Planners Report.pdf - Hutt City Council

Officer’s section 42A report for resource consent application to demolish the existing
building at 350 Jackson Street, to construct a three storey building at 350 Jackson Street
and 43 Tory Street, and to undertake alterations to the existing building at 352 Jackson
Street, Petone (RM110315)
Addresses: 43 Tory Street, 350 and 352 Jackson Street, Petone.
Applicant: Deb Stantiall Resettlement Trust c/- James Beban, Senior Resource Management
Consultant at Cuttriss Consultants Ltd, Lower Hutt.
Proposal:
Land use consent is sought to demolish the existing building at 350 Jackson Street
and to construct a three storey building at 350 Jackson Street and 43 Tory Street.
Alterations are proposed to the existing building at 352 Jackson Street.
1.0 Baylee Pakau states
1.1 I am an Intermediate Resource Consents Planner at Hutt City Council. I hold a
Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of Canterbury, and a Bachelor of Science
Degree (Honours) from Victoria University of Wellington. I am an Associate Member of
the New Zealand Planning Institute.
1.2 I have worked in the Resource Consents Team at Hutt City Council for 3.5 years. Prior
to Hutt City Council, I worked at Westland District Council in Hokitika as a Resource
Consents Planner for nine months.
1.3 I have visited the site and am familiar with the surrounding area.
2.0 Summary of the proposal
2.1 Resource consent is sought to demolish the existing building at 350 Jackson Street
and to construct a three storey building at 350 Jackson Street and 43 Tory Street. The
building that will be demolished is a single storey office and warehouse that was
constructed in the 1980s. The applicant envisions that this demolition work will not
commence until they have obtained all relevant approvals for the apartment building
and is ready to begin construction.
2.2 The applicant is proposing to undertake earthworks on the site to facilitate construction
of the building. The earthworks will be up to 1m in depth across the site to allow for the
foundations of the proposed building to be constructed. In total, approximately 150m3
of material will be removed.

2.3 No resource consents are currently bought sought for signage on the proposed retail
tenancies.
2.4 The proposed building will be a maximum of 11m in height and would be constructed
up to the northern, eastern and western boundaries of the site. The proposed building
would be located 6m from the southern boundary of 43 Tory Street. The new building
will comply with the 45 degree recession plane on this boundary when measured from
the neighbouring residential property.
2.5 The proposed building would contain three residential tenancies and six apartments.
The general layout of the new building at 350 Jackson Street and 43 Tory Street is as
follows:
Ground floor and carparking
2.6 The ground floor will contain three retail tenancies, two of which will face Jackson
Street. These retail tenancies will have a floor area each of 104.8m 2 and will have
recessed entranceways onto Jackson Street. A cantilevered verandah will be
constructed above the tenancies to provide weather protection to users of Jackson
Street. The third retail tenancy will be 31.2m 2 in size with frontage to Tory Street.
2.7 The applicant proposes to form six on-site car parking spaces to the immediate south
of the Jackson Street retail tenancies. These car parking spaces would be accessed
via a vehicle crossing off Tory Street and would be available for use by the occupants
of the apartments. These car parking spaces would be screened from the residential
property to the south by a 1.8m high closed boarded fence and from Tory Street by a
retractable 1.8m high gate.
First floor
2.8 The first floor of the proposed building would be divided into six apartments as well as
an uncovered paved courtyard. Apartments 1 and 2 would be located within the
northern portion of the building and would each have a deck that would extend over
the Jackson Street footpath. These apartments would have direct access to the
courtyard which would be to the immediate south of these apartments.
2.9 Apartments 3 and 4 would be located within the south west portion of the building and
would each have a small deck that extends to the south. The first floor of these
apartments would contain two bedrooms and bathroom facilities. These apartments
would have direct access to the courtyard which will be to the immediate north.
2.10 Apartment 5 would be located within the south east portion of the building and is the
only one bedroom apartment proposed. This apartment would have a deck that
extends eastwards over Tory Street. Access to the courtyard would be achieved via an
internal corridor.

2.11 Apartment 6 would be located immediately south of 352 Jackson Street and would
contain two bedrooms and associated bathroom facilities. This apartment would have
a small deck which extends eastwards over Tory Street. Access to the courtyard would
be achieved via an internal corridor.
Second floor
2.12 For all six apartments, the kitchen, dining and internal living areas are provided for on
the second floor. Apartments 1, 2, 5, and 6 will each have a deck located immediately
above their respective deck on the ground floor. The decks for apartments 3 and 4 will
extend northwards over the proposed courtyard. 3
Third floor
2.13 A roof deck will be provided on the third floor for all proposed apartments. Access to
the roof deck will be via individual stairwells from each apartment. The stairwells will
be 11m in height.
Existing building at 352 Jackson Street
2.14 The applicant is proposing to undertake works to the existing building at 352 Jackson
Street. These works include repainting of the exterior of the building as per the colour
schedule contained in the Appendix 2 of the application; internal alterations to the first
floor of the building as part of the earthquake strengthening works required to be
undertaken; and to upgrade the existing apartment (shown as apartment 7 on the
drawings) and to undertake alterations to the western façade of the building to access
into the proposed building at 350 Jackson Street.
3.0 The site and locality
3.1 350 Jackson Street is legally described as Lot 2 DP 455 which has an area of
approximately 316m 2 . No interests are registered on the Certificate of Title for this
property that may affect Council’s assessment. This site contains the existing office
and warehouse constructed in the 1980s. The area to the north of the building is an
open yard which has been used for car parking as well as providing access to the
warehouse located on the site.
3.2 352 Jackson Street is legally described as Lot 1 DP 91134 with an approximate area
of 156m 2 . A memorandum of encumbrance is registered on the Certificate of Title that
pertains to the upkeep of the building on the application site that Council is party to.
This site contains a two storey building that covers the majority of the site. The
building was constructed in the 1920s and contains a takeaway pizza outlet on the
ground floor and a residential apartment on the first floor. The building on this site
used to be on the earthquake risk register until 2002 where it was taken off the list due
to strengthening works.

3.3 43 Tory Street is legally described as Lot 2 DP 91134 and has an approximate area of
162m 2 . No interests are registered on the Certificate of Title that may affect Council’s
assessment. The site contains no buildings and is currently used for informal parking
purposes. Access to this property is achieved via the existing vehicle crossing off Tory
Street.
3.4 The entire site is considered to be flat in topography. No notable vegetation is present
on the site.
3.5 I can confirm that all of the subject properties are within the Petone Commercial
Activity Area (Area 1) of the City of Lower Hutt District Plan. The site is also within the
Heritage Area identified in Chapter 14F of the District Plan. No other notations
contained within the District Plan are applicable to this site.
3.6 Jackson Street Historic Area is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust
and consists of the area of buildings located along both sides of Jackson Street
between the intersection with Victoria Street in the west and Cuba Street in the east.
The subject site is within this area.
3.7 The Certificates of Title for 350 Jackson Street and 43 Tory Street have been
reviewed and do not contain any interests that may affect the committee’s decision.
3.8 In regards to the Certificate of Title for 352 Jackson Street, a memorandum of
encumbrance pertains to the upkeep of the building on the application site that
Council is party to.
3.9 The wider environment to the west and east of the subject site is characterised by the
commercial and retail precinct of Jackson Street. Both sides of Jackson Street
generally consist of a mix of one and two storeyed buildings with small frontage retail
activities and commercial activities at road level, and residential flats or offices above.
The majority of buildings on the street were built from the 1920s to the 1940s and
form part of the Jackson Street heritage precinct. To the south of the subject site
towards The Esplanade, the character is predominately residential and generally
consists of single storey detached dwellings in bay villa and cottage style which face
towards their respective street frontage.
3.10 The committee should note that there is no requirement to provide a verandah under
residential balconies in the Petone Commercial Activity Area. However should
consent be granted, the consent holder should be alerted via a note on the consent
that separate approval from the Roading and Traffic Division is required for the
balconies encroachment over the footpath.

