Planners Report.pdf - Hutt City Council
Planners Report.pdf - Hutt City Council
Planners Report.pdf - Hutt City Council
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Officer’s section 42A report for resource consent application to demolish the existing<br />
building at 350 Jackson Street, to construct a three storey building at 350 Jackson Street<br />
and 43 Tory Street, and to undertake alterations to the existing building at 352 Jackson<br />
Street, Petone (RM110315)<br />
Addresses: 43 Tory Street, 350 and 352 Jackson Street, Petone.<br />
Applicant: Deb Stantiall Resettlement Trust c/- James Beban, Senior Resource Management<br />
Consultant at Cuttriss Consultants Ltd, Lower <strong>Hutt</strong>.<br />
Proposal:<br />
Land use consent is sought to demolish the existing building at 350 Jackson Street<br />
and to construct a three storey building at 350 Jackson Street and 43 Tory Street.<br />
Alterations are proposed to the existing building at 352 Jackson Street.<br />
1.0 Baylee Pakau states<br />
1.1 I am an Intermediate Resource Consents Planner at <strong>Hutt</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>Council</strong>. I hold a<br />
Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of Canterbury, and a Bachelor of Science<br />
Degree (Honours) from Victoria University of Wellington. I am an Associate Member of<br />
the New Zealand Planning Institute.<br />
1.2 I have worked in the Resource Consents Team at <strong>Hutt</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>Council</strong> for 3.5 years. Prior<br />
to <strong>Hutt</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>Council</strong>, I worked at Westland District <strong>Council</strong> in Hokitika as a Resource<br />
Consents Planner for nine months.<br />
1.3 I have visited the site and am familiar with the surrounding area.<br />
2.0 Summary of the proposal<br />
2.1 Resource consent is sought to demolish the existing building at 350 Jackson Street<br />
and to construct a three storey building at 350 Jackson Street and 43 Tory Street. The<br />
building that will be demolished is a single storey office and warehouse that was<br />
constructed in the 1980s. The applicant envisions that this demolition work will not<br />
commence until they have obtained all relevant approvals for the apartment building<br />
and is ready to begin construction.<br />
2.2 The applicant is proposing to undertake earthworks on the site to facilitate construction<br />
of the building. The earthworks will be up to 1m in depth across the site to allow for the<br />
foundations of the proposed building to be constructed. In total, approximately 150m3<br />
of material will be removed.
2.3 No resource consents are currently bought sought for signage on the proposed retail<br />
tenancies.<br />
2.4 The proposed building will be a maximum of 11m in height and would be constructed<br />
up to the northern, eastern and western boundaries of the site. The proposed building<br />
would be located 6m from the southern boundary of 43 Tory Street. The new building<br />
will comply with the 45 degree recession plane on this boundary when measured from<br />
the neighbouring residential property.<br />
2.5 The proposed building would contain three residential tenancies and six apartments.<br />
The general layout of the new building at 350 Jackson Street and 43 Tory Street is as<br />
follows:<br />
Ground floor and carparking<br />
2.6 The ground floor will contain three retail tenancies, two of which will face Jackson<br />
Street. These retail tenancies will have a floor area each of 104.8m 2 and will have<br />
recessed entranceways onto Jackson Street. A cantilevered verandah will be<br />
constructed above the tenancies to provide weather protection to users of Jackson<br />
Street. The third retail tenancy will be 31.2m 2 in size with frontage to Tory Street.<br />
2.7 The applicant proposes to form six on-site car parking spaces to the immediate south<br />
of the Jackson Street retail tenancies. These car parking spaces would be accessed<br />
via a vehicle crossing off Tory Street and would be available for use by the occupants<br />
of the apartments. These car parking spaces would be screened from the residential<br />
property to the south by a 1.8m high closed boarded fence and from Tory Street by a<br />
retractable 1.8m high gate.<br />
First floor<br />
2.8 The first floor of the proposed building would be divided into six apartments as well as<br />
an uncovered paved courtyard. Apartments 1 and 2 would be located within the<br />
northern portion of the building and would each have a deck that would extend over<br />
the Jackson Street footpath. These apartments would have direct access to the<br />
courtyard which would be to the immediate south of these apartments.<br />
2.9 Apartments 3 and 4 would be located within the south west portion of the building and<br />
would each have a small deck that extends to the south. The first floor of these<br />
apartments would contain two bedrooms and bathroom facilities. These apartments<br />
would have direct access to the courtyard which will be to the immediate north.<br />
2.10 Apartment 5 would be located within the south east portion of the building and is the<br />
only one bedroom apartment proposed. This apartment would have a deck that<br />
extends eastwards over Tory Street. Access to the courtyard would be achieved via an<br />
internal corridor.
