,A U C K L A N D C O U N C I L
Decision following the hearing of an application for resource consent
SUBJECT: Application by Qian-Long Family Trust (Overland Developments Ltd) to construct a mixed-use development consisting of six ground level retail units and six upper level residential units at 1215 Dominion Road/Corner Richardson Road and Dominion Road, Mount Roskill.
Hearing Date: 18thDecember 2013 at 9.30am.
CONSENT, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 104, 104B, 104D AND 108 AND PART 2 OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT, IS GRANTED.
THE FULL DECISION IS SET OUT BELOW
Hearing Panel: The Application was heard by Hearings Commissioners consisting of:
Pamela Peters (Chairperson) Cherie Lane
John Childs
Council Officers: Mark Weingarth Team Leader Resource
Consents
John Cranfield Reporting Planner Sam Shumane Traffic Engineer
Gabriel Seo Urban Designer
Andrea Aranha Democracy Advisor - Hearings APPEARANCES:
For the applicant: Qian-Long Trust represented by: Stephen Havill, Planner Zhao Wei Qui (Adam) Applicant
Bryce Hall, Traffic Engineer Wayne Houston, Architect
Submitters: Fran Unkovich
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION
Application and Property Details
Application Number: R/LUC/2013/976
Site Address: 1215 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland, 1041 Legal Description: Lot 5 DP 40240 CT NA 1090/190
Applicant's Name: Qian-Long Family Trust
Lodgement Date: 21st March 2013
Hearing Commencement: 18th December 2013 Hearing Panel’s Site Visit: 12th December 2013
Hearing Closed: 11th February 2014
INTRODUCTION
This decision is made on behalf of the Auckland Council (the Council) by Independent Hearing Commissioners Pamela Peters, Cherie Lane and John Childs appointed and acting under delegated authority pursuant to sections 34 & 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
The proposal involves a development on the corner site of Richardson Road and Dominion Road known as 1215 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill South. Qian-Long Trust seeks land-use consent to construct a mixed use development consisting of six ground level retail units and six upper level residential units on the site. A sixteen-space car parking area is proposed to be situated to the rear of the buildings and accessed from Richardson Road.
The site is zoned Residential 6b, in the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999).
The proposal is a non-complying activity as it involves the establishment of retail activities within a residential zone. It also exceeds the permitted density, involves earthworks over 500m2, exceeds the building in relation to boundary rule, exceeds permitted building coverage, landscaping and impervious surface controls and the front yard controls. It is located within a defined road boundary. It also involves a vehicle parking shortfall. A dispensation from the signs bylaw is also required.
The hearing was originally scheduled to be held on 30th October 2013 but was later changed to 18th December 2013 to allow re-notification of some nearby properties, whose ownership had changed since providing written approvals.
A site visit was undertaken on 12th December 2013 prior to the hearing.
After hearing all of the evidence, the hearing was adjourned on 18th December 2013. It was agreed, by the Commissioners and Applicant’s representative that an updated set of plans and the revised conditions be provided by the Applicant at the earliest convenience. The revised conditions and latest plans were received on 10th February 2014. After considering the information, the Commissioners determined that they had no further questions of the applicant and the hearing was closed on 11th February 2014.
This decision contains the findings of the Commissioners deliberations on the resource consent application and has been prepared in accordance with section 113 of the RMA. SUBMISSIONS
At the close of the submission period, 17 submissions were received, with no late submissions. There were 8 submissions in support and 9 opposing.
A summary of the issues raised in submissions together with the relief sought by the submitters is set out in the following table from the section 42 Hearing Report.
The table is only a summary of the key issues raised in submissions. The full set of submissions is attached in Appendix 5 of the Hearing Report.
No. Name Physical Address Issues Raised (detailed below)
Relief Sought 1 Fran Unkovich 572A Richardson Road,
Mount Roskill 1041
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 To decline 2 Mary Vidovich 32 Katavich Place, Mount
Roskill 1041
2, 3, 5 Not stated
3 Molly Pascoe PO Box 55019, Eastridge 1146 1, 2, 4 Provide more parking 4 Barry W & Beverley F Bryan 2/1444 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill 1041 7, 8 Provide more parking 5 David Donaldson 57A Aldersgate Road,
Hillsborough 1042
6, 7, 8 To grant
6 Lawrie Bow 67 Maioro Street, New Windsor 0600
6 Not stated
7 Rodney W Giles 37 Penney Avenue, Lynfield North 1041
7 To grant
8 Cherry Kirk 68 Haycock Avenue, Mount Roskill 1041
7, 8 Not stated
9 Colleen Kirker 2-1211 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill 1041
1, 2, 3, 5 To decline 10 James Hodgins,
Hodgins Design Ltd
PO Box 24556 Royal Oak 1345
7, 8 To grant
11 Dongyi Wu 572 Richardson Road, Mount Roskill 1041
1, 2, 3 To decline
12 Deborah La Hatte 1211 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill South 1041
1, 2, 3, 4 To decline 13 Michael Sin Level 2, 703A Manukau
Road, Royal Oak 1041
6, 7, 8 To grant
14 Manjula Patel, Harshila Patel, Hetal Patel, Tulsi Rama
1205 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill South 1041
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 To decline
15 Sylvia Marija Sokolich
15 Mongorry Place, Mount Roskill, Auckland
1, 2, 4 Not stated
16 Kim Leianu Kwok 95 Grande Vue Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102
2, 3, 4 Not stated
17 J Patel 2/574 Richardson Road,
Mount Roskill South 1041
Grant with conditions ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS
(1) Parking – insufficient onsite parking, existing on-street parking congestion worsening.
(2) Traffic – increased vehicle movements at a congested intersection, pedestrian safety effects and vehicle accidents caused by vehicles entering/exiting the site. (3) Residential amenity – Noise caused by residential/commercial tenants and
rats from inadequate waste disposal, poor housing quality, and loss of sunlight/daylight.
(4) Reduced commercial/economic amenity – Mount Roskill South shops and the Mount Roskill (central) shops have experienced a loss of anchor tenants (banks, post office etc.) with vacant or poor quality shops replacing them and the proposal will worsen situation.
(5) Reduced visual amenity – removal of trees, unattractive building design, too large. (6) Improve visual amenity - an attractive design.
(7) Improve social and commercial/economic amenity – includes security, attractive design, useful/handy for locals.
(8) Provide increased housing.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND ACTIVITY STATUS The Proposal
The proposal is to construct a mixed use, two-level development at the subject site comprising six ground floor retail units and six upper-level two-bedroom residential units located along the road boundary of Dominion Road and Richardson Road. A sixteen-space car parking area is proposed to be situated to the rear of the buildings and accessed from Richardson Road.