Site history
3.11 The existing warehouse and office building at 350 Jackson Street was granted
building permit in 1985. Resource consent for signage was granted in 2005.
3.12 The existing building at 352 Jackson Street is contained within the heritage building
inventory that was undertaken in 2006. Construction date for this building dates
c1920s. The style of the building is stripped classical. Strengthening works were
undertaken by the owner and signed off by Council in 1998 and the building was
consequently removed from the earthquake risk register.
3.13 Resource consent was granted in 1999 to paint the building at 352 Jackson Street.
Subdivision consent was granted in 2000 that created the titles for 352 Jackson Street
and 43 Tory Street. Land use consent was granted in 2000 for partial demolition and
to replace doors and windows for restoration purposes.
3.14 43 Tory Street was created by the two lot subdivision of 352 Jackson Street in 2000
and has been used as an informal car park since.
4.0 Consents sought
4.1 The appropriate planning instrument for assessing the proposed activity is the City of
Lower Hutt District Plan. The site is within the Petone Commercial Activity Area (Area
1). The relevant rules are contained within Chapters 5B, 14A, 14F, and 14I.
4.2 The activity status of the proposal is discretionary in accordance with Rule 5B 2.1.3
(a) which states:
Except where stated in the General Rules, any Permitted Activity which fails to comply
with any of the Permitted Activity Conditions
4.3 The proposal does not comply with the following rules of the District Plan:
4.4 Rule 5B 2.1.1.1 (b) Maximum Height of Buildings and Structures: 10.0m.
The proposed stairwells will result in the new building having a maximum height of up
to 11.0m.
4.5 Rule 5B 2.1.1.1 (d) Sites abutting residential activity areas:
Where a site abuts a residential activity area the following conditions shall apply:
The maximum height of buildings is 10 metres. All buildings and structures shall
comply with the recession plane requirements of the abutting residential activity area.

The proposed stairwells will have a maximum height of up to 11.0m.
4.6 Rule 5B 2.1.2 Restricted Discretionary Activities
(a) All redevelopment, alterations, repairing or modifications of any building or
structure, except the following:
(i) Redecoration, repair or alterations which are internal and not visible
from the road or from the road frontage; and
(ii) Minor repair or alterations or maintenance to the existing facade of a
building or structure which does not require any building consent;
which are Permitted Activities.
The proposal includes redevelopment of buildings.
4.7 Rule 14A(iii) 2.1 Permitted Activities – Conditions
(a) Car Parking Requirements:
The following parking provisions shall apply in all activity areas where an
activity is established on site; or there is a change in activity; or the building is
constructed, substantially reconstructed, altered or added to. Except as
provided for in this section and in Section (c) below (Special Parking Areas)
and in relation to temporary activities and filming activities, all activities shall
meet the minimum parking requirements set out in Appendix Transport 3.
Parking requirements are based on the type, scale and the associated trip
generation factors for each activity. The minimum parking requirements are
listed in Appendix Transport 3. Sufficient carparking shall be provided to
meet the actual or 10th highest parking demand hour in any year during the
life of the development. The parking standards in Appendix Transport 3 are
deemed to meet this objective for parts of the City except as provided for in
this section and in Section (c) below (Special Parking Areas).
In calculating the number of parking spaces to be provided, fractional
numbers shall be rounded up to the next complete number.
If the proposed development will lead to the loss of public parking on an
Access Road, either through additional length of kerb crossing, or through
consequential parking prohibitions, then the number of parks lost shall be
added to the requirement.
Space needed for manoeuvring, loading, unloading, queuing, or standing at a
service booth, shall not be used for carparks counted towards meeting the
requirement.
(b) Location of Parking Spaces:
Parking spaces must be provided on site.
ACTIVITY PARKS UNIT
Existing single unit 1 dwelling
New single unit 2 dwelling

As six new apartments are proposed, 12 on-site spaces are required. Six spaces are
proposed, a non-compliance of 6.
It is considered existing use rights apply to the established apartment at 350 Jackson
Street therefore is not required to meet this rule.
4.8 Rule 14A(iv) 2.1 Permitted Activities – Conditions
(b) Loading and Unloading Requirements for Non-Residential Activities:
For retail and industrial activities (except in the Core, Riverfront (Core),
Riverfront (Commercial) and Residential Transition Precincts in the Central
Commercial Activity Area), the number of loading spaces to be provided
shall not be less than the following requirements:
Table 7 - Loading Space Requirements:
Gross Floor Area No. of Spaces Minimum Design Vehicle
Under 2000m 2 GFA 1 Maximum rigid truck
(c) Design Requirements:
(iii) Where articulated vehicles are likely to be used, a greater depth shall be
provided.
Design of all facilities, including access, manoeuvring and circulation space, shall take
into account the provisions of Australian Standard AS2890 “Off-street Parking, Part 2:
Commercial Vehicle Facilities (1989).”
The proposal does not have sufficient space available to provide for reverse
manoeuvring for loading.
4.9 Rule 14A (iii) 2.1 Permitted Activities – Conditions
(a) Car Parking Requirements:
The following parking provisions shall apply in all activity areas where an
activity is established on site; or there is a change in activity; or the building is
constructed, substantially reconstructed, altered or added to. Except as
provided for in this section and in Section (c) below (Special Parking Areas)
and in relation to temporary activities and filming activities, all activities shall
meet the minimum parking requirements set out in Appendix Transport 3.
(d)
Design Standards:
The layout, design and detailing of all parking spaces shall be such as to
ensure their convenient, safe and efficient use.
Every parking space shall have such dimensions as to comply with the
requirements of the Australian Standard AS2890 Part 1.

The dimensions of the proposed car parks are not able to comply with the
requirements of Australian Standard AS2890 Part 1.
4.10 Rule 14F 2.1 Discretionary activities
(b) Demolition or relocation of part or all of a building or structure listed in Appendix
Heritage 1 or 2
The existing building at 350 Jackson Street will be demolished.
4.11 Rule 14I Permitted Activities – Conditions
(a)
(b)
Ground Level:
The natural ground level may not be altered by more than 1.2m, measured
vertically.
Quantity:
Maximum volume of 50m 3 (solid measure) per site.
The applicant proposes to undertake 150m 3 of earthworks.
5.0 Consideration under the Resource Management Act 1991
5.1 As a discretionary activity the application must be assessed in accordance with the
provisions of sections 104 and 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act).
The process for considering a discretionary activity is as follows:
(i)
(ii)
To identify the relevant section 104 matters;
As part of the overall discretion in section 104B, weigh the relevant matters
under section 104.
5.2 I consider that the relevant section 104 matters are as follows:
• Any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity:
• The relevant provisions of the District Plan, objectives, policies and rules; and
• Part II of the Act.
5.3 An assessment of effects of the proposal on the environment and the identification of
the issues/matters raised by submitters are detailed in sections 6 and 7 below. The
District Plan’s objectives, policies and rules are of particular relevance in terms of
section 104(1)(b), and together with the Part II criteria listed in section 9 of this report,
form the basis of my considerations.

6.0 Submissions
6.1 The application was limited notified on 31 January 2012 to the owners and occupiers
of 28, 39, and 41 Tory Street (as shown on the aerial map attached as Appendix 1)
6.2 By the close of submissions on 1 March 2012, Council had received three
submissions. The submission by Housing New Zealand as the owner of 28 Tory
Street is considered to be in support of the application. Ms Adam of 41 Tory Street
submitted in opposition and Mr Allen and Ms Doig of 39 Tory Street submitted in
opposition.
6.3 Ms Adam, Mr Allen and Ms Doig advised in their submissions that they wish to be
heard. While Housing New Zealand did not wish to be heard, the effects on 28 Tory
Street as an affected party are still relevant to Council’s assessment.
6.4 The key issues raised in the submissions are as follows:
Visual amenity and privacy
6.5 The submissions from Mr Allen, Ms Doig, and Ms Adam raised concerns with the
proposed height of the building and its effects on visual amenity and privacy. The
additional height associated with the roof gardens will mean a loss of privacy due to
overlooking. Both of these submissions opposed the proposed height breach.
6.6 These submitters consider the proposal will affect the outlook to the north for both
their properties.
6.7 Mr Allen and Ms Doig do not consider that the loss of privacy is mitigated by
compliance with the yard requirements and the proposed fencing.
6.8 Ms Adam considers the development will undermine the appeal of her property.
Noise and disturbance
6.9 Ms Adam considers that construction noise and the associated disruption and dust will
compromise quality of life.
6.10 If approved, Ms Adam has requested a concrete block fence rather than the proposed
closed boarded fence to mitigate against noise from vehicles.
6.11 Mr Allen and Ms Doig consider nuisance noise will be generated by the use of the roof
top garden which cannot be mitigated due to the height at which noise is produced.