2.11 Apartment 6 would be located immediately south of 352 Jackson Street and would<br />
contain two bedrooms and associated bathroom facilities. This apartment would have<br />
a small deck which extends eastwards over Tory Street. Access to the courtyard would<br />
be achieved via an internal corridor.<br />
Second floor<br />
2.12 For all six apartments, the kitchen, dining and internal living areas are provided for on<br />
the second floor. Apartments 1, 2, 5, and 6 will each have a deck located immediately<br />
above their respective deck on the ground floor. The decks for apartments 3 and 4 will<br />
extend northwards over the proposed courtyard. 3<br />
Third floor<br />
2.13 A roof deck will be provided on the third floor for all proposed apartments. Access to<br />
the roof deck will be via individual stairwells from each apartment. The stairwells will<br />
be 11m in height.<br />
Existing building at 352 Jackson Street<br />
2.14 The applicant is proposing to undertake works to the existing building at 352 Jackson<br />
Street. These works include repainting of the exterior of the building as per the colour<br />
schedule contained in the Appendix 2 of the application; internal alterations to the first<br />
floor of the building as part of the earthquake strengthening works required to be<br />
undertaken; and to upgrade the existing apartment (shown as apartment 7 on the<br />
drawings) and to undertake alterations to the western façade of the building to access<br />
into the proposed building at 350 Jackson Street.<br />
3.0 The site and locality<br />
3.1 350 Jackson Street is legally described as Lot 2 DP 455 which has an area of<br />
approximately 316m 2 . No interests are registered on the Certificate of Title for this<br />
property that may affect <strong>Council</strong>’s assessment. This site contains the existing office<br />
and warehouse constructed in the 1980s. The area to the north of the building is an<br />
open yard which has been used for car parking as well as providing access to the<br />
warehouse located on the site.<br />
3.2 352 Jackson Street is legally described as Lot 1 DP 91134 with an approximate area<br />
of 156m 2 . A memorandum of encumbrance is registered on the Certificate of Title that<br />
pertains to the upkeep of the building on the application site that <strong>Council</strong> is party to.<br />
This site contains a two storey building that covers the majority of the site. The<br />
building was constructed in the 1920s and contains a takeaway pizza outlet on the<br />
ground floor and a residential apartment on the first floor. The building on this site<br />
used to be on the earthquake risk register until 2002 where it was taken off the list due<br />
to strengthening works.
3.3 43 Tory Street is legally described as Lot 2 DP 91134 and has an approximate area of<br />
162m 2 . No interests are registered on the Certificate of Title that may affect <strong>Council</strong>’s<br />
assessment. The site contains no buildings and is currently used for informal parking<br />
purposes. Access to this property is achieved via the existing vehicle crossing off Tory<br />
Street.<br />
3.4 The entire site is considered to be flat in topography. No notable vegetation is present<br />
on the site.<br />
3.5 I can confirm that all of the subject properties are within the Petone Commercial<br />
Activity Area (Area 1) of the <strong>City</strong> of Lower <strong>Hutt</strong> District Plan. The site is also within the<br />
Heritage Area identified in Chapter 14F of the District Plan. No other notations<br />
contained within the District Plan are applicable to this site.<br />
3.6 Jackson Street Historic Area is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust<br />
and consists of the area of buildings located along both sides of Jackson Street<br />
between the intersection with Victoria Street in the west and Cuba Street in the east.<br />
The subject site is within this area.<br />
3.7 The Certificates of Title for 350 Jackson Street and 43 Tory Street have been<br />
reviewed and do not contain any interests that may affect the committee’s decision.<br />
3.8 In regards to the Certificate of Title for 352 Jackson Street, a memorandum of<br />
encumbrance pertains to the upkeep of the building on the application site that<br />
<strong>Council</strong> is party to.<br />
3.9 The wider environment to the west and east of the subject site is characterised by the<br />
commercial and retail precinct of Jackson Street. Both sides of Jackson Street<br />
generally consist of a mix of one and two storeyed buildings with small frontage retail<br />
activities and commercial activities at road level, and residential flats or offices above.<br />
The majority of buildings on the street were built from the 1920s to the 1940s and<br />
form part of the Jackson Street heritage precinct. To the south of the subject site<br />
towards The Esplanade, the character is predominately residential and generally<br />
consists of single storey detached dwellings in bay villa and cottage style which face<br />
towards their respective street frontage.<br />
3.10 The committee should note that there is no requirement to provide a verandah under<br />
residential balconies in the Petone Commercial Activity Area. However should<br />
consent be granted, the consent holder should be alerted via a note on the consent<br />
that separate approval from the Roading and Traffic Division is required for the<br />
balconies encroachment over the footpath.