Key features
The Applicant proposes to remove the existing single level building at the subject site and construct a two-level, 734.5m2 building across the site constituting 57.6% of the gross site area.
The building is proposed to abut the entire Dominion Road frontage of the site and approximately 50% of the Richardson Road frontage.
Additionally the proposed building abuts the north boundary extending approximately 19m into the site from the Dominion Road frontage.
Ground level retail primarily fronts and uses the Dominion Road frontage although one retail unit (G06) is proposed to partially use the Richardson Road frontage.
The retail component of the proposal provides six ground floor units ranging from 75.28m2 to 123.94m2.
The upper level of the building is dedicated to six, two-bedroom apartments, which have bedroom windows overlooking Dominion Road and covered patios (which adjoin the living areas) overlooking the car parking area at the rear of the site.
The proposal has a 6m wide vehicle access into the site from Richardson Road. No vehicular access is proposed from Dominion Road
No alterations to the existing bus stop or pedestrian crossing locations are proposed. The proposal provides 16 car parking spaces and one loading space at the rear of the site. This represents a shortfall of 27 spaces from the required 43 spaces under the District Plan (two per residential unit and one per 17m2 of GFA for retail activities).
1215 Dominion Road is a relatively level site situated on the corner of Dominion Road and Richardson Road, which are both District Arterial Roads. The site has an area of 1,275m².
Each residential unit and retail tenancy will be allocated one car park with the remaining four spaces being available for visitor spaces. This parking is provided for the use of the residents and retail staff so it is expected that customers of the proposed retail will utilise the existing parking resource in the vicinity.
Excluding the Magnolia tree situated in the western corner of the site, all existing trees and vegetation within the site are proposed to be removed. None of the trees within the site are generally protected or scheduled.
The proposal will require 1,275m2 of earthworks across the entire site and approximately 255m3 of cut to waste.
The proposed development involves the following signage relating to the retail component of the site:
One flat, wall mounted sign above each retail shop frontage
One sign suspended from the verandah for each retail shop (excluding tenancy G06, which will have two verandahs and thus two signs)
As emphasised at the hearing and in the Hearing Report, the application does not propose any signage on the north-facing wall of the proposed development and no illuminated signs are proposed. These would each require a separate signage application.
Reasons for the Resource Consent Operative District Plan
Resource consent is required under the provisions of the Operative District Plan for the following reasons:
The proposal requires consent as a non-complying activity pursuant to Rule 4A.1A (ii) (a) of the Operative District Plan 1999 – Isthmus Section, as the establishment of retail activity in the Residential 6b zone is not specifically provided for as a permitted, controlled or discretionary activity
The proposal involves earthworks with an area greater than 500m2 on an area with an average slope less than 5%. This is a restricted controlled activity under Rules 4.3.2.5 & 4A.2 of the Operative District Plan 1999 - Isthmus Section. In particular, the applicant proposes to undertake 1,275m2 of earthworks
The proposal requires consent as a non-complying activity pursuant to Rule 7.7.1 of the Operative District Plan 1999 – Isthmus Section, as it is proposed to construct residential dwellings which exceed the density limits specified in Clause 7.7.2.1. The site has a shortfall of 525m2 of the required site area for 6 dwellings, and will result in a density of 1:212.5m2 where 1:300m2 is required
The 2m + 55º building in relation to boundary control (Rule 7.8.1.3b of the Operative District Plan 1999 – Isthmus Section) as it applies in this zone is infringed by a maximum vertical height of 5.59 metres over a maximum horizontal length of 19 metres as it relates to the northern side of the proposed building. This is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 4.3.1.2B (Development Control Modification)
The 2m + 55º building in relation to boundary control (Rule 7.8.1.3b of the Operative District Plan 1999 – Isthmus Section) as it applies in this zone is infringed by a maximum vertical height of 6.78 metres over a maximum horizontal length of 35 metres as it relates to the eastern side (road boundary) of the proposed building. This is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 4.3.1.2B (Development Control Modification)
The 2m + 55º building in relation to boundary control (Rule 7.8.1.3b of the Operative District Plan 1999 – Isthmus Section) as it applies in this zone is infringed by a maximum vertical height of 6.78 metres over a maximum horizontal length of 22 metres as it relates to the southern side (road boundary) of the proposed building. This is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 4.3.1.2B (Development Control Modification)
The 35% maximum building coverage control (Rule 7.8.1.4 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) as it applies in this zone is infringed by 22.6%, or 224.7m2, with 446.1m2 allowed, and 734.5m2, or 57.6% proposed. This is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 4.3.1.2B (Development Control Modification)
The 40% minimum landscaped – permeable surface control (Rule 7.8.1.5 of the Operative District Plan 1999 – Isthmus) as it applies to this zone is infringed by 31.7%, or 404m2, with 509.8m2 allowed, and 105.8m2, or 8.3% proposed. This is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 4.3.1.2B (Development Control Modification) The 25% maximum paved – impermeable surface control (Rule 7.8.1.6 of the Operative District Plan 1999 – Isthmus) as it applies to this zone is infringed by 9.1%, or 116.1m2, with 318.8m2 allowed, and 434.72m2, or 34.1% proposed. This is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 4.3.1.2B (Development Control Modification)
The front yard landscaping control (Rule 7.8.1.7A of the Operative District Plan 1999 – Isthmus) as it applies to this zone, which requires that 60% of the 6-metre front yard be in landscaped – permeable surface, is infringed by 100%, or 133.1m2 on the Dominion Road boundary with 133.1m2 required, and 0m2, or 0%, provided. The Richardson Road boundary is infringed by 63.9%, or 93.6m2 with 146.4m2 required, and 52.8m2, or 21.6%, provided. This is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 4.3.1.2B (Development Control Modification)
The 2.5-metre front yard control (Rule 7.8.1.7A of the Operative District Plan 1999 – Isthmus) as it applies to this zone is infringed by 2.5 metres over a length of 36.96 metres on the Dominion Road frontage and by 2.5 metres over a length of 27 metres on the Richardson Road frontage. This is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 4.3.1.2B (Development Control Modification)
The proposed activity has access within a Defined Road Boundary, as identified in Rule 12.8.2.6 (Operative District Plan 1999 – Isthmus Section). Pursuant to Section 12.9.1.1 of the Operative District Plan, any activity having access within a Defined Road Boundary requires restricted discretionary activity consent
Rule 12.8.1.1 of the Operative District Plan 1999 – Isthmus Section requires 43 parking spaces to be provided on the subject site. As the applicant proposes to provide 16 parking spaces, a car parking shortfall of 27 spaces is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 12.9.1.1 of the District Plan for a reduction or waiver of more than 6 of the required parking spaces
The application requires a dispensation under the Auckland Council Consolidated Bylaw – Part 27 (Signs) for the following reasons:
Clause 27.8.1 – The proposal fails to comply with Clauses 27.8.1 A, B and D because:
o More than one sign per road frontage will advertise the lawful use of the site o The proposed signage will exceed the 3m height limit
o The proposed signage will exceed 0.5m2
Pursuant to Rule 4.5.2, signage proposed as part of an activity or development requiring resource consent will be assessed as part of that resource consent. Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)
The proposed zoning under the PAUP for this site is Neighbourhood Centre.