Traffic
6.12 Mr Allen and Ms Doig consider the application to be misleading when it says there is
no existing off-street space because Dominos uses an informal parking at 43 Tory
Street.
6.13 Mr Allen and Ms Doig consider that demand for parking results in vehicles obstructing
footpaths. They also consider that demand will increase significantly as a result of the
new premises in addition to Dominos.
6.14 Ms Adam submits that even though Dominos has existing use rights, they should still
be required to meet the current parking and loading requirements. Ms Adam queries
whether there are other alternatives available given the existing level of activity in the
informal car park.
Character effects
6.15 Ms Adam considers the retail tenancy on Tory Street will affect the predominant
residential character.
Future occupants
6.16 Ms Adam is concerned that there has been no application for unit titles as an
owner/occupier would be more likely to take better care of the units.
Miscellaneous matters
6.17 Concerns were raised in the submissions on the effect on property values. I do not
consider this a matter relevant to Council’s assessment as property value is not an
environmental effect in itself. Rather, it is the outcome from various factors which may
influence a person’s perception on the value of a property such as a loss in amenity
values. While no weighting will be placed on the potential loss of property value, I
consider it relevant to assess the amenity effects of the proposal in section 7 of this
report.
Pre-hearing meeting
6.18 A pre-hearing meeting was held on 21 March 2012. The chairperson’s report and the
conditions proposed by the applicant that were tabled at this meeting are attached as
Appendix 2.
6.19 The matters raised within the submissions will be addressed within section 7 below.
7.0 Assessment of actual and potential environmental effects
An assessment of effects on the environment, including the issues/matters raised by
submitters, is detailed within the assessment below. The District Plan’s objectives,

policies and rules are of particular relevance in terms of section 104(1)(b), and
together with the Part II criteria listed in section 9 of this report, form the basis of any
determination as to whether an adverse effect may be regarded as acceptable (or
otherwise).
7.1 The following definitions contained in the Act apply in this case:
“Environment” is defined as
(a) Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and
communities; and
(b) All natural and physical resources; and
(c) Amenity values; and
(d) The social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural conditions which
affect the matters stated in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this definition
or which are affected by those matters.
“Amenity values” are defined as
those natural and physical qualities and characteristics of an area
that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness,
aesthetic coherence and cultural and recreational attributes.
7.2 The environmental effects that I consider relevant to assessing this proposal are as
follows:
• Heritage effects
• Urban design and streetscape effects
• Traffic effects
• Effects on residential character
• Visual amenity effects
• Privacy effects
• Shading and daylight effects
• Noise effects
• Reverse sensitivity
• Earthworks effects
• Temporary construction effects
• Positive effects

Permitted baseline
7.3 Section 104(2) states “…when forming an opinion for the purpose of subsection 1(a),
a consent authority may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment
if [[a national environmental standard or]] the plan permits an activity with that effect.”
7.4 The permitted baseline for a site within the Petone Commercial Activity Area (Area 1)
provides for retail activities, commercial activities, health care services, and licensed
premises with a gross floor area (GFA) not exceeding 1000m 2 . Residential activities
above ground floor are also permitted. These activities must comply with the permitted
activity conditions and General Rules. I consider the permitted baseline for these
activities as relevant and has been taken into account.
7.5 Further to the above, redecoration, repair or alterations which are internal and not
visible from the road or from the road frontage, and minor repairs or alterations or
maintenance to the existing façade of a building or structure which does not require
building consent are permitted activities. However, if any proposal cannot meet these
requirements, consent is required for a restricted discretionary activity.
7.6 As the existing building at 350 Jackson Street is within the Jackson Street Historic
Area as identified in Chapter 14F of the District Plan, demolition of this building is an
identified discretionary activity.
7.7 In considering the permitted baseline for this proposal, while some small scale repairs,
alterations, and maintenance are permitted, it is considered the scale of the
development is significantly more than a permitted activity. But in terms of the
proposed activity (rather than the bulk of the building itself) I consider the permitted
baseline in that respect relevant to my assessment.
Existing environment
7.8 The existing environment comprises of those activities that are lawfully established on
the subject site. The existing environment differs from the permitted baseline as the
permitted baseline considers those activities that could occur in the future on the
application site without resource consent; whereas the existing environment consists
of the activities already established on the site.
7.9 The existing buildings and activities at 350 and 352 Jackson Street are considered to
form part of the existing environment. This includes the tenancies on the ground floor
and the first level apartment at 350 Jackson Street.
Assessment of environmental effects
7.10 No persons have provided their written approval. Thus all adverse effects on the
affected persons must be taken into account.

Heritage effects
7.11 To assist Council’s consideration of the proposal, the application has been peer
reviewed by Council’s Consultant Heritage Conservator, Ian Bowman (assessment
attached as Appendix 3). In his assessment, Mr Bowman states that neither building
at 350 or 352 Jackson Street are specifically registered by the New Zealand Historic
Places Trust nor are separately listed by Council in the District Plan. The buildings lie
within the Jackson Street Historic Area which is listed in the District Plan and is
described under Appendix Heritage 1 (ii) Heritage Areas registered by the New
Zealand Historic Places Trust. Mr Bowman has assessed the proposal against the
matters identified in Chapter 14F and the Design Guide for the Petone Commercial
Activity Area.
7.12 In considering the proposal against the matters in Chapter 14F, Mr Bowman considers
the main modifications which will have an external effect on the building at 352
Jackson Street will comprise of replacing an existing egress door to Tory Street,
enlarging an existing ground floor window to Tory Street and the construction of the
new building replacing the existing building at 350 Jackson Street and 43 Petone
Street.
7.13 Mr Bowman considers the window enlarging and replacement of an existing door to
the east elevation of 352 Jackson Street will have a less than minor effect on the
building. The window being enlarged is currently painted out and there is an existing
door, which the proposal replaces. I concur with Mr Bowman’s assessment.
7.14 Mr Bowman considers the new building may have a minor positive effect on 352
Jackson Street as it will create a built edge to the street, which is currently lacking in
both Jackson Street and Tory Street. The scale and width of the new building are
similar to that of 352 Jackson Street.
7.15 Mr Bowman considers the design and external appearance of the building will have a
negligible change on 352 Jackson Street. I concur with this assessment.
7.16 In considering the scale of the work in proportion to the original building, Mr Bowman
states that while the proposed new building wraps around the existing at 352 Jackson
Street, the visible effect is the construction of a new building to the south of 352 and
another to the west of 352 Jackson Street. The new building to the west of 352
Jackson Street is of a similar scale while the new building to the south is
approximately half the width and a similar height to the existing Tory Street façade of
352 Jackson Street. Mr Bowman notes the proposed new buildings have three floors
within its overall height. While 352 Jackson Street has two floors, the verandah
heights align. I concur with these comments.