Site history<br />
3.11 The existing warehouse and office building at 350 Jackson Street was granted<br />
building permit in 1985. Resource consent for signage was granted in 2005.<br />
3.12 The existing building at 352 Jackson Street is contained within the heritage building<br />
inventory that was undertaken in 2006. Construction date for this building dates<br />
c1920s. The style of the building is stripped classical. Strengthening works were<br />
undertaken by the owner and signed off by <strong>Council</strong> in 1998 and the building was<br />
consequently removed from the earthquake risk register.<br />
3.13 Resource consent was granted in 1999 to paint the building at 352 Jackson Street.<br />
Subdivision consent was granted in 2000 that created the titles for 352 Jackson Street<br />
and 43 Tory Street. Land use consent was granted in 2000 for partial demolition and<br />
to replace doors and windows for restoration purposes.<br />
3.14 43 Tory Street was created by the two lot subdivision of 352 Jackson Street in 2000<br />
and has been used as an informal car park since.<br />
4.0 Consents sought<br />
4.1 The appropriate planning instrument for assessing the proposed activity is the <strong>City</strong> of<br />
Lower <strong>Hutt</strong> District Plan. The site is within the Petone Commercial Activity Area (Area<br />
1). The relevant rules are contained within Chapters 5B, 14A, 14F, and 14I.<br />
4.2 The activity status of the proposal is discretionary in accordance with Rule 5B 2.1.3<br />
(a) which states:<br />
Except where stated in the General Rules, any Permitted Activity which fails to comply<br />
with any of the Permitted Activity Conditions<br />
4.3 The proposal does not comply with the following rules of the District Plan:<br />
4.4 Rule 5B 2.1.1.1 (b) Maximum Height of Buildings and Structures: 10.0m.<br />
The proposed stairwells will result in the new building having a maximum height of up<br />
to 11.0m.<br />
4.5 Rule 5B 2.1.1.1 (d) Sites abutting residential activity areas:<br />
Where a site abuts a residential activity area the following conditions shall apply:<br />
The maximum height of buildings is 10 metres. All buildings and structures shall<br />
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.<br />
4.6 Rule 5B 2.1.2 Restricted Discretionary Activities<br />
(a) All redevelopment, alterations, repairing or modifications of any building or<br />
structure, except the following:<br />
(i) Redecoration, repair or alterations which are internal and not visible<br />
from the road or from the road frontage; and<br />
(ii) Minor repair or alterations or maintenance to the existing facade of a<br />
building or structure which does not require any building consent;<br />
which are Permitted Activities.<br />
The proposal includes redevelopment of buildings.<br />
4.7 Rule 14A(iii) 2.1 Permitted Activities – Conditions<br />
(a) Car Parking Requirements:<br />
The following parking provisions shall apply in all activity areas where an<br />
activity is established on site; or there is a change in activity; or the building is<br />
constructed, substantially reconstructed, altered or added to. Except as<br />
provided for in this section and in Section (c) below (Special Parking Areas)<br />
and in relation to temporary activities and filming activities, all activities shall<br />
meet the minimum parking requirements set out in Appendix Transport 3.<br />
Parking requirements are based on the type, scale and the associated trip<br />
generation factors for each activity. The minimum parking requirements are<br />
listed in Appendix Transport 3. Sufficient carparking shall be provided to<br />
meet the actual or 10th highest parking demand hour in any year during the<br />
life of the development. The parking standards in Appendix Transport 3 are<br />
deemed to meet this objective for parts of the <strong>City</strong> except as provided for in<br />
this section and in Section (c) below (Special Parking Areas).<br />
In calculating the number of parking spaces to be provided, fractional<br />
numbers shall be rounded up to the next complete number.<br />
If the proposed development will lead to the loss of public parking on an<br />
Access Road, either through additional length of kerb crossing, or through<br />
consequential parking prohibitions, then the number of parks lost shall be<br />
added to the requirement.<br />
Space needed for manoeuvring, loading, unloading, queuing, or standing at a<br />
service booth, shall not be used for carparks counted towards meeting the<br />
requirement.<br />
(b) Location of Parking Spaces:<br />
Parking spaces must be provided on site.<br />
ACTIVITY PARKS UNIT<br />
Existing single unit 1 dwelling<br />
New single unit 2 dwelling
As six new apartments are proposed, 12 on-site spaces are required. Six spaces are<br />
proposed, a non-compliance of 6.<br />
It is considered existing use rights apply to the established apartment at 350 Jackson<br />
Street therefore is not required to meet this rule.<br />
4.8 Rule 14A(iv) 2.1 Permitted Activities – Conditions<br />
(b) Loading and Unloading Requirements for Non-Residential Activities:<br />
For retail and industrial activities (except in the Core, Riverfront (Core),<br />
Riverfront (Commercial) and Residential Transition Precincts in the Central<br />
Commercial Activity Area), the number of loading spaces to be provided<br />
shall not be less than the following requirements:<br />
Table 7 - Loading Space Requirements:<br />
Gross Floor Area No. of Spaces Minimum Design Vehicle<br />
Under 2000m 2 GFA 1 Maximum rigid truck<br />
(c) Design Requirements:<br />
(iii) Where articulated vehicles are likely to be used, a greater depth shall be<br />
provided.<br />
Design of all facilities, including access, manoeuvring and circulation space, shall take<br />
into account the provisions of Australian Standard AS2890 “Off-street Parking, Part 2:<br />
Commercial Vehicle Facilities (1989).”<br />
The proposal does not have sufficient space available to provide for reverse<br />
manoeuvring for loading.<br />
4.9 Rule 14A (iii) 2.1 Permitted Activities – Conditions<br />
(a) Car Parking Requirements:<br />
The following parking provisions shall apply in all activity areas where an<br />
activity is established on site; or there is a change in activity; or the building is<br />
constructed, substantially reconstructed, altered or added to. Except as<br />
provided for in this section and in Section (c) below (Special Parking Areas)<br />
and in relation to temporary activities and filming activities, all activities shall<br />
meet the minimum parking requirements set out in Appendix Transport 3.<br />
(d)<br />
Design Standards:<br />
The layout, design and detailing of all parking spaces shall be such as to<br />
ensure their convenient, safe and efficient use.<br />
Every parking space shall have such dimensions as to comply with the<br />
requirements of the Australian Standard AS2890 Part 1.