In relation to the PAUP, Section 86B(3) of the RMA specifies that a proposed plan has immediate legal effect if the rule protects or relates to water, air, or soil; or protects areas of significant indigenous vegetation; or protects areas of significant habitats of indigenous fauna; or protects historic heritage; or provides for or relates to aquaculture activities. As a result, the earthworks require a restricted discretionary consent in accordance with Rule Part 3, Chapter H, Sub section 4.2 Earthworks, 1.1 Zones, because the PAUP only allows 1,000m2 earthworks in a Business Zone.
Status of the Application
The Commissioners agree with the Hearing Report that the status of the activity is a non-complying activity and will not change as a result of the provisions of the PAUP.
RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS CONSIDERED
In accordance with RMA, for consideration of a non-complying activity the Commissioners have had regard to Part 2 of the RMA (Purpose and Principles – sections 5 to 8), and sections 104, 104B,104D, 108.
The Hearing Report sets out the actual or potential environmental effects, relevant provisions in National Environmental Statements, the Regional Policy Statement and the relevant provisions of the Operative District Plan and the PAUP.
As a non-complying activity, in particular in relation to the retail component and the number of residential units, the Commissioners are required to assess whether the application meets the ‘threshold’ test as described in section 104D of the RMA.
RELEVANT POLICY STATEMENTS AND PLAN PROVISIONS CONSIDERED
In accordance with section 104(1)(b)(i)-(iv) of the RMA, the Commissioners have had regard to the relevant policy statements and plan provisions of the following documents:
The Operative District Plan - Parts 2, 6, 7 and 12. The most relevant provisions of the plan document were identified by Mr Cranfield in Section 6.7 of his report.
To précis briefly:
o The objectives and policies under Urban Growth (Clause 2.3.5) encourage compact urban residential development and adding to existing local centres. Residential development is encouraged to be close to existing, public transport services
o Human Environment Safety (Clause 6.2.10.2) is concerned to create safe urban environments
o Residential 6 including 6b Objectives and Policies (Clause 7.6.6.1) are concerned to provide for medium intensity residential neighbourhoods in appropriate locations. Other issues, include maintaining appreciated amenity, protecting the external environment of the site and promoting quality and innovative design solutions for residential developments
o Transportation (Clause 12.6.1 and 12.7.1) network
Development should be within capacity of surrounding road network Adequate on site car parks need to be available
Safe access to and from sites
The Commissioners also referred to Part 13 of Operative District Plan 1 for a definition of retail activity. It is detailed below:
Retail Premises:
means land and/or buildings from which goods, merchandise, equipment or services are sold, exposed, displayed or offered for sale or direct hire to the public and includes:
• a market • a showroom • a takeaway foodbar
• a banking chamber (being that part of a bank which includes all the tellers areas and all areas to which the public generally has access) • off-licensed premises
but does not include a service station, motor vehicle sales and service premises, or a restaurant, cafe and other eating places.2
The PAUP
The most relevant provisions are set out in Section 6.7 of Mr Cranfield’s report. The PAUP was notified on 30th September 2013. Consideration needs to be given to the relevant objectives, policies and rules of this document. The planners’ advice is that we should place little or no weight on the PAUP (in relation to the land use issues)
1
Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) Part 13B pages B5-6
2
given it had only recently been notified. We agree with this, opinion. The rules relating to earthworks however have immediate legal effect.
Given that the PAUP has only recently been notified we can have little regard to this document. However we note that the site is proposed to be zoned ‘Neighbourhood Centre’. This zoning anticipates the establishment of the type of development proposed in this application.
A comprehensive assessment of the effects of the proposal is set out in Section 6.2 of the s42A report and also in the application documents. We have considered those assessments in reaching our decision.
The main effects considered as being visual amenity; parking; streetscape
character; residential character, traffic; infrastructure; stormwater; cumulative and construction effects.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE CONSIDERED
The evidence presented at the hearing responded to the issues and concerns identified in the Officer’s recommending report, the submissions received and the application itself. On behalf of the Applicant
Mr Stephen Havill, Consulting Planner represented the Applicant (Qian-Long Family Trust) introduced the proposal and its advisors. He explained the background to the proposal, the application issues raised by the reporting planner, the submissions and consent conditions. He considered that granting the consent was “appropriate and is an
acceptable use of the site”. 3
Mr Houston, the Project Architect, provided a presentation explaining the proposal by reference to the site plan, elevations and floor plans. He discussed and described the materials and aspects of the design from a visual and functional viewpoint, describing the proposed site development as part of the wider environment and also for those living and working there.
Mr Bryce Hall, consulting Civil and Traffic Engineer presented evidence in support of the application. He conducted the Traffic Impact Assessment in February 2013 for the proposal and concluded that “the traffic engineering effects can be accommodated on the road network without compromising its function, capacity or safety”.
He advised that traffic flows on Dominion Road and Richardson Road are calculated at 11-12000 vehicles per day (vpd). The main effect on the road network was predicted to be the potential effect of turning traffic to and from the site in Richardson Road (500-670 per day). However Mr Hall did not consider the additional traffic generated to be significant; concluding that there would be little or no effect on the road network.
When advising the Commissioners on the effects of the parking shortfall of 27 spaces Mr Hall concluded the effects acceptable. He came to this conclusion from his surveys of parking in the vicinity, together with actual parking demand from the proposal. Mr Hall carried out a parking survey 2-6th August 2013.
Mr Hall also noted the accessibility to public transport with bus services available in the order of 13 times per hour, during commuter periods.