7.17 In considering the compatibility of the style, materials, and colouring of the new work
in its integration with the original building, Mr Bowman’s assessment states that the
style of the proposed building does not match that of 352 Jackson Street but is
compatible in a number of areas, particularly the style of the proposed buildings, the
decorative features, windows, and shop entrances. Mr Bowman notes the difference
in materials between the existing building at 352 Jackson Street and the proposed
building. Mr Bowman has reviewed the proposed colour palette and considers the
colours to be acceptable.
7.18 As noted in the application, the building to be demolished at 350 Jackson Street is a
single storey structure which was constructed in the 1980s. This building is recessed
from the front boundary and has car parking and access located between itself and
the Jackson Street carriageway. The applicant considers that the relatively modern
design of the building and the layout of the site are currently inconsistent with the
intended appearance of structures along Jackson Street. I concur with the applicant’s
assessment. Given Mr Bowman’s assessment, I consider the adverse effects of
demolishing the existing building at 350 Jackson Street and erecting a new building to
be no more than minor.
7.19 Mr Bowman has also assessed the proposal against the design guide for buildings
within the Petone Commercial Activity Area.
Building shape
7.20 Mr Bowman considers the proposed new buildings match the existing building at 352
Jackson Street in terms of scale, height, and rectangular form. The cornice height on
352 Jackson Street matches the proposed building length at the street boundary of
the new building. The floor-to-floor height of the proposed building does not match
that of 352 Jackson Street as two floors are proposed within the height of the first floor
of 352 Jackson Street. Mr Bowman considers the proposed building will create a
street edge when none exists at present, the effect of which is positive as it reinforces
the traditional character of Jackson Street.
7.21 I concur with Mr Bowman’s assessment and while the floor-to-floor heights of the
proposed building do not match the existing building, the overall effect of having a
building on the road frontage of Jackson Street is considered to maintain the
compatibility of the streetscape frontage. On balance, the proposal is consistent with
these performance design standards.
Buildings on corner sites
7.22 Mr Bowman does not consider the design performance standards for buildings on
corner sites to be relevant. I concur with his comments.

Building modulation
7.23 Mr Bowman considers the proposed Jackson Street elevation when read as a single
building, is symmetrical and the façade is subdivided into vertical and horizontal
elements. The general emphasis is horizontal because of its form and expressed floor
subdivision. Mr Bowman notes that unlike most early 20 th century buildings in the
street, the proposed buildings do not have wider bands at verandah, cornice and
parapet levels.
7.24 The shop divisions at ground floor are continuous up the height of the building,
dividing the building in two. Mr Bowman states that this mirrors the Jackson Street
elevation of 352 Jackson Street excluding the chamfered corner.
7.25 Mr Bowman states the building on Tory Street is not symmetrical but reflects the
different façade treatment of 352 on Tory Street. Having a different façade treatment
on side streets is common with traditional buildings in Jackson Street.
7.26 I concur with Mr Bowman’s comments and I consider the proposal to meet these
performance design standards.
Wall materials and openings
7.27 Mr Bowman notes the materials of the proposed buildings do not match the traditional
materials commonly used on buildings in Jackson Street and as seen at 352 Jackson
Street. The traditional pattern of discrete window openings within a solid façade is
also not followed in the proposed new buildings where the entire façade is either glass
or an open deck. Mr Bowman notes the design generates an ABBA rhythm (the
alternation pattern) within the overall form and the vertical window division is
approximately 1:2, matching traditional window proportions. The Tory Street elevation
does not have a particular façade rhythm but this matches the lack of rhythm on the
façade of 352 Jackson Street on Tory Street, and the return façade of many buildings
on corners in Jackson Street.
7.28 Mr Bowman considers that because of the new buildings style, materials used and
extent of glazing, the building does not comply with the traditional solidity and
monolithic appearance of buildings in Jackson Street. The emphasis of the new
design is one of lightness and minimal structure.
7.29 In considering these comments, it is noted Mr Bowman’s assessment was made on
the design of the building at the time of application but that the amendments made to
the proposal prior to notification did not affect his assessment. Mr Bowman has
reviewed these changes to the proposal and his comments remain unchanged. The

applicant has since provided additional information on some of the design elements of
the proposal, notably the proposed louvers system on the principal façades of the
building. Mr Bowman has reviewed the louver information submitted by the applicant
and does not consider this to affect his assessment of the proposal. I therefore
consider that the proposal meets the relevant performance standards of the design
guide in terms of heritage.
7.30 While Mr Bowman notes the proposed design has no added decorative elements, but
I consider the lack of decorative elements to be acceptable in this case given the
overall modern interpretation of the design guide for the new building.
7.31 The proposed design has extensive display windows on the ground floor on Jackson
Street and the division of the façade above the shops matches that of the shops. This
is consistent with the relevant performance standard of the design guide.
7.32 Mr Bowman notes there are no large bands of glass uninterrupted by vertical
divisions. This is consistent with the relevant performance standard of the design
guide.
7.33 In considering Mr Bowman’s comments against the relevant performance standards,
while the new building fronting Jackson Street is utilising modern materials and a
modern design, the fixed nature of the external louvers will contribute to a solid and
monolithic appearance and will not appear to be a skin or veneer. I therefore consider
the performance standards are met.
Silhouette, parapets and cornices
7.34 Mr Bowman considers that the proposed design does not have a separately
expressed cornice or parapet on the street façade. The structural steel beam at roof
level could be interpreted as a cornice and its dimensions relate to the remainder of
the building as the structural street frame is expressed.
7.35 I consider the proposal is sufficiently consistent with these performance standards.
Decoration and colour
7.36 Mr Bowman notes that the proposed design modulates its façade into structural bays
but without decorative elements as described above. No decorative elements are
proposed to be introduced to the existing building at 352 Jackson Street and it is not
known if any decorative elements are missing from this building.

7.37 Mr Bowman considers the colour scheme proposed for 352 Jackson Street is
generally consistent with colours used in the inter-war period, in which a number of
Jackson Street buildings were constructed. The colour schemes for both buildings will
be consistent below and above verandah level.
7.38 In this regard, I consider the decorative and colour elements of the building are
sufficiently consistent with the design performance standards.
Verandahs
7.39 Mr Bowman notes the proposed building on Jackson Street will have a verandah
cantilevered from the building, in the manner of 1930s and 1940s building on Jackson
Street. The verandah has a plain fascia, also matching the inter-war period buildings.
The Tory Street building does not have a continuous verandah.
7.40 When reviewing Mr Bowman’s comments against the design performance standards
for verandahs, I consider the verandahs are consistent with the standards.
Under verandahs
7.41 In his assessment, Mr Bowman notes the proposed shopfronts are recessed at an
angle with the entrances to one side. The shop widths are not inconsistent with the
traditional pattern of older buildings on Jackson Street. The vertical and horizontal
divisions within the shopfront design are consistent with the design of the facades
above while the tiled upstand is consistent with most traditional shopfronts in Jackson
Street. Green tiles used in the shopfronts were a common colour in buildings of the
inter-war period.
7.42 Given Mr Bowman’s comments, I consider the proposal generally meets this
performance standard and the adverse effects will be no more than minor.
Signs and lighting
7.43 There are no proposals in the application to change signage and lighting. Thus the
application can meet the relevant performance standards.
7.44 In his summary of the proposal, Mr Bowman recommends the proposal be approved.
Given Mr Bowman’s comments in conjunction with my analysis that the proposal is
generally consistent with the design performance standards outlined in Appendix
Petone Commercial 1, the adverse heritage effects are considered to be acceptable.

Urban design and streetscape effects
7.45 To assist my consideration of the urban design effects of the proposal, the application
has been peer reviewed by Council’s Consultant Urban Design Expert, Morten
Gjerde. Mr Gjerde has reviewed the urban design outcomes of the proposal against
the design guide in Appendix Petone Commercial 1 of the District Plan (assessments
attached as Appendix4)
7.46 It is important to note that both Mr Gjerde and Mr Bowman have peer reviewed the
proposal against the design guide in Appendix Petone Commercial 1 but that each
peer review is undertaken in respect to their areas of expertise. Mr Bowman as
Council’s Heritage Conservator, considers the heritage effects of the proposal, such
as the effects on the surrounding heritage and whether the proposal will detract from
this historic character. Mr Gjerde as Council’s Consultant Urban Design Expert
considers the proposal in terms of urban design and the overall contribution to the
streetscape.
7.47 For these reasons I have separated the reviews by Mr Gjerde and Mr Bowman as part
of this report but I consider that their respective assessments should be read in
conjunction.
7.48 I will now summarise Mr Gjerde’s assessment in accordance with the design
performance standards.
Building shape
7.49 Overall, Mr Gjerde considers the proposal meets the design performance standards
for building shape. He considers the overall height is positive as it provides
companionship to the corner building in both the Jackson Street and Tory Street
elevations. However, Mr Gjerde raises concerns over the increased height of the
building due to the stairwells and is of the opinion they should be deleted from the
scheme or modified considerably.
7.50 While I note Mr Gjerde’s concerns, I do not consider the adverse effects of the
increased height to be unacceptable. This is due to the setback of the stairwells from
the Jackson Street frontage. I consider the setback provides mitigation of the visual
effects of the increased building that could be seen to detract from the overall building
shape. I acknowledge the design is unusual in terms of the stairwells protruding above
the roofline but the views of these stairwells from the wider environment will be limited
given the stairwells setback from the outside of the building.