The dimensions of the proposed car parks are not able to comply with the<br />
requirements of Australian Standard AS2890 Part 1.<br />
4.10 Rule 14F 2.1 Discretionary activities<br />
(b) Demolition or relocation of part or all of a building or structure listed in Appendix<br />
Heritage 1 or 2<br />
The existing building at 350 Jackson Street will be demolished.<br />
4.11 Rule 14I Permitted Activities – Conditions<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
Ground Level:<br />
The natural ground level may not be altered by more than 1.2m, measured<br />
vertically.<br />
Quantity:<br />
Maximum volume of 50m 3 (solid measure) per site.<br />
The applicant proposes to undertake 150m 3 of earthworks.<br />
5.0 Consideration under the Resource Management Act 1991<br />
5.1 As a discretionary activity the application must be assessed in accordance with the<br />
provisions of sections 104 and 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act).<br />
The process for considering a discretionary activity is as follows:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
To identify the relevant section 104 matters;<br />
As part of the overall discretion in section 104B, weigh the relevant matters<br />
under section 104.<br />
5.2 I consider that the relevant section 104 matters are as follows:<br />
• Any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity:<br />
• The relevant provisions of the District Plan, objectives, policies and rules; and<br />
• Part II of the Act.<br />
5.3 An assessment of effects of the proposal on the environment and the identification of<br />
the issues/matters raised by submitters are detailed in sections 6 and 7 below. The<br />
District Plan’s objectives, policies and rules are of particular relevance in terms of<br />
section 104(1)(b), and together with the Part II criteria listed in section 9 of this report,<br />
form the basis of my considerations.
6.0 Submissions<br />
6.1 The application was limited notified on 31 January 2012 to the owners and occupiers<br />
of 28, 39, and 41 Tory Street (as shown on the aerial map attached as Appendix 1)<br />
6.2 By the close of submissions on 1 March 2012, <strong>Council</strong> had received three<br />
submissions. The submission by Housing New Zealand as the owner of 28 Tory<br />
Street is considered to be in support of the application. Ms Adam of 41 Tory Street<br />
submitted in opposition and Mr Allen and Ms Doig of 39 Tory Street submitted in<br />
opposition.<br />
6.3 Ms Adam, Mr Allen and Ms Doig advised in their submissions that they wish to be<br />
heard. While Housing New Zealand did not wish to be heard, the effects on 28 Tory<br />
Street as an affected party are still relevant to <strong>Council</strong>’s assessment.<br />
6.4 The key issues raised in the submissions are as follows:<br />
Visual amenity and privacy<br />
6.5 The submissions from Mr Allen, Ms Doig, and Ms Adam raised concerns with the<br />
proposed height of the building and its effects on visual amenity and privacy. The<br />
additional height associated with the roof gardens will mean a loss of privacy due to<br />
overlooking. Both of these submissions opposed the proposed height breach.<br />
6.6 These submitters consider the proposal will affect the outlook to the north for both<br />
their properties.<br />
6.7 Mr Allen and Ms Doig do not consider that the loss of privacy is mitigated by<br />
compliance with the yard requirements and the proposed fencing.<br />
6.8 Ms Adam considers the development will undermine the appeal of her property.<br />
Noise and disturbance<br />
6.9 Ms Adam considers that construction noise and the associated disruption and dust will<br />
compromise quality of life.<br />
6.10 If approved, Ms Adam has requested a concrete block fence rather than the proposed<br />
closed boarded fence to mitigate against noise from vehicles.<br />
6.11 Mr Allen and Ms Doig consider nuisance noise will be generated by the use of the roof<br />
top garden which cannot be mitigated due to the height at which noise is produced.