3
The Commissioners questioned the applicant on the definition of retail activity applied for and the parking requirements for different types of retail activity, particularly because concern had been expressed about potential takeaway or restaurant parking requirements. The Commissioners understand that the Applicant’s view, at the end of the Hearing, was to accept a variation of the definition of ‘retail premises’ as it is provided for in the District Plan as this includes takeaway foodbars but excludes cafes and restaurants.
‘Retail premises’ for the purpose of this application was agreed, by the Applicant, as excluding takeaway food bars, cafes and restaurants. It would therefore be necessary for the Applicant to apply for another consent or variation if this position was to change in the future.
On behalf of the Submitters
Mrs Francesca Unkovich, a resident from 572a Richardson Road, expressed concern about the change of zoning from a residential zone to a mixed use zone. Mrs Unkovich confirmed her long association with the area and enjoyment of the amenity of Mt Roskill. She believed that the development would: lower the residential amenity of the area; that the intensity of development was out of keeping with the area; and she had a concern about the type of people that may be attracted to it. She stated that there were not enough car parks provided currently within the area which would mean more cars on the roadside. She also had concerns about potential problems with privacy for her home, given that there is a western outlook from the apartment balconies towards her property. Mr Manjula Patel was scheduled to appear at the Hearing. However a message was received that he was not well and could not attend.
Two personal statements were tabled at the hearing from submitters, Mary Vidovich and Deborah La Hatte. These were included in consideration with the other Hearing material available to the Commissioners. These documents were available to all at the hearing. On behalf of the Council
Mr Cranfield had prepared a comprehensive section 42A report that included specialist advice from Mr Gabriel Seo on urban design matters and from Mr Sam Shumane on traffic issues. Mr Mark Weingarth was also in attendance at the hearing.
It was noted that several changes had been made to the proposal since its inception in 2009 through to its notification in 2013 and then further after submissions were received and comments provided to the applicant from Council staff and advisors. Notable changes in the course of this process were: the retention of the bus stop outside 1215 Dominion Road; the addition of wooden screens and panels with climbing plants as part of the design; and the exclusion of advertising on the northern wall.
Mr Cranfield’s overall recommendation was that both statutory tests for a non complying activity were satisfied and that consent may be granted subject to conditions.
After listening to the evidence presented at the Hearing he confirmed his recommendation, subject to amended wording of some of the recommended conditions of consent and clarification of the applicant’s interpretation of retail premises with an assurance of what type of businesses were proposed as part of the proposed development.
The key aspects of this evidence are discussed with the findings on the principal issues in contention set out below.
PRINCIPAL ISSUES THAT WERE IN CONTENTION
1. Whether the proposed mixed use activity would have an adverse effect on nearby residential amenity given the residential zoning of the land and if any actual or potential adverse effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated through design and / or conditions of consent.
2. The District Plan implications of this mixed use activity. 3. Whether adequate carparking on site will be provided.
4. Whether adequate public carparks in the local vicinity are available in order to accommodate the level and type of retail activity required by the proposal.
5. Whether the traffic movements created by this development would have adverse effects on the local roading network.
6. Whether the development will provide an appropriate living and retail environment for those living and working there in the future.
7. Whether there were any special or unusual circumstances about the proposal on the site that justified the consent.
8. Whether the legal tests for a non complying activity are satisfied.
9. If consent was granted, what range of retail activities should be allowed?
THE MAIN FINDINGS ON PRINCIPAL ISSUES IN CONTENTION
1. Whether the proposed mixed use activity would have an adverse effect on nearby residential amenity given the residential zoning of the land and if any actual or potential adverse effects could be avoided, remedied or mitigated through design and/or conditions of consent.
The site is in the heart of the Mount Roskill South village at the intersection of Dominion Road, Dominion Road Extension, Richardson Road and Richardson Road Extension. All other corners on the intersection have existing commercial or retail buildings, all of which have been established for long period of time.
The subject site is the last residentially zoned site fronting this intersection on which a single building in the middle of the 1,275m2 site is located. The building has, historically, been used at least in part for commercial activity. If the site was retained as purely residential, it would always front an arterial road and intersection. This will not change. Any residential building (especially at ground floor level) would therefore require careful design in respect of acoustic and privacy considerations. This proposal involves retailing at the street level and apartments at the upper level. It provides for an active frontage onto Dominion Road and acoustic treatments for the upstairs apartments with open living patios facing out to the west.
The applicant has provided a landscaping plan providing appropriate screening and the retention of a large Magnolia Tree on the Richardson Road side. We consider this tree to be an important feature, retained for amenity and therefore have
imposed a condition to protect it through the construction period and thereafter maintained, according to good horticultural practice.
We find that subject to conditions and given the design, the setbacks, fencing and screening of the proposal as described below, that the proposal will have minor adverse effects on residential amenity. In particular:
The set back of the building is over 20 metres from the common boundary with residentially used sites to the north with planting and screening on the site boundary
The site has two road frontages
The police base is located on one of the side boundaries so it has residential development on only one site boundary
The vehicle crossing is approximately 7 metres from the nearest residentially used site
The building is two storeyed
2. The District Plan implications of this mixed use activity.
We find that given the following considerations, the proposal is not contrary to District Plan objectives and policies.
The significant residential component of the proposed development
The design and location of the building which will provide a transition between residential zones in the vicinity
It adds to compact urban residential development and adds to an existing local centre
The residential development is close to existing, frequent public transport services
The apartments will be built to have views that overlook the streets providing passive surveillance
The proposed layout and scale of the building structure is sensitive to the existing environment and residential neighbours and allows for private outdoor space and adequate interior space
The likely traffic generation being within the capacity of the surrounding road network
The focus on the shortfall of car parks for retail activities proposed meant considerable discussion centred on the definition of “retail activities” which establishes the number of parks required.
It is clear restaurants and café’s are excluded from this definition and Mr Havill, representing the Applicant, stated a new resource consent would have to be applied for if these activities were desired in the future.
Near the end of the Hearing Mr Havill indicated that he would accept a condition to change the activity status within the conditions to read:
“For the purposes of this consent the term ‘retail’ is defined as comprising Retail Premises (excluding takeaway foodbars), Offices and Healthcare Services as defined in Part 13 of the Auckland Council District Plan-Operative Auckland City, Isthmus Section 1999 but excludes Restaurants, Cafe and Other Eating Places and Entertainment Facilities”.4
The Commissioners point out that this is not a definition set out in the Operative Plan5; it is a mixture of different activities combined in a sentence, each having their own separate definition, characteristics and rules
As Commissioners we recognise that submitters were concerned with takeaway food premises and potential problems associated with these activities such as food smell and litter
We do not accept this proposal to broaden the activity status of this application beyond “retail premises”. This wider expanded use (‘office’ and ‘health centres’) was not part of the application as notified nor as assessed by Mr Hall or Mr Shumane. Our jurisdiction is limited to that which was applied for. Our finding is to confirm this proposal as a mixed-use development comprising residential and retail activities as applied for and assessed by planners and expert advisers to the Hearing.
