Decision of Commissioner                            2                                            17 October 2019

 

 Before the Hutt City Council

 

 

In the matter of                A limited notified application for resource consents under the Resource Management Act 1991

 

In the matter of                An application by Guff Management Limited for resource consents to subdivide land and construct a multi-unit (13 dwelling) development at 48 and 50 Mills Street, Boulcott, Lower Hutt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

DECISION OF COMMISSIONER

_____________________________________________________________________

 

Dated: 9 December 2019

 

 

Result: Subdivision and land use consents are granted on the conditions in Appendix 1 and    also separately attached.

 

 

Approved for release and publication by Mark Ashby (sole commissioner) while reserving the power to make minor corrections and amendments if required under section 123 of the Resource Management Act. If that occurs the corrections will be published and circulated.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1. An Overview of the Proposal, the Site, and its Existing Characteristics ................ 3

2. Process Followed up to the Hearing ...................................................................... 6

3. Hearing and Matters in Contention ....................................................................    7

4. Section 104(1)(a) Effects Assessment ...............................................……………….    8

5. Assessment of Relevant Planning Instruments Under s104(1)(b) ....................... 15

6. Assessment of Other Matters Under s104(1)(c) .................................................. 15

7. Part 2 – Assessment ............................................................................................. 16

8. Conditions and Result .......................................................................................... 18

9. Acknowledgments................................................................................................ 19

 

 

 

1.            An Overview of the Proposal, the Site, and its Existing Characteristics

 

1.1.         Introduction

 

1.1.1      This decision concerns an application for land use and subdivision consents on a 2,325m2 site at 48 and 50 Mills Street, Boulcott. Together, the consents would facilitate a town house development 13 dwellings. All existing structures on 48 and 50 Mills Street will be demolished. In this decision I refer to the combined lots at 48 and 50 Mills Street as ‘the site’.

 

1.1.2      The site is oriented along a southwest to northeast axis. I have used the following compass directions to describe the site and its surroundings:

Southeast – the boundary shared with 41 – 53 Connolly Street

Southwest – the Mills Street road frontage

Northwest – the boundary shared with 52 and 54B Mills Street

Northeast – the boundary shared with 55 Connolly Street and the river stopbank

 

1.1.3      The site lies within a residential neighbourhood near the periphery of the Lower Hutt business district. It is essentially flat, and its two titles contain two detached dwellings. There is some existing vegetation, especially at the rear (towards the northeast boundary) where there are a variety of relatively tall, closely grouped trees.

 

1.1.4      Because of its location and zoning as a medium density residential area, the site and the neighbourhood are deemed by the district plan as an appropriate location for multi-unit development. Notwithstanding its zoning, members of the community expressed concerns in submissions and at the hearing about the development’s scale and associated potential effects. My decision-making process has therefore carefully considered relevant aspects of the proposal recognising that potential impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood must be appropriately examined.

 

1.1.5      My reasoning and conclusions are contained in this decision.

 

 

1.2.         Major Elements of the Proposal

 

1.2.1      Six two-storey buildings are proposed, with five of the buildings each comprising two attached townhouses. The sixth building, sited along the road frontage, is proposed as a block of three attached townhouses. In total, 13 dwellings are proposed within the land covered by the two existing titles. Each dwelling will include a single garage.

 

1.2.2      The development will be accompanied by a subdivision, providing freehold title to each of the 13 dwellings. The 13 new lots will be accompanied by a 14th lot, held in joint ownership. The purpose of Lot 14, which will run along most of the southeast boundary, is to accommodate a 5 metre wide right of way and other shared services. Subdivision will occur after the buildings have been constructed.

 

1.2.3      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. Shared pedestrian and vehicle access for Dwellings 4 –13 will be via the right of way. There will be landscaping along the right of way and areas of planting beside the front doors of the dwellings.

 

1.2.4      All of the site will be affected by development earthworks, and much of the site will be raised through the importation and placement of fill. More fill will be placed towards the rear of the site than at the front and will be contained by low retaining walls along boundaries. The purpose of the fill is to create a gentle fall from rear to front as part of the stormwater management system.

 

1.3.         Neighbourhood Description

 

1.3.1      The immediate and wider neighbourhood of the site contains a mix of development styles and uses. In forming my impression of the neighbourhood, I have considered Mills Street on both sides of Connolly Street, and Connolly Street up to the CBD fringe which begins in the vicinity of Rutherford Street. Dr Parkes, the council’s urban design adviser, in his urban design assessment report noted that the surrounding area is very walkable. He observed that there are shops and services reasonably close by, and there is visual amenity with mature landscaping and vistas available towards the surrounding hills.