Building modulation
7.51 Mr Gjerde considers the proposal satisfies these performance standards in a
contemporary manner and both principal street facades are well modulated. I note
that Mr Gjerde disagrees with the suggestion on the drawing that the roof deck
balustrade could be perceived as a recessed parapet.
7.52 I concur with Mr Gjerde’s comments and while I have noted his comments on the
perceived recessed parapet, on balance I consider the proposal to meet this
performance standard when assessed in an urban design capacity.
Wall materials and openings
7.53 Mr Gjerde considers that at street level, the proposal largely satisfies the design
criteria. Above verandah level, the project includes significant areas of glazing that will
be either recessed behind the balustrades or concealed behind the fixed louvers.
7.54 Mr Gjerde’s initial review raised concerns with the proposed operable louver system.
In order to satisfy this performance standard, it is considered the walls should appear
solid. Based on the additional information provided by the applicant on 28 March
2012, Mr Gjerde considers the spacing of the louvers should be tightened up so that
the screen element is meant to read as a variation on a solid wall element. Mr Gjerde
does not consider this will be reading and that 80mm spacing is the maximum he
would consider given the relative thinness of the louver blades. Mr Gjerde considers
the key is the appearance of the screen and not the extent to which people inside the
building are able to see out and that the design guide is about protecting the character
of Jackson Street.
7.55 Mr Gjerde notes in his review of 29 March 2012, that the screen is suggested to be
sliding and has queried where it will slide to and how the building will appear then. Mr
Gjerde considers the screen must be stationary in order to create a sense of order in
these facades. He also notes that the louvers are now somewhat deeper than the
frame. His expectations, based on the initial drawings, are that the louvered screen
will have a definite and substantial frame around each panel. This will require the
details put forward in the additional information provided by the applicant on 28 March
2012 to be modified. Due to this report being required for circulation, Mr Gjerde
considered this could be addressed by a condition of consent.
7.56 In responding to the applicant’s query as to whether the roof top balustrades on the
northern, eastern and western facades could be either timber or the same material as
the louvers, Mr Gjerde considers the project will be at odds with its surroundings in
this sense and that his suggestion is to use timber above roof level was to limit the
extent of the ‘clinical’ appearance of the design. He agrees that a textured surface, as

the horizontal channels will generate, is appropriate. At the time of releasing this
report, Mr Gjerde still had serious concerns and would encourage further dialogue
with the applicant about this matter. Mr Gjerde has asked that a final design of the
balustrading at roof level be agreed by the applicant (consent holder) and Council
officers/advisors as a condition of consent.
7.57 In my view, this element of the design is important and should be considered by the
committee during the hearing. Alternatively, a condition of consent could be imposed
(and has been included in section 11 of this report should the committee consider it
appropriate) but I would advise against this approach for this application.
7.58 In reference to the side walls on the south and west elevation, Mr Gjerde considers
they comprise of punched fenestration in solid walls which meets the expected design
standard.
7.59 At the time of releasing this report, it is apparent that Council’s Consultant Urban
Design Expert still has concerns relating to the louvers and roof top balustrades.
Given these concerns, I believe it is necessary to explore the matter in more depth at
the hearing.
Silhouette, parapets, and cornices
7.60 In summarising Mr Gjerde’s assessment, whilst the designs on the principal elevation
do not include a parapet, he considers the design can be judged appropriate without
one as the language of the building is contemporary. On balance, I consider the
proposal to meet these performance standards.
Verandahs
7.61 In his assessment, Mr Gjerde notes the proposal includes a verandah along the
Jackson Street frontage set at about the height of the verandah on the building to
remain. This will provide for continuity of shelter and help link the buildings three
dimensionally. Given Mr Gjerde’s comments on the clear verandah in his initial review,
the applicant has amended the proposal so that the verandahs are not fully glazed.
On balance, I consider the proposal will be consistent with these performance
standards.
Under verandahs
7.62 Mr Gjerde agrees with the statement made by the applicant in their assessment of
environmental effects and that the under verandah characteristics of the proposal are
sound. Given Mr Gjerde’s comments, I consider the proposal to meet these
performance standards.

Signs and lighting
7.63 In his assessment, Mr Gjerde considers the night time views of the Jackson Street
façade will be dramatic as a consequence of the louvered screens in front of the
windows. As the louvers are fixed in place, lighting will remain consistent. I consider
the proposal to meet these performance standards.
7.64 In summarising the proposal, Mr Gjerde finds the proposal to be generally favourable
when assessed against the design guide performance standards with a few
outstanding issues being the height of the stairwell and some of the wall materials
proposed.
7.65 With the exception of the wall materials for the roof top balustrades and the louvers
which requires further discussion and consideration at the hearing, on balance I do
not consider these outstanding issues to be of enough significance in the overall
proposal to recommend decline.
Traffic effects
7.66 The proposal has been assessed by Council’s Consultant Traffic Engineer Bill
Barclay. He has also reviewed the submissions that raised traffic concerns and has
provided comments on these matters. The relevant assessments are attached as
Appendix 5.
7.67 In his assessment on 19 October 2011, Mr Barclay noted that all vehicle access is
currently from two vehicle crossings on the Tory Street frontage, one of which will
close as part of the development. The remaining access will be modified but in his
assessment, access will be able to comply with District Plan requirements for width,
number and distance from an intersection.
7.68 As there are more than four spaces, all movement to and from the site are required to
be a forward direction. While this will be achieved for cars, it will not be achieved for
larger service vehicles. Mr Barclay considers that in view of the small size of retail
tenancies and the sheltered nature of Tory Street that the non-compliance can be
accepted in this instance. I concur with this assessment.
7.69 Turning to parking effects, retailing is required to provide parking in accordance with a
graduated scale. As there will be less than 500m 2 gross floor area (GFA) of retailing,
no parking is required for the retail tenancies.
7.70 For the residential activities, each new residential dwelling requires two spaces
making the requirement 12 spaces. Six spaces are proposed, six fewer than the

equirement. In his assessment of 28 March 2012, Mr Barclay considers the noncompliance
will not have effects which are more than minor. He states that a common
experience with apartments along Jackson Street is that residents typically have
either no cars or only one per dwelling. Mr Barclay expects no more than a small
shortfall of off-street residential parking as a result.
7.71 I acknowledge the concerns raised by the submitters that the proposal will result in
increased pressure for parking demand as a result of this proposal; however I
consider the adverse effects of the reduced parking to be acceptable. I agree with Mr
Barclay’s comments that Jackson Street residents’ typically have either no cars or one
per dwelling. I consider the non-compliance is further alleviated by availability to public
transport in the local environment.
7.72 Upon considering the effects of the parking non-compliance, Mr Barclay confirmed his
support for the proposal and I concur with his assessment. I therefore consider the
adverse effects associated with parking to be acceptable.
7.73 In considering the layout of the parking spaces, Council is guided by Australian
Standard AS2890.1-1993 or its successor AS/NZS 2890.1-2004. Mr Barclay notes
that the proposal fails to meet the minimum module width of 11.2m but that parking
stalls have a generous width of 2.7m or more. Mr Barclay acknowledges there may be
some inconvenience for users of the site but considers the layout to be workable and
acceptable. I concur with this assessment.
7.74 In considering the loading and unloading effects, the gate opening is 6m wide
enabling easier access than the originally proposed 3m wide access.
7.75 For retail activities with a GFA of 2000m 2 or less, the District Plan requires facilities to
be provided for at least a maximum-size rigid truck. Council usually interprets this to
be an 11.0m long truck. The applicant’s intention is that this will enter from Tory Street
and stand in the car park aisle. Mr Barclay considers the proposed loading and
unloading facilities to be acceptable. I concur with his assessment.
7.76 Further to his assessments, Mr Barclay reviewed the submission by Mr Allen and Ms
Doig. He notes that the submission raises concerns about the adequacy of parking
arrangements on the site. As per his assessment of 17 January 2012, the number of
car parks complies with the District Plan. Mr Barclay states that in relation to servicing,
service vehicles will be able to stand in the car park aisle while making deliveries
keeping effects to a minimum. In summarising his review, Mr Barclay confirmed his
support of the proposal.