Traffic<br />
6.12 Mr Allen and Ms Doig consider the application to be misleading when it says there is<br />
no existing off-street space because Dominos uses an informal parking at 43 Tory<br />
Street.<br />
6.13 Mr Allen and Ms Doig consider that demand for parking results in vehicles obstructing<br />
footpaths. They also consider that demand will increase significantly as a result of the<br />
new premises in addition to Dominos.<br />
6.14 Ms Adam submits that even though Dominos has existing use rights, they should still<br />
be required to meet the current parking and loading requirements. Ms Adam queries<br />
whether there are other alternatives available given the existing level of activity in the<br />
informal car park.<br />
Character effects<br />
6.15 Ms Adam considers the retail tenancy on Tory Street will affect the predominant<br />
residential character.<br />
Future occupants<br />
6.16 Ms Adam is concerned that there has been no application for unit titles as an<br />
owner/occupier would be more likely to take better care of the units.<br />
Miscellaneous matters<br />
6.17 Concerns were raised in the submissions on the effect on property values. I do not<br />
consider this a matter relevant to <strong>Council</strong>’s assessment as property value is not an<br />
environmental effect in itself. Rather, it is the outcome from various factors which may<br />
influence a person’s perception on the value of a property such as a loss in amenity<br />
values. While no weighting will be placed on the potential loss of property value, I<br />
consider it relevant to assess the amenity effects of the proposal in section 7 of this<br />
report.<br />
Pre-hearing meeting<br />
6.18 A pre-hearing meeting was held on 21 March 2012. The chairperson’s report and the<br />
conditions proposed by the applicant that were tabled at this meeting are attached as<br />
Appendix 2.<br />
6.19 The matters raised within the submissions will be addressed within section 7 below.<br />
7.0 Assessment of actual and potential environmental effects<br />
An assessment of effects on the environment, including the issues/matters raised by<br />
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<br />
together with the Part II criteria listed in section 9 of this report, form the basis of any<br />
determination as to whether an adverse effect may be regarded as acceptable (or<br />
otherwise).<br />
7.1 The following definitions contained in the Act apply in this case:<br />
“Environment” is defined as<br />
(a) Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and<br />
communities; and<br />
(b) All natural and physical resources; and<br />
(c) Amenity values; and<br />
(d) The social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural conditions which<br />
affect the matters stated in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this definition<br />
or which are affected by those matters.<br />
“Amenity values” are defined as<br />
those natural and physical qualities and characteristics of an area<br />
that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness,<br />
aesthetic coherence and cultural and recreational attributes.<br />
7.2 The environmental effects that I consider relevant to assessing this proposal are as<br />
follows:<br />
• Heritage effects<br />
• Urban design and streetscape effects<br />
• Traffic effects<br />
• Effects on residential character<br />
• Visual amenity effects<br />
• Privacy effects<br />
• Shading and daylight effects<br />
• Noise effects<br />
• Reverse sensitivity<br />
• Earthworks effects<br />
• Temporary construction effects<br />
• Positive effects
Permitted baseline<br />
7.3 Section 104(2) states “…when forming an opinion for the purpose of subsection 1(a),<br />
a consent authority may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment<br />
if [[a national environmental standard or]] the plan permits an activity with that effect.”<br />
7.4 The permitted baseline for a site within the Petone Commercial Activity Area (Area 1)<br />
provides for retail activities, commercial activities, health care services, and licensed<br />
premises with a gross floor area (GFA) not exceeding 1000m 2 . Residential activities<br />
above ground floor are also permitted. These activities must comply with the permitted<br />
activity conditions and General Rules. I consider the permitted baseline for these<br />
activities as relevant and has been taken into account.<br />
7.5 Further to the above, redecoration, repair or alterations which are internal and not<br />
visible from the road or from the road frontage, and minor repairs or alterations or<br />
maintenance to the existing façade of a building or structure which does not require<br />
building consent are permitted activities. However, if any proposal cannot meet these<br />
requirements, consent is required for a restricted discretionary activity.<br />
7.6 As the existing building at 350 Jackson Street is within the Jackson Street Historic<br />
Area as identified in Chapter 14F of the District Plan, demolition of this building is an<br />
identified discretionary activity.<br />
7.7 In considering the permitted baseline for this proposal, while some small scale repairs,<br />
alterations, and maintenance are permitted, it is considered the scale of the<br />
development is significantly more than a permitted activity. But in terms of the<br />
proposed activity (rather than the bulk of the building itself) I consider the permitted<br />
baseline in that respect relevant to my assessment.<br />
Existing environment<br />
7.8 The existing environment comprises of those activities that are lawfully established on<br />
the subject site. The existing environment differs from the permitted baseline as the<br />
permitted baseline considers those activities that could occur in the future on the<br />
application site without resource consent; whereas the existing environment consists<br />
of the activities already established on the site.<br />
7.9 The existing buildings and activities at 350 and 352 Jackson Street are considered to<br />
form part of the existing environment. This includes the tenancies on the ground floor<br />
and the first level apartment at 350 Jackson Street.<br />
Assessment of environmental effects<br />
7.10 No persons have provided their written approval. Thus all adverse effects on the<br />
affected persons must be taken into account.