 

1.3.2      My own observation is that, in terms of housing, the neighbourhood appears to contain a wide spread of ages from pre World War II through to the present. Many properties have detached one-storey, single dwellings. However, there are also some two-storey dwellings and some multi-unit developments. The multi-unit developments are not recent and have a significantly different style to that proposed by the applicant.

 

1.3.3      The character of the neighbourhood is influenced by its proximity to the CBD. Connolly Street, between Mills and Rutherford, contains several early childhood centres. A large new mixed-use commercial development (Verve @ Connolly) occupies a corner of Connolly / Rutherford. Another corner of Connolly / Rutherford is occupied by the Riverleigh residential care facility.

1.3.4      Given the neighbourhood’s proximity to the CBD and other non-residential uses, Connolly Street, between Rutherford and Mills, is subject to various marked parking restrictions (P120 to P10). Mills Street is the nearest street without timed restrictions.

 

1.3.5      Mills Street has an approximately 20 metre legal width, with verges on either side of around 5 to 5.5 metres width. There are a small number of street trees. One is located outside the application site, and it is one of the more significant trees in the street.

 

1.3.6      The site borders a Hutt River stopbank reserve, and the stopbank itself lies directly outside the northeast boundary of the site. A path along the top of the stopbank will allow passers-by to gain a good view into the site – as it does into some other nearby properties. Such a view is currently not possible due to the tall and thickly growing vegetation at the rear of the site.

 

 

2.         Process Followed up to the Hearing

 

2.1.         Notification

 

2.1.1      Following receipt of the application the council prepared a notification report. The report established that consent is required as a discretionary activity for both the land use and subdivision components of the application.

 

2.1.2      For the land use application, a multi-unit development can be assessed as a restricted discretionary activity – provided that relevant permitted activity standards are met. In the case of 48 and 50 Mills Street, the development would not meet various permitted activity standards. The proposed development infringes, to a greater or lesser degree, district plan conditions related to: net site area; yard setbacks; recession planes; site coverage; and permeable surface. Due to those infringements, the notification assessment concluded that the overall land use application must be treated as a discretionary activity. I concur with that finding.

 

2.1.3      The council’s notification assessment also concluded that the subdivision component is a discretionary activity. Again, I concur.

 

2.1.4      The notification assessment correctly examined whether the application should be treated as non-notified, fully notified, or subject to limited notification. The assessment concluded the application should be notified to a limited number of neighbours. I agree with the overall conclusion regarding limited notification, and also agree with the list of parties who were notified. Many of those parties were represented at the hearing.

 

2.2.         Consultation

 

2.2.1      Before the application was notified, the applicant approached the owners and occupants of 52 Mills Street, 54B Mills Street, 53A Connolly Street and 55 Connolly Street. I understand the intention of this consultation was to obtain written approvals if possible, but none were forthcoming.

 

2.2.2      Given the council planner’s recommendation that consent should be granted, the council planner and the applicant’s planner discussed proposed consent conditions both before and after the hearing. I have largely adopted those conditions, but subject to some changes referred to elsewhere in my decision.

 

 

3.            Hearing and Matters in Contention

 

3.1.         Site Visits

 

3.1.1      I undertook two site visits to assist my decision-making, one before and one after the hearing. The second site visit helped me to better understand some of the matters referred to by the applicant, submitters and the council at the hearing.

 

3.2.         Summary of Matters Addressed at Hearing and in Contention

 

3.2.1      I was assisted at the hearing by Mrs Heather Clegg who took comprehensive notes to support my own recording of the matters covered during the hearing.

 

3.2.2      This section is a summary overview of the parties who appeared and the matters which were addressed at the hearing. Subsequent sections of my decision address specific matters and effects in more detail.

 

3.2.3      Persons appearing for the applicant were:

Mr Tom Anderson – consultant planner

Mr Zac Kljakovic – architect

Mr Paddy Faisandier – applicant representative

 

3.2.4      Persons appearing for the Hutt City Council were:

Dr Peter Parkes – consultant architect / urban designer

Mr David Wanty – consultant traffic engineer

Mr Brad Greening – planner

Mr Stephen Dennis – principal planner

Ms Emily Bayliss – consultant planner

 

3.2.5      Submitters appearing were:

Mr & Mrs Barry White, 51 Connolly Street

Ms Kane, 54B Mills Street

Mr Niraj Joshi, 53A Connolly Street

Mr Matthew Mc Dowell, 52 Mills Street

 

3.2.6      Matters addressed at the hearing included:

Amenity – including visual impacts of built development; shading; loss of vegetation; noise; and waste management.