7.77 In summary, Council’s Consultant Traffic Engineer supports the proposal. On balance,
I concur with Mr Barclay’s assessment and I consider the adverse traffic effects to be
acceptable.
Residential character effects
7.78 The proposal would increase the density of development on the subject site. In this
regard, there is potential for the proposal to detract from the residential character of
the affected parties and the immediate environment. However I note that residential
use above ground floor is a permitted activity in the Petone Commercial Activity Area.
I consider this permitted baseline for the activity (rather than the new buildings
themselves) to be relevant to my assesmsen.t
7.79 Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal does not comply with height requirements
for buildings on sites abutting residentially zoned properties, I concur with the
applicant that that the degree of non-compliance is small and is limited to the
stairwells which provide access to the roof garden. Therefore I do not consider the
height non-compliance to result in unacceptable effects on predominant residential
character to the south of the subject property.
7.80 It is noted the proposal complies with the recession plane and yard requirements on
the adjoining residential boundary with 41 Tory Street despite the height noncompliance
which lends to the consideration that the overall bulk and location of the
building is suitable for a site within the Petone Commercial Activity Area that is
abutting a residential activity area.
7.81 I acknowledge the submitters concern that the retail development is out of character
with the rest of Tory Street but I note that the subject property is zoned Petone
Commercial Activity Area which anticipates retail/commercial development on the
ground floor.
7.82 It is considered a mixed use development for commercial and residential activities can
be anticipated in the Petone Commercial Activity Area. I consider the setback of the
buildings on the subject site from the adjoining residential activities provide a degree
of mitigation of the building bulks potential to visually dominate the wider environment.
I consider that on balance, the proposal will not adversely affect the neighbours to the
south and the wider residential character to the south of the site in a manner that is
unacceptable.
Visual amenity effects
7.83 While I acknowledge there is no relevant permitted baseline, I consider the
development is consistent with the outcomes sought for the Petone Commercial

Activity Area, Area 1. In addition, the proposal has been reviewed by Council’s
Heritage Conservator who supports the proposal and by Council’s Consultant Urban
Design Expert who generally supports the proposal. Given their assessments of the
proposal against the design performance standards, I consider the visual amenity
effects on the immediate commercial/business environment to be no more than minor.
7.84 In considering the visual amenity effects on the owners and occupiers of 28 Tory
Street, I acknowledge the new building will increase the prominence of the subject site
when viewed from this property. But I consider Tory Street itself provides separation
distance from this property that the visual amenity effects will be acceptable. Further,
it is noted that no visual amenity concerns were raised by the owner of this property in
their submission.
7.85 In turning to the visual amenity effects on the owners and occupiers of 39 Tory Street,
Mr Allen and Ms Doig consider the proposal will affect their visual amenity given that it
will be to the north of their property and will increase visual obtrusiveness. I note their
concerns and agree that the proposal will result in the subject property becoming
more apparent due to the increase of building bulk. But I do not consider this to be to
a degree that is unacceptable. From 39 Tory Street, the proposed building will be set
back approximately 18m which is buffered by the dwelling at 41 Tory Street. I consider
this separation distance to provide mitigation of the building bulk when viewed from
this property and the existing dwelling and garage at 41 Tory Street will further
contribute to this mitigation.
7.86 In addressing the visual amenity effects on the owners and occupiers of 41 Tory
Street, Ms Adam considers the visual outlook will be affected on the north facing side
of her property and that the proposal will undermine the appeal of her property. While
I do not dispute the increase of building bulk will increase the visual prominence of the
site when viewed from this property, I would not consider the effects to be
unacceptable. Visual outlook and views are not intrinsically protected by the District
Plan in this activity area – I consider the role of the permitted activity conditions for
sites abutting residential activity areas is to manage the bulk and location of buildings.
With the exception of the 11m height which comprises of a small protrusion of the
stairwells, I consider the proposal is represents a form of development that is
anticipated by the District Plan. I therefore consider the visual amenity effects on 41
Tory Street to be acceptable.
7.87 On balance, the adverse visual amenity effects that may arise from the proposal are
considered to be acceptable.

Privacy effects
7.88 It is considered that a residential development above ground floor level can be
anticipated in the Petone Commercial Activity Area. The permitted activity conditions
for Area 1 provide guidance in considering whether the proposal will be consistent
with the outcomes sought for sites abutting residential areas.
7.89 While noting the proposal does not comply with the 10m height requirement for sites
abutting residential activity areas, the non-compliance is generated by the stairwells
which given the intermittent use of such an area, is not considered to generate a
privacy effect on the adjoining residential properties that would be unacceptable. It is
also noted the roof top garden is set back from the edge of the roof which means
views for people on the roof down to the neighbours’ properties are very limited.
7.90 Apartments 3 and 4 will have balconies that face towards the south. While these
balconies are small and therefore unlikely to support a large group of people, there is
potential for reduced privacy for the occupants of the dwellings at 39 and 41 Tory
Street as a result of overlooking from users of the balconies.
7.91 While I consider there will be some degree of overlooking for the occupants of 39 and
41 Tory Street, the privacy effects are considered acceptable and are anticipated by
the District Plan. However, should the committee consider it necessary to further
address the submitters concerns, I believe there is scope for a condition that the final
location or treatments of windows on the southern façade of the new building to be
subject to the approval of the Team Leader, Resource Consents. Such a condition
would seek to ensure occupants of the south-facing apartments are still afforded
adequate light and that an acceptable level of privacy of the southern residential
neighbours is maintained.
7.92 The adverse privacy effects on the owners and occupiers of 28 Tory Street are
considered to be acceptable. This property is across the road from the subject site
and while the new apartments will be visible from this property, the separation
distance provides sufficient mitigation of potential privacy effects on this property.
Shading and daylight effects
7.93 It is considered the proposal will not cause shading nor detract from existing daylight
levels for the owners and occupiers of 28 Tory Street. This property is well separated
from the subject site by approximately 20m such that any adverse shading or daylight
effects will be no more than minor.
7.94 The adverse shading and daylight effects for the owners and occupiers of 39 Tory
Street are considered to be acceptable. The applicant has provided shading diagrams

to illustrate shading during the solstice and equinox at various times of the day and a
control case for a 10m high building (diagrams attached as Appendix 6). These
shading diagrams demonstrate that additional shading does occur on 39 Tory Street
(when extrapolating the angles) around the winter solstice but the shading that is
associated with the height protrusion over 10m is for a short period of time. I consider
this limited period of shading as a result of the 11m height protrusion to be
acceptable.
7.95 In considering the shading and daylight effects on 41 Tory Street, the shading
diagrams provided indicate there is a degree of shading caused by the proposed
building but I consider this degree of shading to be acceptable. Overall it is considered
that while there will be additional shading on 41 Tory Street associated with the
additional height; I consider this to be acceptable.
7.96 Further, I also note that the building complies with the recession plane requirement on
the southern boundary and the adjoining yard requirements. While the proposal is not
a permitted development in terms of building height, on balance I consider the building
to be consistent with a development anticipated by the District Plan.
7.97 Given the above comments, I consider the potential shading and daylight effects
associated with the proposal on the affected parties to be acceptable.
Noise effects
7.98 It is considered the type of noise that will be generated by the proposal will be typical
domestic noise associated with residential activities and the noise associated with the
new retail/commercial occupants in the ground floor shops. I do not consider that
these activities are high noise generators.
7.99 Whilst mechanical ventilation will be installed, the applicant has advised it will be
domestic in scale and will comply with the District Plan noise limits when measured at
the boundaries of the site.
7.100 The submissions from 39 and 41 Tory Street both raised noise as a concern.
Specifically, Mr Allen and Ms Doig consider that nuisance noise will be generated by
use of the roof garden and that it cannot be mitigated due to the height its produced.
7.101 To address this matter I referred the submission to an Environmental Health Officer
(EHO) for comment. Council’s EHO considered that regardless of the location of the
garden whether it is on the ground or the roof, it would still be treated in the same
manner under the Resource Management Act. While the applicant has proposed a
condition of consent requiring compliance with section 16 of the Resource