Heritage effects<br />
7.11 To assist <strong>Council</strong>’s consideration of the proposal, the application has been peer<br />
reviewed by <strong>Council</strong>’s Consultant Heritage Conservator, Ian Bowman (assessment<br />
attached as Appendix 3). In his assessment, Mr Bowman states that neither building<br />
at 350 or 352 Jackson Street are specifically registered by the New Zealand Historic<br />
Places Trust nor are separately listed by <strong>Council</strong> in the District Plan. The buildings lie<br />
within the Jackson Street Historic Area which is listed in the District Plan and is<br />
described under Appendix Heritage 1 (ii) Heritage Areas registered by the New<br />
Zealand Historic Places Trust. Mr Bowman has assessed the proposal against the<br />
matters identified in Chapter 14F and the Design Guide for the Petone Commercial<br />
Activity Area.<br />
7.12 In considering the proposal against the matters in Chapter 14F, Mr Bowman considers<br />
the main modifications which will have an external effect on the building at 352<br />
Jackson Street will comprise of replacing an existing egress door to Tory Street,<br />
enlarging an existing ground floor window to Tory Street and the construction of the<br />
new building replacing the existing building at 350 Jackson Street and 43 Petone<br />
Street.<br />
7.13 Mr Bowman considers the window enlarging and replacement of an existing door to<br />
the east elevation of 352 Jackson Street will have a less than minor effect on the<br />
building. The window being enlarged is currently painted out and there is an existing<br />
door, which the proposal replaces. I concur with Mr Bowman’s assessment.<br />
7.14 Mr Bowman considers the new building may have a minor positive effect on 352<br />
Jackson Street as it will create a built edge to the street, which is currently lacking in<br />
both Jackson Street and Tory Street. The scale and width of the new building are<br />
similar to that of 352 Jackson Street.<br />
7.15 Mr Bowman considers the design and external appearance of the building will have a<br />
negligible change on 352 Jackson Street. I concur with this assessment.<br />
7.16 In considering the scale of the work in proportion to the original building, Mr Bowman<br />
states that while the proposed new building wraps around the existing at 352 Jackson<br />
Street, the visible effect is the construction of a new building to the south of 352 and<br />
another to the west of 352 Jackson Street. The new building to the west of 352<br />
Jackson Street is of a similar scale while the new building to the south is<br />
approximately half the width and a similar height to the existing Tory Street façade of<br />
352 Jackson Street. Mr Bowman notes the proposed new buildings have three floors<br />
within its overall height. While 352 Jackson Street has two floors, the verandah<br />
heights align. I concur with these comments.
7.17 In considering the compatibility of the style, materials, and colouring of the new work<br />
in its integration with the original building, Mr Bowman’s assessment states that the<br />
style of the proposed building does not match that of 352 Jackson Street but is<br />
compatible in a number of areas, particularly the style of the proposed buildings, the<br />
decorative features, windows, and shop entrances. Mr Bowman notes the difference<br />
in materials between the existing building at 352 Jackson Street and the proposed<br />
building. Mr Bowman has reviewed the proposed colour palette and considers the<br />
colours to be acceptable.<br />
7.18 As noted in the application, the building to be demolished at 350 Jackson Street is a<br />
single storey structure which was constructed in the 1980s. This building is recessed<br />
from the front boundary and has car parking and access located between itself and<br />
the Jackson Street carriageway. The applicant considers that the relatively modern<br />
design of the building and the layout of the site are currently inconsistent with the<br />
intended appearance of structures along Jackson Street. I concur with the applicant’s<br />
assessment. Given Mr Bowman’s assessment, I consider the adverse effects of<br />
demolishing the existing building at 350 Jackson Street and erecting a new building to<br />
be no more than minor.<br />
7.19 Mr Bowman has also assessed the proposal against the design guide for buildings<br />
within the Petone Commercial Activity Area.<br />
Building shape<br />
7.20 Mr Bowman considers the proposed new buildings match the existing building at 352<br />
Jackson Street in terms of scale, height, and rectangular form. The cornice height on<br />
352 Jackson Street matches the proposed building length at the street boundary of<br />
the new building. The floor-to-floor height of the proposed building does not match<br />
that of 352 Jackson Street as two floors are proposed within the height of the first floor<br />
of 352 Jackson Street. Mr Bowman considers the proposed building will create a<br />
street edge when none exists at present, the effect of which is positive as it reinforces<br />
the traditional character of Jackson Street.<br />
7.21 I concur with Mr Bowman’s assessment and while the floor-to-floor heights of the<br />
proposed building do not match the existing building, the overall effect of having a<br />
building on the road frontage of Jackson Street is considered to maintain the<br />
compatibility of the streetscape frontage. On balance, the proposal is consistent with<br />
these performance design standards.<br />
Buildings on corner sites<br />
7.22 Mr Bowman does not consider the design performance standards for buildings on<br />
corner sites to be relevant. I concur with his comments.