Stormwater – including the risk of water ponding on neighbouring properties; and the amount of imported fill used to raise ground levels.

Parking – including the current kerbside parking situation; impacts arising from visitors to residents; and parking over the footpath by occupants of dwellings 1 to 3.

Construction – including disruption by construction noise and traffic.

 

4.            Section 104(1)(a) Effects Assessment

 

4.1.         Amenity Overview

 

4.1.1      The redevelopment of this site will significantly change the existing amenity associated with the land. The two existing residential lots are each occupied by a single one-storey dwelling. Those dwellings are relatively small by comparison to the approximately 1,000m2 size of each lot. As a consequence, the land has the appearance of being relatively low density, especially when viewed from the side - that is, from neighbouring properties on Connolly Street, and from 52 and 54B Mills Street.

 

4.1.2      The proposed development will introduce greater density, greater bulk, and other amenity effects related to a more intensive use of the land. Those effects, whether potential or actual, can be summarised as including:

 

Visual – closely spaced two-storey buildings creating a more ‘urban’ appearance to the site. For the Connolly Street submitters, there will be an effect on views towards the Western Hutt hills. The loss of existing vegetation will reduce the pleasantness of views experienced by neighbours.

Shading – buildings which create shading, exacerbated by raising of ground levels to implement a stormwater solution for the site.

Privacy – with development paralleling the length of the external boundaries, the potential for impacts on privacy, through overlooking.

Noise – an increased potential for noise, with 13 dwellings replacing the existing two.

 

4.2.         Amenity: Comparable Development Model

 

4.2.1      In explaining and considering amenity and other effects, both the applicant and the council advanced a model of development which might otherwise occur on the site. This was referred to as a permitted baseline in the consent application, whereas the council refers to it as a comparable development model. I adopt use of the council’s term ‘comparable development model’.

 

4.2.2      Any development of the site which involves subdivision requires resource consent. For that reason, there can be no ‘permitted baseline’ for this development. However, some forms of subdivision are a controlled activity, for which council must grant consent. In effect, there are forms of development for which consent would be granted, and which therefore provide a basis for comparison with the development for which consent has been sought. The comparable development model is based on a subdivision into six 300m2 lots, plus an access lot.

 

4.2.3      I agree with Ms Bayliss that the comparable development model:

 

Demonstrates a density and scale of development that the district plan foresees for the site; and

Is an acceptable method of assessing effects on the surrounding environment.

 

4.2.4      Having established the parameters of a comparable development model, Ms Bayliss in her officer’s report goes on to assess a range of potential amenity effects arising from the proposed development. I concur with the overall direction of her assessment, being that effects on amenity are acceptable. In particular, I find that the effects of noncompliance with recession planes are less than minor. There will little or no practical effect when compared with what might otherwise be built under the comparable development model.

 

 

4.3          Amenity: Shading

 

4.3.1      With regard to shading, the application included plans showing shading associated with the comparable model, and separate plans showing shading from the proposed development. At the hearing I requested that the applicant provide greater detail and bring together information from the two sets of plans. My intent in doing that was to make a clear comparison of the difference in effects.

 

4.3.2      A comprehensive set of shading diagrams was provided in the applicant’s written right of reply. For the purposes of the shading study, the applicant included a permitted baseline. That is, four residential two-storey dwellings, two located on each current lot and complying with relevant bulk and location standards. The shading study also included the comparable baseline referred to earlier; the proposed development; and the existing development on site.

 

4.3.3      I found the shading study to be very helpful in understanding and comparing degrees of effect. Based on the diagrams of the shading study, Mr Anderson provided a thorough analysis of the effects in his written right of reply. I accept that analysis, noting that the effects of shading will often be internal to the site. At some hours of the day / times of year, it is apparent that shading arising from permitted development could actually be slightly worse than shading from the proposed development, in terms of effects on neighbouring properties.

 

4.4.         Amenity: Landscaping and Existing Trees

 

4.4.1      As noted earlier, the rear of the site is thickly vegetated with relatively tall trees. In answer to questions at the hearing, Dr Parkes stated that there are some good specimens of native trees - especially tī kōuka (cabbage trees) – and some are at least 30 years old. In his opinion, the amenity associated with mature trees is hard to replace with new vegetation, and retention of some existing trees would help to moderate proposed changes to environment. Dr Parkes noted the desirability of the applicant reviewing the extent of trees which could be retained, especially along boundaries. He acknowledged that some trees do not respond well to ground being filled around their bases.