Management Act, I do not consider this to be of assistance given that section 16 is
applicable to any activity irrespective of conditions of consent.
7.102 In her submission, Ms Adam requested a concrete block wall between her property at
41 Tory Street and the subject site rather than the proposed close-boarded timber
fence to mitigate against vehicle noise. The applicant has agreed to this request and
has proposed a condition of consent accordingly.
7.103 The applicant has proposed a condition of consent requiring compliance with the
relevant noise standards of the District Plan when measured at or within the boundary
of any site. I consider this will ensure adverse noise effects are avoided.
7.104 On balance, I consider the adverse noise effects will be acceptable subject to the
proposed conditions of consent.
Reverse sensitivity
7.105 In establishing new residential apartments along Jackson Street, this may result in
reverse sensitivity issues for the new residents given the predominant commercial and
retail nature of the local environment. To address this, the applicant has advised they
will adopt specific noise insulation standards for habitable rooms as a condition of
consent. This proposal has been reviewed by an Environmental Health Officer who is
satisfied with this measure.
7.106 Given that the applicant has adopted conditions of consent that are supported by
Council’s Environmental Health Officer, the reverse sensitivity effects are considered
to be no more than minor.
Temporary construction effects
7.107 The applicant proposes to incorporate mitigation measures to address the effects
associated with the demolition and construction works. These mitigation measures
include development of a construction management plan prior to the commencement
of works. This plan would detail how the traffic, noise, and dust effects associated with
the demolition and construction works will be controlled.
7.108 The applicant has advised the proposal will comply with the New Zealand Standard
for construction noise. I have suggested that compliance is a condition of consent in
section 11 of this report.

7.109 As mitigation measures will be imposed through a construction management plan as
construction will be temporary, the temporary construction effects are considered to
be acceptable subject to conditions of consent.
Earthworks effects
7.110 The proposed earthworks will be up to 1m in depth across the site to allow for the
foundations of the proposed building to be constructed. In total, approximately 150m 3
of material will be removed.
7.111 The site is considered to be highly modified and has little of its original natural
character remaining. The earthworks are low in height and are being undertaken to
create suitable foundations for the proposed building. Upon completion of the building,
all areas subject to earthworks will be either covered by the proposed building or will
be covered by seal as part of the car parking area. No areas of earthworks will remain
exposed.
7.112 No areas of historical significance (notwithstanding the building at 352 Jackson Street)
are situated on the subject property. The earthworks will not affect the historic values
of the building at 352 Jackson Street.
7.113 The proposal has been reviewed by the Wellington Tenths Trust who did not present
any concerns in terms of culturally significant sites being present on the site.
7.114 Subject to suitable conditions of consent for erosion and sediment control measures
being in place, I consider the adverse earthworks effects to be acceptable.
Positive effects
7.115 I consider the proposal will have positive effects. By demolishing the existing building
at 350 Jackson Street and constructing the proposed building, the Jackson Street
frontage will be reinforced with a consistent building setback similar to immediately
adjoining sites. As noted in Mr Bowman’s assessment, the scale and width of the new
building are similar to that of the building at 352 Jackson Street.
Conclusion of the assessment of environmental effects
7.116 On balance, the adverse effects that may arise from the development are considered
to be acceptable or mitigated subject to suitable conditions of consent.

8.0 Relevant plan provisions
District Plan
8.1 I agree with and adopt the applicant’s assessment of the relevant objectives and
policies in section 3.3 (pages 13-19) of the assessment of effects with the exception of
the consideration relating to 14A (iii) 1.1.2:
8.2 14A(iii) 1.1.2 Adequate Car Parking Provision in the Petone Commercial Activity Area
Objective
To provide adequate car parking in a safe and visually attractive manner, to
maintain the safety and amenity values of the area.
Policies
(a) That sufficient parking spaces be provided using a graduated scale for
retailing activities, commercial services and licenced premises.
(b) That on site parking be provided in a safe and visually attractive manner to
enhance the safe and efficient operation of the roading system.
(c) That on street parking be provided in a safe and visually attractive manner to
enhance the safe and efficient operation of the roading system.
While the proposal does not comply with the minimum on-site parking requirements
for a residential development in the Petone Commercial Activity Area, I consider that
adequate parking for the anticipated needs of the occupants is being provided.
Further, Council’s Consultant Traffic Engineer supports the proposal and considers
that it is typical of Jackson Street residents to only require one parking space per
dwelling.
8.3 In summary, I consider that when balanced against the actual and potential effects,
the proposed and suggested conditions of consent, and the objectives and policies of
the District Plan, that overall the proposal will not be inconsistent with the outcomes
sought for the Petone Commercial Activity Area (Area 1).
8.4 Rules 5B 2.1.3.1 (a) and (b) state the matters contained in sections 104 and 105, and
in Part II of the Act shall apply and the degree of compliance or non-compliance with
any relevant Permitted Activity Conditions are assessment matters for discretionary
activities.
8.5 Assessment in accordance with section104 is contained within section 7 of this
report. Part II assessment can be found in section 9.

8.6 The relevant permitted activity conditions are those relating site coverage, maximum
height of buildings, landscaping and screening, sites abutting residential activity
areas, and General Rules compliance.
8.7 I note the proposal would have complied with the site coverage requirement (100%),
landscaping and screening requirements for outdoor storage and service areas, side
yard, rear yard, screening of outdoor storage and servicing areas, screening of car
parking areas, servicing hours, and the maximum noise requirements contained within
the General Rules Chapter.
8.8 The proposal would not have complied with the maximum height of buildings,
landscaping and screening of car parks, number of car parks, and the design
standards for parking contained within the General Rules Chapter. While noting these
non-compliances, I do not consider the degree of non-compliance with these rules to
be unacceptable. I consider that when balanced against the effects, objectives and
policies, and the Part II assessment, the adverse effects will be acceptable.
Other plans
8.9 I have given regard to the relevant national environmental standards; other
regulations; national policy statements; New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010;
regional policy statement/proposed regional policy statement; or plan/proposed plan.
8.10 I do not consider that any of the above plans affect Council’s consideration of the
proposal.
Other matters
8.11 The site and circumstances within this proposal are considered to be sufficiently
unique such that if the committee were to grant consent, that a precedent would not be
set.
8.12 There are no other matters that need to be had regard to.
9.0 Part II of the Act
9.1 Part II sets out the purpose and principles of the Act (section 5); matters of national
importance the consent authority must recognise and provide for when determining a
resource consent (section 6); other matters the consent authority must have particular
regard to (section 7); and provision for the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (section
8).
9.2 The purpose of the Act as set out in section 5 is to promote “the sustainable
management of natural and physical resources while managing the use, development,

and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables
people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing
and for their health and safety while… avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse
effects of activities on the environment.”
9.3 In determining the proposal against section 5 of the Act, I adopt the applicant’s
assessment in section 3.4 of the application (pages 19-20).
9.4 As discussed in section 7 of this report, it is considered the proposal has positive
effects.
9.5 Given the above factors, the proposal is considered that the proposal is consistent with
section 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
9.6 Section 6 of the Act lists matters of national importance. I adopt the applicant’s
assessment in section 3.4 on page 20 of the application. I add to this assessment that
the proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Consultant Heritage Conservator Ian
Bowman who supports the proposal.
9.7 Section 7 of the Act lists a number of other matters that Council shall have particular
regard to when considering such an application. Under section 7 the following matters
are considered applicable:
(b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:
(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:
(f)
Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:
It is considered that the proposal is not contrary to section 7 of the Act for the reasons
discussed in the assessment of effects and discussed on page 20 of the application.
9.8 It is considered section 8 of the Act requires that the Council, in achieving the purpose
of the Act, in managing the use, development and protection of the natural and
physical environment, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It
is considered the proposal is not contrary to section 8 of the Act. It is noted the subject
site is not adjacent to any land subject to the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Act
2009 that would warrant notification of the application to the Port Nicholson Settlement
Trust. However, the proposal was reviewed by the Wellington Tenths Trust who did
not present any concerns with the development.
9.9 Overall I consider the proposed mixed use development at 350-352 Jackson Street
and 43 Tory Street will be consistent with Part II of the Resource Management Act
1991.