Building modulation<br />
7.23 Mr Bowman considers the proposed Jackson Street elevation when read as a single<br />
building, is symmetrical and the façade is subdivided into vertical and horizontal<br />
elements. The general emphasis is horizontal because of its form and expressed floor<br />
subdivision. Mr Bowman notes that unlike most early 20 th century buildings in the<br />
street, the proposed buildings do not have wider bands at verandah, cornice and<br />
parapet levels.<br />
7.24 The shop divisions at ground floor are continuous up the height of the building,<br />
dividing the building in two. Mr Bowman states that this mirrors the Jackson Street<br />
elevation of 352 Jackson Street excluding the chamfered corner.<br />
7.25 Mr Bowman states the building on Tory Street is not symmetrical but reflects the<br />
different façade treatment of 352 on Tory Street. Having a different façade treatment<br />
on side streets is common with traditional buildings in Jackson Street.<br />
7.26 I concur with Mr Bowman’s comments and I consider the proposal to meet these<br />
performance design standards.<br />
Wall materials and openings<br />
7.27 Mr Bowman notes the materials of the proposed buildings do not match the traditional<br />
materials commonly used on buildings in Jackson Street and as seen at 352 Jackson<br />
Street. The traditional pattern of discrete window openings within a solid façade is<br />
also not followed in the proposed new buildings where the entire façade is either glass<br />
or an open deck. Mr Bowman notes the design generates an ABBA rhythm (the<br />
alternation pattern) within the overall form and the vertical window division is<br />
approximately 1:2, matching traditional window proportions. The Tory Street elevation<br />
does not have a particular façade rhythm but this matches the lack of rhythm on the<br />
façade of 352 Jackson Street on Tory Street, and the return façade of many buildings<br />
on corners in Jackson Street.<br />
7.28 Mr Bowman considers that because of the new buildings style, materials used and<br />
extent of glazing, the building does not comply with the traditional solidity and<br />
monolithic appearance of buildings in Jackson Street. The emphasis of the new<br />
design is one of lightness and minimal structure.<br />
7.29 In considering these comments, it is noted Mr Bowman’s assessment was made on<br />
the design of the building at the time of application but that the amendments made to<br />
the proposal prior to notification did not affect his assessment. Mr Bowman has<br />
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<br />
the proposal, notably the proposed louvers system on the principal façades of the<br />
building. Mr Bowman has reviewed the louver information submitted by the applicant<br />
and does not consider this to affect his assessment of the proposal. I therefore<br />
consider that the proposal meets the relevant performance standards of the design<br />
guide in terms of heritage.<br />
7.30 While Mr Bowman notes the proposed design has no added decorative elements, but<br />
I consider the lack of decorative elements to be acceptable in this case given the<br />
overall modern interpretation of the design guide for the new building.<br />
7.31 The proposed design has extensive display windows on the ground floor on Jackson<br />
Street and the division of the façade above the shops matches that of the shops. This<br />
is consistent with the relevant performance standard of the design guide.<br />
7.32 Mr Bowman notes there are no large bands of glass uninterrupted by vertical<br />
divisions. This is consistent with the relevant performance standard of the design<br />
guide.<br />
7.33 In considering Mr Bowman’s comments against the relevant performance standards,<br />
while the new building fronting Jackson Street is utilising modern materials and a<br />
modern design, the fixed nature of the external louvers will contribute to a solid and<br />
monolithic appearance and will not appear to be a skin or veneer. I therefore consider<br />
the performance standards are met.<br />
Silhouette, parapets and cornices<br />
7.34 Mr Bowman considers that the proposed design does not have a separately<br />
expressed cornice or parapet on the street façade. The structural steel beam at roof<br />
level could be interpreted as a cornice and its dimensions relate to the remainder of<br />
the building as the structural street frame is expressed.<br />
7.35 I consider the proposal is sufficiently consistent with these performance standards.<br />
Decoration and colour<br />
7.36 Mr Bowman notes that the proposed design modulates its façade into structural bays<br />
but without decorative elements as described above. No decorative elements are<br />
proposed to be introduced to the existing building at 352 Jackson Street and it is not<br />
known if any decorative elements are missing from this building.