We note that takeaway food premises are included in the District Plan’s definition of retailing. We address this activity below.
We were advised by Mr Havill at the Hearing, as an assurance, that the retail premises will be leased, not sold. He advised that any potential neighbourhood concerns or difficulty in the manner in which the establishment was run, would be controlled by the owner, lessee and according to the Body Corporate Agreement. This Agreement establishes rules on property management, operational matters and maintenance. This agreement was supplied to the Commissioners after the hearing and is referred to in the conditions under Advice Notes. The Body Corporate agreement is however outside the Commissioners jurisdiction.
3. Whether adequate carparking on site will be provided.
There are sixteen car parks proposed on-site, one per residential unit and one per retail until with four allocated to visitors, including provision of disability parking. The shortfall is assessed at 27 spaces according to the following Operative District Plan ratios. These were calculated as:
Activity Ratio Required car parks
Retail Activity 1 space per 17m2 31.1 spaces
Residential 2 per unit 12 spaces
Total 43 car parks
Proposed Development 43 required – 16 proposed =
27 shortfall
4 Email from Democracy Advisor 16th January 2014 5
Mr Hall stated the 16 parks on the site will be limited to use by residents or staff associated with the retail activities. No retail customer parking will be provided on site, with all retail customers expected to use existing on-street and/or off-street parking resource available in this location. In terms of movement to and from on-site parks, he estimated there would be six residential traffic movements per hour in peak periods and six movements for retail staff. Mr Shumane’s analysis suggests at peak demand the development would need 18 car parks6. If the four visitor parks are excluded, we were advised that this may equate to six vehicles requiring all day on street parking. The Reporting planner commented this “would not be an uncommon occurrence in the context of a local centre”7.
Mrs Unkovich and other submitters were concerned about the parking shortfall for residents and the practicality of parking for retail customers. She asked that the application be declined on the basis of this and other reasons, as described above
Mr Houston in response to questions, clarified that retail customers would not be able to use the Richardson Road entry for the on-site car parks. He considered that the implications for nearby residential properties would therefore be that traffic movements and associated parking manoeuvres were limited to those vehicles of people living, visiting, working or servicing the development itself. The elevation drawings provided with the application, show a gate or barrier preventing casual shopper entry
We recognise each residence is allocated only one permanent car park. The Applicant’s experts explained this is adequate because the apartments are limited to two bedrooms, visitor parking is provided, bicycle storage is available and the site is served by frequent bus services at its Dominion Road frontage
Both Traffic experts (Bryce Hall representing the Applicant and Sam Shumane representing the Council) in their separate reviews8, accepted the parking proposed by this development, subject to conditions
In terms of the residential parking proposed, the Commissioners are persuaded by the expert assessment of the development.
4. Whether adequate public carparks in the local vicinity are available in order to accommodate the level and type of retail activity required by the proposal. The issue of car parks for retail business customers or more retail staff has the potential to generate adverse traffic effects outside of the site.
The Commissioners accept that there is one park per retail unit within the site and the ability for a retail visitor or service provider, using one or some of the four allocated visitor parks. Based on standard parking demand rates, Mr Hall anticipated the parking demand from these retail premises likely to be 10-15 vehicles per hour or at any one time. Mr Shumane similiarly estimated this, at 15 spaces at any one time.
6
Hearing Report page 25
7 Hearing Report page 25
8 Shumane, S Traffic Impact Assessment and Peer Review –Appendix 7a Hearing Report and Hall, B Traffic
Mr Hall assessed that there were 165 parking spaces available locally9. With current parking demand in the area typically around 60-80 vehicles, it would leave approximately 100 vacant parking spaces. The Commissioners questioned the radius of this supply field and confirmed that it would translate into a potential 2-3 minute walk, which the Commissioners did not expect retail customers, to generally find attractive
Submissions from Mrs Unkovich and Ms LaHatte both comment on the difficulty getting roadside parks in the area. In Ms LaHatte’s location at 1211 Dominion Road, she pointed out that it is difficult for her visitors and family to find a car park close by. She observed with infill housing and extra staff at the Police Station, more people used the roadside car parks
Critical to this assessment then, is the location and availability of nearby on-street and off on-street public car parks- considering the shortfall of the development. We recognise that there is no guarantee that any specific on-street or public car park areas will continue to be available. Auckland Transport and Auckland Council have the ability to shift, change or sell areas currently available. However we note that this is a busy arterial intersection with retail, commercial space and community services and considering the direction of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan as an indicative neighbourhood centre, it is unlikely that a reduction in public parking would be likely in this vicinity within the near future
There are currently three parallel parks on Dominion Road close to the development, as shown on the Applicant’s plans. There are angle parks directly opposite on Dominion Road and an off-street public car park behind the shops linking Dominion and Richardson Road to the south east. From our site visit, it is our observation that these parks will largely provide the customer short stay car spaces to this development.
Mr Hall stated,
“Overall the parking surveys confirm that there is more than adequate parking available in this location to accommodate potential parking demands associated with the proposed redevelopment of 1215 Dominion Road…..I consider the parking related effects of the proposal to be acceptable”10
Both of the Traffic Engineers (Mr Hall for the Applicant and Mr Shumane for the Council) considered that adequate on site parking will be provided. We received no expert evidence to the contrary
We find on balance that adequate parking is provided by the Applicant but note that a cautionary approach has been taken with parking to be considered in the Review Condition 30, along with other transport matters, attached to this decision. For example, there was discussion at the Hearing of a pedestrian crossing near the intersection in the future, to provide safer pedestrian passage between parking areas. This may be a matter for consideration with Auckland Transport at a later time.
5. Whether the traffic movements created by this development would have adverse effects on the local roading network.
9 Hall, B Evidence pg 9 10
We accept the evidence of both traffic engineers (Mr Hall and Mr Shumane) that adverse traffic effects on the street system will be minor. We received no expert evidence to the contrary.
Mr Hall summarised
“I consider that the levels of traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated on the road network without compromising its function, capacity or safety. On this basis I consider the traffic generation effects of this proposal to be less than minor”.11
There were some traffic management concerns about traffic turning in and out of the site. The Applicant and Council staff agreed to a Review condition to monitor transport turning issues. We adopt this approach.