 

4.4.2      The practicality of retaining trees is an issue due to parts of the site being raised by up to 610mm, as well as limited space outside the footprint of consented buildings. Dr Parkes suggested that an arborist would be best placed to advise if trees could be retained in situ or relocated elsewhere within the site. He concluded by noting that, in the absence of any existing trees being retained, the applicant has proposed a reasonable amount of new planting. From an urban design perspective, Dr Parkes therefore considered the proposed planting to be appropriate and adequate.

 

4.4.3      The amenity and local ecological value of the existing trees was also noted by submitters in either their written or oral submissions. Ms Chapman of 54B Mills Street brought to the hearing’s attention the fact that some trees are planted directly on the boundary with her property. She requested that this issue should be addressed to avoid damage/loss of those specimens. For her, the trees provide both amenity and a degree privacy. I requested the applicant to prepare a survey plan of the shared boundary, showing the location of trees. The survey plan was provided in the applicant’s written right of reply. The applicant has proffered a condition requiring that trees on the boundary with 54B Mills Street be retained and protected from damage during construction. This requirement to protect from damage also applies to trees that are within 54B Mills Street. I find that this consent condition is an appropriate response to the issue.

 

4.4.4      I have considered the opinions of council’s urban design adviser, and the views of submitters, in relation to retention of other mature vegetation on the site. I find that retention of some vegetation, if practicable, may assist with integrating the development into its surroundings. To that end, I have imposed a land use consent condition requiring that an expert arborist identify significant trees, report on their suitability for retention or transplanting, and that this information is used to inform the final landscape plan. The condition requires that all trees of 3.5 metres or greater height be plotted and assessed. The survey plan provided with the applicant’s right of reply identifies various trees within the site, but it does not indicate heights.

 

4.4.5    For the sake of clarity, I find that the landscaping proposed by the applicant will achieve acceptable outcomes by itself1. I note and accept the advice of Ms Bayliss that the removal of any trees on the site would be a permitted activity under the district plan. The additional consent condition requiring an arborist’s assessment is intended to improve upon those outcomes, if possible.

 

4.4.6      Whether or not the condition leads to some existing vegetation being kept is a matter for the arborist’s expert assessment of the practicality of retention or transplanting. It also relies on subsequent responses of the applicant and council in preparing and approving the final landscape plan.

 

4.5          Amenity: Privacy and Noise

 

4.5.1      Submitters were concerned by the potential for overlooking into their properties from the second storey levels of the proposed dwellings. The design is proposed to incorporate external louvres, privacy screening, and the use of frosted glass where necessary. The applicant’s right of reply provided a drawing to demonstrate how such measures can limit the degree of overlooking which might occur. I have included a land use consent condition requiring the consent holder to adopt the design approach exemplified by that drawing.

 

4.5.2      Most parts of the dwellings are sufficiently set back from external boundaries. In combination with specific design elements that limit the ease of overlooking, I find that effects on privacy for neighbouring properties will be acceptable.

 

4.5.3      I have no reason to consider that the proposed development will lead to undue noise effects.

 

 

 

 

 

4.6          Stormwater Management

 

4.6.1      Site earthworks, including around 780m3 of imported fill, are the basis for managing stormwater associated with the development. Retaining walls will be built around the periphery of the site, allowing filling of the site by up to 610mm. The outcome will be a positive fall in levels from the rear of the property towards the road, facilitating the onsite drainage system.

 

4.6.2      The proposed works include stormwater attenuation tanks, and overall the site will achieve stormwater neutrality. That is, the extent of stormwater discharge from the site will be no greater than the current volumes discharged in either a 10 year or a 100 year rainfall event.

 

4.6.3      Submitters outlined concerns related to the proposed build up of land, and their assumptions that this would:

Direct stormwater runoff onto neighbouring properties; and/or

Create a barrier to movement of stormwater off neighbouring properties, so that ponding builds up against the proposed boundary retaining walls.

 

4.6.4      I find that stormwater effects will be acceptable. In reaching that conclusion I agree with and rely on the review of the design information by the council’s inhouse and external engineering experts, including that:

Onsite stormwater neutrality will be achieved by the design (which includes stormwater attenuation tanks).

There are no current flows onto or from neighbouring properties, and therefore no ponding will occur.

The design should not be permitted to allow free drainage of water onto neighbouring properties (this has been addressed by amending a consent condition proposed by the planners).

The stormwater network has sufficient capacity.

 

4.7          Traffic and Parking

 

4.7.1      The district plan requires one off street parking space per dwelling. The development will provide that number of spaces within single garages integral to each town house. Notwithstanding the provision of parking to council standards, submitters were concerned by the lack of provision for visitor parking. They drew attention to the existing kerbside parking situation in Mills Street, where all available space is often occupied. As noted earlier, parking demand in the neighbourhood appears to be influenced by proximity to the Lower Hutt business district and time limited parking in Connolly Street. The current situation is clearly an annoyance to residents, and they are opposed to anything which might make matters worse.