10.0 Conclusion
10.1 Resource consent is sought to demolish the existing building at 350 Jackson Street, to
construct a three storey building at 350 Jackson Street and 43 Tory Street, and to
undertake alterations to the existing building at 352 Jackson Street, Petone. The
proposal is a discretionary activity within the Petone Commercial Activity Area (Area
1).
10.2 The adverse effects that may arise from the proposal are considered to be
acceptable. The development is considered to be an anticipated outcome on the
subject property, will not result in unacceptable character, amenity, and visual effects
on the affected parties and has been assessed favourably by Council’s Consultant
Heritage Conservator, Urban Design Expert (with the exception of the rooftop
balustrades and louvers), Traffic Engineer and an Environmental Health Officer.
10.3 I have suggested appropriate conditions for the consent which will further mitigate any
potential adverse effects on the affected parties associated with the proposal pursuant
to section 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
10.4 I have considered the proposal against the relevant objectives and policies of the
District Plan for the Petone Commercial Activity Area, the Transport Chapter, the
Heritage Chapter, and the Earthworks Chapter. I have mostly adopted the applicant’s
assessment and consider the proposal to be consistent with these objectives and
policies.
10.5 I have considered the proposal against the relevant provisions of Part II of the
Resource Management Act 1991 and consider that the proposal is consistent with
these provisions.
10.6 I recommend the resource consent is granted pursuant to section 104B of the
Resource Management Act 1991.
11.0 Suggested conditions of consent
If the committee resolves to grant resource consent, the following may be considered
as conditions of that consent:
General
1. To ensure that Council monitors the resource consent in accordance with their
requirements, the consent holder shall contact the Council’s Environmental
Enforcement Officer on 04 570 6966 or email at enforcement@huttcity.govt.nz

at least 48 hours prior to any physical work commencing on the site and advise
the Officer the following:
• The date the work shall commence;
• The name of the contractor(s) and their contact details including phone
number and postal address; and
• The contact details for who will be carrying out the earthworks.
2. Once work commences on the site, a copy of this resource consent decision
shall be available on site at all times and made available upon request.
3. On completion, the proposal must be in general accordance with the information
and drawings submitted with this application and held on the property file for
350 and 352 Jackson Street and 43 Tory Street (Drawings entitled: ‘Preliminary
Study, 350 – 352 Jackson Street, Coast Edge Limited, pages 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 2.3
and 2.11 dated September 2011 and 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 dated 19
December 2011 and Option C dated 19 December 2011. Further information is
held on the Insol Ltd document titled Solaris End Fixing – 110mm Blade Size,
page ss) 7 and the LouverTec document titled 125 Louverline Weatherboard
Panel Centre of Blade Pivot, page 5.06).
Construction
4. Prior to the commencement of any site development works on the site, the
consent holder shall submit a Construction Management Plan to the Council, for
the approval of the Team Leader Resource Consents. This Construction
Management Plan shall contain the following information:
• Details of the sediment and dust control measures to be implemented on
site;
• The measures which will be adopted to mitigate any resulting effects
from construction traffic;
• The measures which will be adopted to mitigate any resulting effects
from noise; and
• The measures which will be adopted to mitigate any resulting effects
from vibration.
All construction works (and associated activities) shall be undertaken in
accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan.
5. All development and construction shall be undertaken in such a manner as to
comply with the provisions of NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise.
6. If Taonga (treasure or prized possession, including a natural resource, having
tangible value) is discovered in any part of the site, the consent holder is to
contact the Tenths Trust on 04 473 2502, the New Zealand Historic Places

Trust and Hutt City Council within 24 hours. The consent holder is to cease all
work in that area until a site inspection is carried out by iwi representatives and
Council staff and approval to continue is given by the Team Leader Resource
Consents.
Earthworks
7. The consent holder shall install and maintain sediment control measures in
compliance with Greater Wellington regional council’s erosion and sediment
control guidelines (issued in April 2003).
8. The consent holder shall deposit all unwanted spoil in a Council-approved
landfill by the conclusion of site works.
Noise
9. The consent holder shall ensure that noise levels from the electronic gate and
the mechanical plant installed on the site do not exceed the following noise
limits when measured at or within the boundary of any residential site other than
the site on which the consented activities takes place:
Daytime
Monday to Saturday 7.00am to 10.00pm 60dBA L 10
Sunday (all day) 45dBA L 10
Nighttime
Monday to Saturday 10.00pm to 7.00am 45dBA L 10
Sunday (all night) 10.00pm to 7.00am 45dBA L 10
10.00pm to 7.00am 75dB L AFmax
Measurements shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of NZS
6801:2008 Acoustics - Measurement of Environmental Sound. Measured sound
levels shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of NZS 6802:2008
Acoustics – Environmental Noise.
Note: this includes all air conditioning units, heat pumps, etc.
10. The wall along the southern boundary of the site shall be 2m high and
constructed from concrete blocks.
Noise insulation
11. Any habitable room in a building used by a noise sensitive activity shall be
protected from noise arising from outside the building by ensuring the external
sound insulation level achieves the following minimum performance standard:
DnT,w + Ctr > 30 dB1

Compliance with this performance standard shall be achieved by ensuring
habitable rooms are designed and constructed in a manner that:
(a) accords with the schedule of typical building construction set out in
Appendix Central Commercial 7 – Noise Insulation Construction
Schedule; or
(b) accords with an acoustic design certificate signed by a suitably
qualified acoustic engineer stating the design as proposed will
achieve compliance with the above performance standard.
[1 DnT,w + Ctr is the standardised level difference (outdoor to indoor) and
is a measure of the airborne sound insulation provided by the external
building envelope (including windows, walls, ceilings and floors where
appropriate)].
Traffic
12. That a minimum of six on-site parking spaces shall be provided.
13. All servicing of the retail stores on 350 Jackson Street and 43 Tory Street shall
be undertaken from the on-site car parking area and shall occur between the
hours of 8am and 6pm.
Lighting
14. There shall be no lights on the site positioned in a manner which will shine
directly into any of the neighbouring residential properties.
15. Any lightspill from the site shall not exceed 8 lux when measured at the
residential boundaries of the site.
Privacy
16. Prior to the commencement of construction, the consent holder shall submit
plans for approval that show the proposed positioning or treatment of windows
on the south-facing façade. The location of the windows shall take into account
the privacy effects of the residential properties to the south. This plan is to be
considered by the Team Leader, Resource Consents.
Rubbish collection
17. Rubbish collection shall only occur between the hours of 8am and 6pm.
Wall materials
18. Prior to the commencement of construction, the consent holder shall submit a
design for the roof top balustrades and the louvers on the principal facades to
be considered by the Team Leader, Resource Consents.

12.0 Notes
If the committee resolves to grant resource consent, the following may be considered
as notes on the consent:
• Prior to the commencement of construction, the consent holder is advised to seek
approval for an encroachment licence from Council’s Roading and Traffic Division
for the balconies over the road reserve.
• 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.
• Prior to any construction works, the consent holder is advised to seek an
archaeological authority from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.
• 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.
• This resource consent is specific to the application received by Council. Any
changes to the proposal may require a new resource consent and additional
application fee.
• Plans submitted with the application have only been checked for compliance with
the City of Lower Hutt District Plan.
• Any building work associated with the proposed activity should not commence until
a building consent has been obtained under the Building Act 2004.
• 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.

Appendix 1
Huttview map of affected parties

Appendix 2
Chairperson’s pre-hearing meeting report and conditions tabled by applicant at meeting

Appendix 3
Assessment by Council’s Consultant Heritage Conservator

Appendix 4
Assessments by Council’s Consultant Urban Design Expert

Appendix 5
Assessments by Council’s Consultant Traffic Engineer

Appendix 6
Shading diagrams