance(s) to minimise the tracking of earth by vehicles onto the adjoining
roads.
· Details of the use of
diversion bunds/cut-off drains, as required, to minimise stormwater entering
the site and discharging onto earthworks areas where it can pick up sediment.
· Details of how, throughout
construction, all stormwater from roofs, paved and impermeable surfaces will be
collected and piped to prevent it discharging onto earthworks areas where it
can pick up sediment.
· The type and location of
silt fences to control water-borne sediment.
· Methods for protecting
stormwater sumps from the infiltration of water-borne sediment.
· Measures to ensure that the
discharge of dust created by earthworks, construction and transport activities are
suitably controlled to minimise dust hazard or nuisance.
· Covering of soil or other
material that is stockpiled on the site or transported to, or from, the site,
to prevent dust nuisance or erosion by rain and stormwater (creating
water-borne sediment).
· Methods for managing
and monitoring the EMP controls.
· Nomination of a site person
responsible for the implementation and administration of the EMP.
Management Plan Implementation
7. The
DCMP, CTP, CNMP and EMP approved under conditions (3) to (6) above must be
implemented and maintained throughout the entire construction period and
modified as directed by the Council’s Compliance Monitoring Officer to
deal with any deficiencies in their operation.
The
Compliance Monitoring Officer will approve the final CMP and related CNMP, CTP
and EMP following consultation with, and acceptance from, appropriate officers
within the Council.
The
Compliance Monitoring Officer will provide their approval to the consent holder
within 10 working days of the information being submitted to the Council. The
approval will not be unreasonably withheld.
Any
changes to any Management Plan once approved by the Compliance Monitoring
Officer must be requested in writing to the Compliance Monitoring Officer, and
must not be implemented until the Compliance Monitoring Officer has provided
their approval. The Compliance Monitoring Officer will provide their approval
to the consent holder within 5 working days of the information being submitted
to the Council. The approval will not be unreasonably withheld.
Note: the consent holder is advised to
consult with Council’s Environmental Health Team to discuss the
construction method and ways to minimise any noise and vibration disturbance to
the surrounding properties.
Note: Conditions 3 – 7 have been
proffered by the applicant to mitigate temporary construction and earthworks
impacts.
8. That the consent holder
compacts all earthwork fill areas in accordance with the Code of Practice for
Earth Fill for Residential Development (NZS4431:1989) and meets the
code’s obligations on final documentation and certification, which state
the suitability of earthworks for residential development.
9. That, on completion of
earthworks (or during earthworks if Council considers it necessary), the
consent holder provides a report from a qualified geotechnical engineer on the
stability of the constructed cut or fill works; and that where the report
identifies development limitations (such as specific foundation design), that
these be implemented and maintained.
10. That
the consent holder undertakes all earthworks (including for trenching purposes)
in such a way that no sediment leaves the site or enters streams or the
stormwater system; and that the consent holder installs and maintains sediment
control measures in compliance with Greater Wellington Regional Council’s
erosion and sediment control guidelines (issued in April 2003).
11. That
the consent holder ensures earthworks do not affect the stability of adjoining
properties.
12. That
during site works the consent holder takes measures to ensure stormwater and
surface water run-off does not affect adjoining properties, and that afterwards
surface water is controlled, to the satisfaction of the Council, through the
use of onsite management systems (which may include but is not restricted to,
the use of curbing, channelling, permeable surface and/or installation of
drains and pipes) to an approved outlet.
13. 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.
14. 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. (The term
“road” includes footpaths, vehicle crossings and berms.)
15. Construction vibration
shall be controlled to the vibration limits set out within BS 5228-2:2009
“Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and
open sites Part 2: Vibration”
Note: Conditions (8) to (15) have been
recommended
to further manage the effects of earthworks and construction on-site, and
ensure the site is suitable for residential use.
16. Landscaping
must be undertaken in accordance with the landscape plans by Biome Landscape
and Design Ltd approved in Condition (1) of this land use decision. Landscaping
associated with each dwelling must be completed within one month of the
completion of construction of the dwelling to which the landscaping relates.
Landscaping in areas of common property must be completed within two months of
completion of construction of the last dwelling approved by this consent.
Landscaping within lots and in common areas must be maintained in perpetuity,
with any plants that fail to thrive being replaced with the same or comparable
species and size.
Note: Landscaping is an essential
component of integrating the proposal into the site context, provides screening
and aids in mitigating the effects of higher density.
Notes
If the committee resolves
to grant resource consent, the following may be considered as notes on the
consent:
§ The applicant for resource
consent, consent holder or any person who made a submission on the application
may also appeal this decision to the Environment Court within 15 working days
of notice of the decision being received.
§ This resource consent is
subject to payment of a Development Contribution Fee under the Council's
Development and Financial Contributions Policy.
§ In accordance with section
125 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the consent lapses if not given effect
to within five years from the date of the application being granted.
§ The consent applies to the
application as approved by Council. The consent holder should notify Council if
there are changes to any part of the plans. Council may require that the
consent holder submits a new resource consent application.
§ The proposal has been
assessed against the requirements of the city’s District Plan. Bylaws may
apply to the proposal that may require separate approval from Council before
starting any site works. See huttcity.govt.nz for a full list of bylaws.
§ The proposal has not been
checked for compliance with the Building Act 2004. No associated building work
should start without first getting a building consent.
§ The consent holder is
reminded that this resource consent is not a licence to create adverse effects.
You still have a duty under the Act to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse
effects. Notwithstanding any resource consents held, section 17 of the
Act continues to apply and will take enforcement action where necessary.
§ Council may issue an
abatement notice if the conditions of this resource consent are not complied
with. Contravention of an abatement notice may incur a fine up to
$300,000 or two years imprisonment for a natural person and a fine of up to
$600,000 to a person other than a natural person.
§ Advice note from Heritage
New Zealand: The property has, or is likely to have been occupied prior to
1900. Any disturbance of land or damage or destruction of any building or
structure associated with human activity prior to 1900, may require an archaeological
authority from Heritage New Zealand under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere
Taonga Act 2014. Please contact Heritage New Zealand for further
information.
§ Before commencement of any
work within the legal road corridor, including the laying of services,
application is to be made for a Corridor Access Request (CAR). A CAR request
can be made through contacting BeforeUdig either on their website: www.beforeudig.co.nz or 0800 248 344. Work must
not proceed within the road reserve until the CAR has been approved, including
the approved traffic management plan if required.
§ Constructing, modifying or
repairing a vehicle crossing requires separate Council approval, in addition to
the approved resource consent. The vehicle crossing is to be constructed in
accordance with Council’s standards and codes. For more information
contact the Transport Division via (04) 570 6881 or click the following link:
http://iportal.huttcity.govt.nz/Record/ReadOnly?Tab=3&Uri=3702089
§ The submitted topographic plan
indicates that an existing neighbouring building encroach into the proposed
right of way. This should be removed or at least an easement provided.
§ If street parks within
Mills Street are to be removed to accommodate additional or widened accessways,
prior approval must be obtained from the Council’s roading and traffic
team.
§ If the footpath on Council
property is to be reformed or widened, prior approval must be obtained from
Council’s roading and traffic team, and these works must be carried out
in accordance with Council’s standards and codes.
Signed:
Emily Bayliss
Consultant Resource
Consents Planner
Peer reviewer:
Brad Greening
Intermediate Resource
Consents Planner