 

4.7.2      Mr Wanty, the council’s expert traffic consultant, advised that the provision of access for the development will require the loss of two kerbside parking spaces. He also noted that after business hours, there is more availability of kerbside parking. Mr Wanty had suggested to council that land at the end Mills Street (by the stopbank) be developed for additional parking, but council’s traffic team does not favour this approach. Mr Dennis (Hutt City Council Principal Resource Consents Planner) advised that traffic impact fees could be imposed on the consent holder to pay for such a redevelopment, but it is not common practice.

 

4.7.3      Mr Wanty advised that design changes have largely addressed concerns about safety related to driveways and the setback of dwellings 1 to 3. Occasional use of the driveway / verge area for those dwellings – for instance, while washing a car – will only be a minor inconvenience for pedestrians. Mr Wanty also noted that changes to landscaping beside the shared right of way will ensure that sufficient width is provided. Mr Anderson confirmed that landscaping in that area will remain but will be adjusted to provide the required right of way width. Mr Wanty advised that manoeuvring beside the retained street tree will not be unduly impacted by the design of driveways.

 

4.7.4      Having regard to the advice of the council’s traffic and planning experts, I find that the traffic generation and traffic engineering effects of the development are acceptable.

 

4.7.5      I have also reached the conclusion that the kerbside parking situation is a management issue for the Hutt City Council. It may well be capable of consideration and actions that will benefit residents. However, the council’s approach to parking management is beyond my remit to consider.

 

5.            Assessment of Relevant Planning Instruments Under s104(1)(b)

 

5.1.         National Direction

 

5.1.1      Both Ms Bayliss and Mr Anderson referred to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC). Both planners agreed the development is consistent with the NPSD-UDC and I accept their evidence on this matter.

 

5.1.2      The NPS-UDC is a relevant consideration because it directs Hutt City Council to ensure there is sufficient development capacity to meet current and future needs. The medium density overlay of the district plan is consistent with the NPS-UDC.

 

5.2.         Regional Policy Statement

 

5.2.1      Ms Bayliss adopted the applicant’s assessment of the RPS. I agree that the development is not inconsistent with that document.

 

5.3          District Plan

 

5.3.1      The evidence of Mr Anderson for the Applicant, and the s42A report prepared by Ms Bayliss, provided a thorough identification of relevant district plan provisions, and assessments against those provisions. I adopt their conclusions in a general sense, subject to comments I make elsewhere in this decision.

 

5.3.2      In summary, the effects of the proposed development are largely consistent with and anticipated by the district plan.

 

6.            Assessment of Other Matters Under s104(1)(c)

 

6.1.1      Section 104(1)(c) requires that I also have regard to “any other matter … relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application”. This is a separate consideration from section 104(1)(a) “any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity”. I consider there are no other matters to be addressed under section 104(1)(c).

 

7.         Part 2 – Assessment

 

7.1.         Part 2 Analysis

 

7.1.1      In making a consent decision, section 104(1) of the Resource Management Act requires my consideration to be “subject to Part 2”.

 

7.1.2      The Hutt City district plan is significantly older than 10 years but has been subject to a ‘rolling review’ process in the years since its original notification. Given its age, there is a risk that the district plan could be considered as out of step with higher order planning documents, changes to the RMA, and relevant case law which affects the development and interpretation of policy.

 

7.1.3      Notwithstanding the rolling review process, the district plan pre-dates rulings of the Courts in King Salmon and Davidson which have a bearing on the language used in planning policy, and how Part 2 should be approached. This is relevant to my consideration of the resource consent. “Avoid”, in particular, has assumed an especially constrained meaning via King Salmon. However, the district plan’s issue statements, and its explanations for policies, make it clear to me that medium density development is to be encouraged, provided that potential effects are appropriately remedied or mitigated.

 

7.1.4      Having reached the view that the district plan’s policy framework presents no real obstacles to granting consent, and following the reasoning of Davidson, further review under Part 2 may seem unnecessary. However, given the district plan’s age, I believe that in this instance a review against Part 2 is a useful exercise.

 

7.1.5      The two expert planners provided such reviews against Part 2 of the Act, expressing general agreement and similar opinions.

 

7.1.6      Ms Bayliss in her s42A report notes benefits such as the consolidation of urban form, and the site’s location close to public transport, shops, schools, recreation facilities and employment opportunities. She concludes that these outcomes are consistent with section 5 of the Act through providing for the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of residents. Mr Anderson, in his evidence, goes further and makes a link to section 7(b) – the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources. In his opinion, the development is a “necessary” outcome of both the district plan and statutory national direction.