6. Whether the development will provide an appropriate living and retail environment for those living and working there in the future.
The Commissioners received written expert advice on Urban Design matters from Mr Stuart Houghton of Boffa Miskell for the Applicant and from Auckland Council’s Urban Designer, Mr Gabriel Seo. Both provided generally positive responses in respect of the mixed development on this site, contingent upon the conditions set out below.
When considering the development for residential activity Mr Houghton saw the advantages of people overlooking the general area and that residents living in the apartments would have easy access to public transport, local shops and services and of being a short distance to open space amenity of Keith Hay Park.
Mr Houghton summarised,
“It is my opinion that the proposed mixed use retail and residential development of the property at 1215 Dominion Road is appropriate in activity and scale and well suited to this location. In my assessment the development will strengthen the existing local centre by providing ground floor shops on the missing fourth corner of this local neighbourhood centre.”12
We find that given the following, an appropriate environment for this mixed use development will be created.
The orientation of the retail activities to two road frontages.
The location of the apartments on the first floor with west facing balconies and unobstructed outlooks, with noise attenuation measures.
The building being of a scale and size to fit into the surrounding residential and commercial neighbourhood and the layout on the site providing a transition between full residential and local retail centre.
The building provides residential accommodation with close proximity to Auckland’s established public transport system and close proximity to established parks, schools and services.
11 Hall, B Evidence page 6 12
The retail units are small, in keeping with the established businesses of a local centre.
7. Whether there were any special or unusual circumstances about the proposal on the site that justified the consent.
We consider the following to be of relevance:
Historically, part of the building on the site has been used for commercial purposes
The existence and operation of a police base on the site to the north
The site’s corner location and its expected continued use as an urban arterial route
That there is residentially used (and zoned) land adjoining the site on only one boundary
The site location opposite the Mount Roskill South commercial area. 8. Whether the legal tests for a non-complying activity are satisfied.
Based on the above findings we are satisfied that both of the legal tests for a non complying activity are satisfied. The proposal will not be contrary to District Plan objectives and policies and, subject to conditions, adverse effects will be minor. 9. If consent was granted, what range of retail activities should be allowed.
We have reservations about takeaway food premises being established on the site in terms of this consent. This concern was reflected in submissions from people in nearby residences13. The issues of concern include odour, rubbish and the potential hours of operation given that the proposed development involves a dual use with people living upstairs on a permanent basis.
We therefore consider that in order to maintain an acceptable level of amenity within this proposed mixed use development, that takeaway food premises should be excluded from the defined ‘retail activities’ use as allowed in terms of this consent. We note that, as referred to above, Mr Havill, on behalf of the Applicant, accepted this proposition at the time of the hearing.
RMA PART 2 CONSIDERATIONS
In terms of the overall consideration of the development and sustainable management of resources, we find that it is consistent with Part 2 of the RMA. It provides for the social and economic wellbeing of people wanting to live and work in Auckland. With the conditions required by this consent, the development will adequately avoid adverse effects on the environment. There are no aspects that affect section 6 Matters of National Importance or section 8 Treaty of Waitangi however we do find that the proposal is consistent with section 7(b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources.
13
DECISION
Pursuant to sections 104, 104B and 104D and Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), consent is granted to the non-complying activity application by Qian-Long Family Trust to construct a mixed-use development consisting of six ground level retail units and six upper level residential units with associated parking at 1215 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 being Lot 5 DP 40240 CT NA1090/190.
The reasons for this decision are as follows:
1. In terms of section 104(1)(a) of the RMA, the proposed development may result in actual and potential effects. The proposal will result in a significant change in the streetscape, intensity and use of the site as it relates to the surrounding area through the introduction of a large building with a retail ground floor activity abutting the footpath and six upper level residential units on a site that is currently occupied by a residential dwelling with a landscaped front yard. However, having considered the proposal, the relevant specialist reports and the mitigation measures recommended, together with the evidence and submissions, we find that the proposal will have an acceptable level of actual and potential effects both within the site and on the receiving environment. In particular:
The bulk, scale, setback, retail activity and location of the building within the site is consistent with the immediate streetscape and adjacent buildings which comprise a mixture of commercial activity, designated (Police) activity and residential activity
The proposed signage is considered appropriate given the scale and location of the proposed building and activities proposed
Residential character and amenity effects are considered to be acceptable due to the location of the site relative to the surrounding environment (which comprises a mixture of land uses and is located on the junction of two district arterial roads) and the layout of the site which provides a transition (via landscaping the car parking area) between the residential environment to the west and the commercial nature of the Mount Roskill South shops. Additionally, the proposed development is adequately set back from the boundaries of the residentially used sites and provides sufficient screening to ensure that dominance, privacy, shading and loss of light effects are acceptable. Noise and rubbish nuisance effects can be adequately mitigated to an acceptable level by recommended conditions
The traffic effects are considered to be acceptable given the sites location on an arterial road. The traffic generated by the proposal will be indiscernible in the context of the existing traffic environment and while the proposal involves a parking shortfall, this can be accommodated by the existing car parking resource in the vicinity. Traffic safety and potential congestion issues relating to right turns into the site can be addressed by recommended conditions of consent relating to ongoing monitoring
The economic effects are considered to be acceptable as there is an identified shortage of retail supply in the vicinity and an anticipated 38% population increase forecast over the next 20 years in the area
Storm water runoff from the site can be appropriately treated by detention tanks
Adverse construction effects can be adequately mitigated through the implementation of sediment control measures and conditions of consent in relation to sediment control, construction noise, dust suppression and a construction traffic management plan
Overall, subject to conditions, adverse cumulative effects will be minor
Having regard to the effects generated by the proposal, on balance we consider that the proposal is acceptable for the reasons set out above
The proposal will have positive effects by providing additional housing stock, passive surveillance of the streetscape after hours and economic factors including employment opportunities and revitalising and increasing the critical mass of the local centre to ensure it retains its use as a community focal point.
2. In terms of section 104(1)(b) of the RMA, the proposal is not contrary with the relevant policy statements and plans or proposed plans, including the relevant objectives, policies and assessment criteria of the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.
The proposal is for a mixed-use development on the corner of a four-way junction of two District Arterial Roads where the remaining three corners are commercial in nature (and zoned Business 2). The proposed ground floor retail tenancies will be of a small scale and the proposed residential units are above street level. The site is accessible to public open space areas and public transport linkages.
The imposition of appropriate conditions, to ensure that proposed mitigation measures are implemented will ensure that the development continues to be generally consistent with the relevant objectives, policies and assessment criteria. The proposal is considered to achieve a reasonable level of amenity through the location of buildings within the site and the site layout, which separates the majority of the building bulk from adjacent residential properties.