 

7.1.7      With regard to amenity, the opinion of Ms Bayliss is that the design limits perceptions of density through yard setbacks, modulation and landscaping. She considers that these aspects will mitigate adverse effects on adjacent sites and the wider environment. Mr Anderson draws on his understanding of the views expressed by the design experts, Mr Kljakovic for the applicant and Dr Parkes for the council. That is, he considers there will be positive effects on streetscape and character, and through the creation of a quality living environment for the occupants of the new development. Mr Anderson links this to consistency with sections 7(c) and 7(f) of the Act – being concerned with maintenance and enhancement of “amenity values” and “quality of the environment” respectively.

 

7.1.8      I agree with the general direction of Part 2 analysis by the planning experts. In particular, I agree that:

 

The site and the development will be consistent with section 5 of the Act, through providing for the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of its residents.

There are no relevant section 6 (national importance) matters.

The development is consistent with section 7(b) in that it will be an efficient use of resources.

The development will be consistent with section 7 regarding amenity created for residents of the site.

There are no section 8 (Treaty of Waitangi) matters specifically relevant to the proposal.

 

7.1.9      My own analysis places somewhat greater emphasis on amenity / environmental quality outside of the site. As noted earlier, adjacent properties borrow a degree of visual and natural amenity from the existing trees on site. Having particular regard to that matter, I have imposed a land use consent condition requiring that the consent holder consider the retention of some trees, if practicable.

 

8.            Conditions and Result

 

8.1          After the hearing, the Council provided a tracked version that included changes agreed between Ms Bayliss and Mr Anderson. Mr Anderson’s written right of reply, provided later, included the same conditions but with the addition of a new condition addressing existing trees on the boundary with 54B Mills Street.

 

8.2          I have accepted the conditions agreed between the planners but amended them where I considered it desirable for reasons of clarity. The conditions are attached as Appendix 1 to this decision, and also issued as a separate document with this decision.

 

8.3          As noted elsewhere, I have included a condition (Land Use Consent Condition 4) intended to address the loss of amenity which will occur through the removal of existing vegetation from the site. The condition I have imposed is a requirement that the consent holder plot all significant (over 3.5 metres height) vegetation on the site, and engage a qualified arborist to prepare a report advising whether each specimen can be kept in situ, transplanted elsewhere on site, or must be removed. My intention in imposing this condition is to ensure that well informed thought goes into preparation of the landscape plan for the development. The landscape plan is subject to final approval by council. The condition I have added does not override the boundary vegetation condition submitted in Mr Anderson’s written right of reply.

 

8.4          The boundary vegetation condition submitted by Mr Anderson responds to concerns raised in the submission and hearing appearance of Ms Chapman, the owner of 54B Mills Street. The condition (Land Use Consent Condition 3) requires that trees which grow on the shared boundary between the site and 54B Mills Street are protected during construction and retained as part of the development.

 

8.5          I consider after having regard to all relevant matters that the single purpose of the Resource Management Act is best served by granting consent on terms set by the conditions contained in Appendix 1.

 

9.            Acknowledgments

 

9.1.         I would like to thank the participants for their constructive engagement in the process. I especially note the contribution of persons who submitted on the application and appeared at the hearing. Local knowledge has great value in any hearing. The views of submitters about specific potential effects is also valuable and assisted my consideration.

 

9.2.         The careful assessment, investigation and response to the issues by all parties was appreciated – in preparing or assessing the application material, responding to my questions at the hearing, or providing further information post-hearing. I would also like to acknowledge the collaborative work of the planners involved in preparing a draft of consent conditions, as well as the various experts who shed light on particular issues.

 

 

Mark Ashby (Chairperson)

 

9 December 2019

 

Appendix 1

Subdivision Consent Conditions

1. That the proposal is carried out substantially in accordance with the information and approved plans Lots 1 to 14 being a proposed subdivision of Lot 6 & Pt Lot 7 DP 4230, dated 18 December 2018, Plan No 10,791, Sheets 1 and 2 of 2, Prepared by Wigley and Roberts Limited. 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 the Council subdivision engineer in assessing, inspecting, testing and approving water, sewer and stormwater services, access or any other aspect of the proposal 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.

 

Note:

If this subdivision qualifies for remission of Council fees it will still be necessary to calculate an amount and provide that figure at the 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 the time of application for 224(c) 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 installs the reticulation as necessary and connects separate minimum 100mm Nominal Bore sewer and stormwater service leads to the public mains for each residential lot (and adjusts existing services where necessary) in accordance with Council’s codes and standards.

 

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.

 

5. 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.

 

6. That the consent holder supplies water reticulation as necessary and supplies separate minimum 20mm NB Nominal Bore 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).

 

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 the Council subdivision engineer.

 

 

7. 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.

 

 

8. The ground-floor windows of the proposed dwelling/garage on lots 11 and 12 where they adjoin the right-of-way must 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.

 

 

9. That the consent holder submits two copies of engineering plans for the above construction work to the Council subdivision engineer for approval; that the plans provide information on the materials to be used, including the size, type and class of pipes, as well as indicate pipe gradients; and that all this work is carried out in accordance with the approved plan.

 

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.

 

10. That the consent holder provides underground telephone and electrical services to each lot in accordance with the specifications and requirements of the relevant authority.

 

11. 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.

 

12. 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.

 

13. 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 increased where there is more than one service within that easement.

 

14. 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.

 

 

15. That the consent holder ensures all buildings other than those shown on approved plan Lots 1 to 14 being a proposed subdivision of Lot 6 & Pt Lot 7DP 4230, dated 18 December 2018, Plan No 10,791, Sheets 1 and 2 of 2, Prepared by Wrigley and Roberts Limited are clear of the new boundaries before applying for a section 224(c) certificate.

 

 

16. 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.

 

 

17. 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.

 

18. 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.

 

19. 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.

 

 

20. 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.

 

21. 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.

 

 

22. In order to mitigate the potential adverse effects that may arise from creating a vacant allotment that does not have the ability to accommodate residential buildings in accordance with the permitted activity standards of the District Plan, the new dwelling houses proposed for Lots 1 to 13 must be constructed in accordance with the plans approved by Land Use Consent condition (1) Decision RM180521, prior to the issue of the section 224(c) certificate. The consent holder shall also ensure all servicing has been installed/constructed prior to the issue of the section 224(c) certificate, this includes the formation of the private way and vehicle crossings in accordance with conditions 18-22 of Land Use Consent decision RM180521.

 

Note:

In order to satisfy this condition, all residential buildings are to be constructed to a stage where the external cladding and roof are completed. The installation of servicing and formation of the vehicle crossings and private way must also be completed.

 

 

 

Land Use Consent 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; submitted with the application and held on file at Council.

 

Note: If the following conditions of this resource consent conflict with the above plan set, the plans as per the conditions must take precedence.

 

Landscaping and vegetation

 

2. Prior to the commencement of construction, a final landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by Council’s City Infrastructure Department. This landscape plan must include all features detailed on the Landscape Scheme produced by BIOME, Pages 1 – 4 Revision 08/07/19 (and held on file at Council), but be modified to include;

 

Changes as a consequence of Revision G of the development plans;

Raingarden/stormwater planter specifications;

A landscaping buffer with a minimum width of 700mm within Lot 1, adjacent to common property.

 

All planting must be undertaken as soon as the seasons make practicable, but within six months of completing construction on each dwelling. Landscaping in areas of common property must be completed within two months of completion of construction of the last dwelling approved by this consent. 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 dwelling.

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.

 

 

3. All trees which grow on the shared boundary with or within Lot 2 DP 416757 (being 54B Mills Street) must be retained. Prior to any vegetation clearance commencing, the consent holder must demarcate these boundary or neighbouring (54B Mills Street) trees by flagging tape or equivalent, so that those trees are protected from accidental damage. The demarcation must remain in place until such time as the earthworks have been completed, and new fences constructed.

 

4. Prior to submission and approval of the final landscape plan required by Land Use Consent Condition 1, the consent holder must commission an assessment by a suitably qualified arborist. The arborist shall plot all significant existing vegetation within the site (being vegetation 3.5 metres or more in height). The vegetation shall be assessed for its suitability to remain in-situ, or for transplanting elsewhere within the site. The arborist’s assessment shall be used to inform the final landscape plan. The plot of vegetation and the assessment shall be provided to the Team Leader Resource Consents and shall summarise reasons for retaining, transplanting, or removing each specimen of significant vegetation.

 

Note:

The purpose of this condition is to ensure that the consent holder adequately explores the potential for retaining vegetation on site that contributes to existing neighbourhood amenity. It is not intended to frustrate other conditions which consent building footprints, or to unreasonably reduce amenity within the consent site.

 

 

Demolition and Construction Management

 

5. 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 Team Leader, Resource Consents 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.

Details of complaint handling, and communication procedures including notification and any necessary monitoring.

Safety fencing and associated signage for the construction site.

The hours of operation, and days of the week, when demolition and construction activities will be undertaken.