Additionally, the proposed apartments will havee adequate private outdoor space and adequate interior spaciousness.
The parking provided both within the site and in the immediate vicinity; the access into the site; and the existing traffic environment will ensure that the capacity and safety of the road system is adequately catered for.
3. In terms of section 104(1)(c) of the RMA, other relevant matters including monitoring and consent conditions have been considered in the determination of the application. Specific conditions relating to construction, urban design, waste management, signage, fencing and traffic are considered reasonable and necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse effects.
4. The proposal is consistent with Part 2 of the RMA as it achieves social and economic wellbeing while adequately avoiding adverse effects on the environment. In terms of Section 7(b) the proposal represents efficient use of a land resource. 5. Taking the above into consideration, the proposed mixed-use development is
CONDITIONS OF CONSENT
Under section 108 of the RMA, this consent is subject to the following conditions: GENERAL CONDITIONS
Activity in Accordance with Plans
1. Except as amended by conditions below. The proposed mixed-use activity shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and all information submitted with the application and reference by Council as R/LUC/2013/976, comprising:
Reference number
Title Architect/Author Date
Assessment of Environmental Effects Stephen Havill of SFH Consultants Limited March 2013
Urban Design Assessment of Mixed Use Development Proposal Prepared for Overland Developments Ltd
Stuart Houghton of Boffa Miskell
26/11/2012
Traffic Impact Assessment Bryce Hall of Traffic Planning Consultants Ltd
February 2013
Assessment of Noise Nevil Hegley of Hegley Acoustic Consultants
Not specified
Arboriculture Report Andy Barrell of Arbsolutions Limited 17/02/2010 Engineering Infrastructure Report MSC Consulting Group 22/02/2013
Land Management Plan MSC Consulting Group
February 2013
The architectural plans entitled ‘Apartment & Retail Development 1215 Dominion Road Mt Roskill Auckland’ prepared by Houston Architects Limited including the signage as shown, comprising 4 sheets, referenced as follows:
A01 Rev 08
Site Plan With Landscaping Noted
Houston Architects 30/01//2014 A02 Rev
03
First Floor Plan Houston Architects 19/12/2013 A03 Rev
05
West & East Elevations Houston Architects 30/01/2014 A04 Rev
05
North & South Elevations Houston Architects 30/01/2014
The ground floor units shall be only used for retail purposes which is defined as:
For the purposes of this consent, the term ‘retail’ is defined as comprising Retail Premises (excluding takeaway foodbar), as defined in Part 13 of the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999). For the purposes of clarity, this ‘retail’ definition excludes Restaurants, Cafe and Other Eating Places and Entertainment Facilities
All Charges Paid
2. This consent (or any part thereof) shall not commence until such time as the following charges, which are owing at the time the Council's decision is notified, have been paid in full:
(a) All fixed charges relating to the receiving, processing and granting of this resource consent under section 36(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA); and
(b) All additional charges imposed under section 36(3) of the RMA to enable the Council to recover its actual and reasonable costs in respect of this application, which are beyond challenge.
(c) All development contributions relating to the development authorised by this consent, unless the Manager Resource Consents has otherwise agreed in writing to a different payment timing or method.
3. The consent holder shall pay any subsequent further charges imposed under section 36 of the RMA relating to the receiving, processing and granting of this resource consent within 20 days of receipt of notification of a requirement to pay the same, provided that, in the case of any additional charges under section 36(3) of the RMA that are subject to challenge, the consent holder shall pay such amount as is determined by that process to be due and owing, within 20 days of receipt of the relevant decision.
Advice Note:
Development contributions levied under the Local Government Act 2002 are payable in relation to this application. The consent holder will be advised of the development contributions payable separately from this resource consent decision. Further information about development contributions may be found on the Auckland Council website at www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz.
PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS Monitoring Charges
4. The consent holder shall pay the Council an initial consent compliance monitoring charge of $1,000 (exclusive of GST), plus any further monitoring charge or charges to recover the actual and reasonable costs that have been incurred to ensure compliance with the conditions attached to this consent.
The $1,000 (exclusive of GST) charge shall be paid as part of the resource consent fee and the consent holder will be advised of the further monitoring charge or charges as they fall due. Such further charges are to be paid within one month of the date of invoice.
Advice Note:
Compliance with the consent conditions will be monitored by Council (in accordance with section 35(d) of the RMA). The initial monitoring charge is to cover the cost of inspecting the site, carrying out tests, reviewing conditions, updating files, etc, all being work to ensure compliance with the resource consent. In order to recover actual and reasonable costs, inspections, in excess of those covered by the base fee paid, shall be charged at the relevant hourly rate applicable at the time. Only
after all conditions of the resource consent have been met, will Council issue a letter on request of the consent holder.
Pre-commencement Meeting
5. Prior to any construction (including earthworks and site preparation) activity commencing the consent holder shall hold a pre-start meeting that:
is located on the subject site;
is scheduled not less than 10 days before the anticipated before the anticipated commencement of construction;
includes a Council Monitoring Officer from the Resource Consent Compliance and Monitoring Team Central (contact Richard Preece on 3539117 or
richard.preece@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz);
includes representation from the contractors who will undertake the works including the work site supervisor/project manager;
The following matters shall be discussed at the meeting:
The Construction Traffic Management Plan; earthworks management and any other conditions of consent.
The following information shall be made available at the pre-start meeting:
The plans referenced by Council as R/LUC/2013/976;
Resource consent conditions R/LUC/2013/976;
The Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP); Construction Traffic Management Plan
6. Prior to the commencement of any earthworks and/or construction activity, the consent holder shall submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan (“CTMP”) to Council’s Team Leader, Compliance and Monitoring – Central, for approval. The CTMP shall include the following requirements:
(i) Vehicular access to the site be limited to left in / left out and outside commuter peak periods of 7:00am to 9:00am and 4:00pm to 6:00pm
(ii) A 3.0m clear walkway along the Dominion Road frontage shall be maintained at all times
(iii) While not undertaking any works on the lower level façade of the building, all construction shall be undertaken from gantries above the footpath
(iv) Vehicular construction access be limited to the Richardson Road’s existing vehicle crossing.
In addition the following matters will be addressed: (v) contractor parking
(vi) the control of vehicle movements to and from the site during the earthworks and construction phase
(vii) loading and unloading areas
(viii) storage areas for construction machinery and materials.