Construction Traffic Management

 

6. 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 Team Leader, Resource Consents 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. trucks 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 Management

 

7. At least 10 working days before any works commence on the site the consent holder must submit a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP). The CNVMP 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 vibration mitigation measures including identifying practical mitigation methods to manage construction vibration associated with any percussive piling methods or any other process or machinery that may give rise to detectable vibration effects within adjacent residential or education-related buildings in the area.

Specify details of complaint handling, and 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 CNVMP, 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 Team Leader, Resource Consents.

 

8. Prior to undertaking any works within the dripline of the street tree outside 50 Mills Street (including but not limited to storage of materials, parking of vehicles, trenching or other development works, construction of vehicle crossovers and widening of the footpath), approval must be sought from Contracts Manager – Green Assets. Contact Hutt City Council on 570 6666.

 

 

9. That the consent holder constructs the private way at the location detailed on the approved plans in Land Use Consent Condition 1, including a heavy-duty vehicle crossing and necessary stormwater control in accordance with Council’s codes and standards (being NZS 4404: 2010, HCC standard plan CM1005 26R and HCC standard plan CM1005-22R), unless otherwise approved by Council’s Subdivision Engineer.

 

Note:

Before building any retaining walls subject to traffic loading (or other surcharge), or any retaining walls that 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.

 

 

10. That prior to construction being completed, the consent holder removes the existing concrete vehicle crossings and constructs standard concrete vehicle crossings to Proposed units 1, 2 and 3 in Building A, as indicated on the approved plans in Land Use Consent Condition 1, in the position indicated on those plans, and reinstates the kerb, footpath and berm, all in accordance with Council’s codes and standards (being NZS 4404: 2010 and HCC standard plan CM1005 25R), unless otherwise approved by Council’s Subdivision Engineer.

 

 

11. That the consent holder sandblasts off (not paints over) existing broken-yellow lines and L-bars road markings outside the property.

 

 

12. 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’s 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 (being NZS 4404: 2010, the ‘Regional Standard for Water Services’ and ‘Regional Specification for Water Services’ and the ‘Approved Products Register’, including all associated amendments).

 

 

13. 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’s 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’s subdivision engineer before starting work.

 

14. That, prior to construction being completed, the consent holder widens the footpath as indicated on the approved plans in Land Use Consent Condition 1, in the position indicated on those plans, all in accordance with Council’s codes and standards (Being NZS 4404: 2010, HCC standard plan CM1005 26R and/or HCC standard plan CM1005-25R) unless otherwise approved by Council’s Subdivision Engineer.

 

 

Earthworks Management

 

15. 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.

 

Note:

 

The EMP should include measures to detail compliance with Land Use Consent conditions 16 to 22.

 

 

16. 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.

 

 

17. 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.

 

 

18. 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 September 2002, Reprinted June 2006).

 

 

19. That the consent holder ensures earthworks do not affect the stability of adjoining properties.

 

 

20. 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.

 

21. 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.)

 

22. 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.

 

 

Management Plan Implementation

 

23. The DCMP, CTP, CNVMP and EMP approved under Land Use Consent conditions 6, 7, 8 and 15 must be implemented and maintained throughout the entire construction period and modified as directed by Team Leader Resource Consents to deal with any deficiencies in their operation.

 

The consent holder shall submit the final CMP and related CNVMP, CTP and EMP for consideration and approval by Team Leader Resource Consents, following consultation with, and acceptance from, appropriate officers within the Council.

 

Council’s Team Leader, Resource Consents will provide their feedback or 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 approval to any proposed changes. The Team Leader, Resource Consents 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.

 

Stormwater Management

 

24. That during site works the consent holder takes measures to ensure stormwater and surface water run-off does not affect adjoining properties, and that post-construction 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. Boundary retaining walls must not be free draining onto adjacent properties.

 

 

Building Design and Materials

 

25. Prior to construction commencing the consent holder must submit a plan showing the full and final details of all exterior envelope materials and details, for approval by the Team Leader, Resource Consents.

 

The Team Leader, Resource Consents must liaise with the Urban Design Advisor to confirm that the materials are appropriate.

 

 

26. The consent holder must install and maintain a privacy screen on the windows of Bed 1 and Bed 2 in Unit 13, which is in accordance with the privacy screen detailed on plan 3.08.

 

27. The consent holder must implement the design approach to overlooking of neighbouring properties demonstrated by Drawing 9.01 submitted with the applicant’s right of reply. This includes, for upper storeys, vertical opaque louvres to restrict views through windows with clear glass, and frosting of glass for those windows for which louvres are not proposed.

 

28. The combined height of all structures (retaining walls and fences) placed on the site boundaries must not exceed 2m.

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

 

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 www.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.