No demolition, earthworks or construction activity shall commence until written approval of the CTMP is provided by the Team Leader, Compliance and Monitoring – Central. The approved CTMP shall be implemented at all times during the demolition / earthworks / construction phase to the satisfaction of Council’s Team Leader, Compliance and Monitoring – Central.
Advice Note:
The CTMP required by Condition (6) should contain sufficient detail to address measures to ensure the safe and efficient movement of the travelling public (pedestrians, vehicle occupants, local residents etc.), and any restriction on hours of vehicle movements to protect amenity of surrounding environment during earthworks and construction phase.
The consent holder is advised that Auckland Transport is the authority that receives, reviews and approves CTMPs and the condition requires an approved CTMP to be submitted to Council.
Urban Design - North and West Elevations
7. Prior to the commencement of any work on site (prior to the approval of Building Consent for the building other than earthworks and foundations), the consent holder shall provide updated North and West Elevations to the Team Leader, Compliance Monitoring - Central for approval in liaison with the urban design staff. The north elevation shall include information detailing additional visual relief treatment (e.g. additional three-dimensional articulation with differential surface finishes & materiality) in combination with creeper plants & boundary hedges. The west elevation shall include alignment of windows / doors; selection of materials and design details of the balustrades; and the way the ends of boundary walls and roof fascia / eaves are treated in terms of materials and finishes.
Materials Schedule and Specifications
8. Prior to the commencement of any work on site (prior to the approval of Building Consent for the building other than earthworks and foundations), the consent holder shall provide a Materials and colour Schedule and Specifications for the proposed external cladding and glazing in general accordance with the approved consent drawings and updated elevations as per relevant conditions of this consent. A sample palette of materials, surface finishes, and colour schemes for the proposed external cladding and glazing shall accompany this. This information shall be submitted to the Resource Consent Monitoring Team Leader for approval in liaison with urban design staff and shall accord with the approved plans.
Landscape and Pavement Plans
9. Prior to commencement of any work on site, the consent holder shall provide a finalised set of Landscape and Pavement Plans to the Council (Resource Consent Monitoring) for approval in liaison with the urban design staff. The plans shall include:
landscape concept plan in general accordance with the approved consent plans
planting schedule, detailing the specific planting species, the number of plants provided, locations, heights/Pb sizes
pavement plan and specifications, detailing materiality and colour throughout the development site; and
annotated sections with key dimensions to illustrate that adequate widths & depths are provided for tree pits / planter boxes
The magnolia tree including its dripline shall be protected during the construction phase by temporary fencing, no material shall be place under the dripline as per condition 11.
The plans shall also illustrate:
additional climber planting along the northern boundary (adjoining Police Community Base) to provide additional visual softening of the boundary wall when viewed from Dominion Road; and
provision of structural planting of a medium size native tree species, such as
Kowhai in combination with a medium height hedging underneath along the
western boundary.
The proposed planting plan shall be implemented in the first planting season following the construction of the development and be maintained thereafter in accordance with condition (10) below.
Site & Landscape Management Plan
10. Prior to occupation of the premises, the consent holder shall submit a Site & Landscape Management Plan, including:
Vegetation maintenance policies for the proposed planting, in particular details of maintenance methodology and dates / frequencies for the first three years of the issue of the consent by the appointed landscape architect firm / contractor with arboricultural experience. This shall include cyclical landscape maintenance programme, outlining a specific cycle proposed and allowance for replacement of plants / trees, in case plants are severely damaged / die etc.;
an irrigation system; and
as a precautionary measure: vandalism eradication policies.
This plan shall be submitted to the Council (Resource Consent Monitoring) for approval in liaison with urban design staff.
11. Tree Protection – Existing Magnolia
The consent holder shall employ an arborist (appointed arborist) to supervise all works within the dripline of the existing Magnolia located in the southwest corner of the subject site for the duration of the works
The appointed arborist shall be present at the pre-commencement meeting and will detail the methodology to be undertaken to ensure protection of the Magnolia tree throughout the construction process. A written copy of the methodology will be made available to the Team Leader - Resource Consents Monitoring prior at least 2 working days prior to the pre commencement meeting and minutes of this meeting shall be forwarded to the Council, on the day of the meeting (fax 353 9186 or email
rcmadmin@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz).
Prior to works commencing on site, a protective fence shall be constructed around the existing Magnolia tree on site at a distance agreed upon by the appointed arborist and the Team Leader - Resource Consents Monitoring. The protective fencing shall be self-supporting, minimum 1.8m high and shall be of either framed, weld-mesh-and-block (rent-a-fence style) or ply and scaffold construction.
There shall be no construction works within the protective fencing without specific oversight by the appointed arborist. This includes, but is not limited to, excavation, storage of product, materials, spoil or machinery and washing of equipment.
A weather proof sign (laminated A4 paper or similar) shall be firmly attached to the protective fencing to identify the area being protected. The sign shall be clearly visible and read “Tree Protection Area – Do Not Enter”.
The protective fencing is to be retained and maintained by the consent holder until the end of construction work on the site. It shall remain as an effective contractor exclusion zone until the development process is complete.
Upon the completion of construction work on the site, the existing Magnolia tree shall remain protected and be maintained thereafter in accordance with good horticultural practice.
Should any damage occur to the existing Magnolia tree that renders it unsafe in the opinion of the Team Leader - Resource Consents Monitoring (in consultation with the Council Arborist), the consent holder shall be responsible to undertake a replacement planting of a similar species to the satisfaction of the Team Leader - Resource Consents Monitoring in the next planting season.
Confirmation of compliance with the above conditions shall be supplied to Council (Team Leader Compliance & Monitoring - Central) within 1 (one) month of completion of the work. Written confirmation shall take the form of a report by the contractor who oversaw the construction process. Notification shall be either emailed to rcmadmin@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz, faxed to 353 9186, or mailed to Private Bag 92300, Wellesley Street, Auckland 1142.
Lighting Plan
12. Prior to commencement of any work on site (prior to the approval of Building Consent for the building other than earthworks and foundations), the consent holder shall provide a Lighting Plan to the Council (Resource Consent Monitoring) for approval in liaison with urban design staff. This plan shall include proposed locations, lux level, location and types of lighting (i.e. manufacturer’s specifications once a lighting style has been determined). The purpose of this condition is to ensure that adequate lighting will be provided at the pedestrian entrances, under the street canopy and the car park area for the visibility and safety of residents, occupants and visitors to the apartments and commercial units outside the daylight hours. The lighting shall be designed to prevent any glare or overspill to the neighbouring properties in compliance with the relevant bylaw and be maintained