7.37 Mr Bowman considers the colour scheme proposed for 352 Jackson Street is<br />
generally consistent with colours used in the inter-war period, in which a number of<br />
Jackson Street buildings were constructed. The colour schemes for both buildings will<br />
be consistent below and above verandah level.<br />
7.38 In this regard, I consider the decorative and colour elements of the building are<br />
sufficiently consistent with the design performance standards.<br />
Verandahs<br />
7.39 Mr Bowman notes the proposed building on Jackson Street will have a verandah<br />
cantilevered from the building, in the manner of 1930s and 1940s building on Jackson<br />
Street. The verandah has a plain fascia, also matching the inter-war period buildings.<br />
The Tory Street building does not have a continuous verandah.<br />
7.40 When reviewing Mr Bowman’s comments against the design performance standards<br />
for verandahs, I consider the verandahs are consistent with the standards.<br />
Under verandahs<br />
7.41 In his assessment, Mr Bowman notes the proposed shopfronts are recessed at an<br />
angle with the entrances to one side. The shop widths are not inconsistent with the<br />
traditional pattern of older buildings on Jackson Street. The vertical and horizontal<br />
divisions within the shopfront design are consistent with the design of the facades<br />
above while the tiled upstand is consistent with most traditional shopfronts in Jackson<br />
Street. Green tiles used in the shopfronts were a common colour in buildings of the<br />
inter-war period.<br />
7.42 Given Mr Bowman’s comments, I consider the proposal generally meets this<br />
performance standard and the adverse effects will be no more than minor.<br />
Signs and lighting<br />
7.43 There are no proposals in the application to change signage and lighting. Thus the<br />
application can meet the relevant performance standards.<br />
7.44 In his summary of the proposal, Mr Bowman recommends the proposal be approved.<br />
Given Mr Bowman’s comments in conjunction with my analysis that the proposal is<br />
generally consistent with the design performance standards outlined in Appendix<br />
Petone Commercial 1, the adverse heritage effects are considered to be acceptable.
Urban design and streetscape effects<br />
7.45 To assist my consideration of the urban design effects of the proposal, the application<br />
has been peer reviewed by <strong>Council</strong>’s Consultant Urban Design Expert, Morten<br />
Gjerde. Mr Gjerde has reviewed the urban design outcomes of the proposal against<br />
the design guide in Appendix Petone Commercial 1 of the District Plan (assessments<br />
attached as Appendix4)<br />
7.46 It is important to note that both Mr Gjerde and Mr Bowman have peer reviewed the<br />
proposal against the design guide in Appendix Petone Commercial 1 but that each<br />
peer review is undertaken in respect to their areas of expertise. Mr Bowman as<br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s Heritage Conservator, considers the heritage effects of the proposal, such<br />
as the effects on the surrounding heritage and whether the proposal will detract from<br />
this historic character. Mr Gjerde as <strong>Council</strong>’s Consultant Urban Design Expert<br />
considers the proposal in terms of urban design and the overall contribution to the<br />
streetscape.<br />
7.47 For these reasons I have separated the reviews by Mr Gjerde and Mr Bowman as part<br />
of this report but I consider that their respective assessments should be read in<br />
conjunction.<br />
7.48 I will now summarise Mr Gjerde’s assessment in accordance with the design<br />
performance standards.<br />
Building shape<br />
7.49 Overall, Mr Gjerde considers the proposal meets the design performance standards<br />
for building shape. He considers the overall height is positive as it provides<br />
companionship to the corner building in both the Jackson Street and Tory Street<br />
elevations. However, Mr Gjerde raises concerns over the increased height of the<br />
building due to the stairwells and is of the opinion they should be deleted from the<br />
scheme or modified considerably.<br />
7.50 While I note Mr Gjerde’s concerns, I do not consider the adverse effects of the<br />
increased height to be unacceptable. This is due to the setback of the stairwells from<br />
the Jackson Street frontage. I consider the setback provides mitigation of the visual<br />
effects of the increased building that could be seen to detract from the overall building<br />
shape. I acknowledge the design is unusual in terms of the stairwells protruding above<br />
the roofline but the views of these stairwells from the wider environment will be limited<br />
given the stairwells setback from the outside of the building.
Building modulation<br />
7.51 Mr Gjerde considers the proposal satisfies these performance standards in a<br />
contemporary manner and both principal street facades are well modulated. I note<br />
that Mr Gjerde disagrees with the suggestion on the drawing that the roof deck<br />
balustrade could be perceived as a recessed parapet.<br />
7.52 I concur with Mr Gjerde’s comments and while I have noted his comments on the<br />
perceived recessed parapet, on balance I consider the proposal to meet this<br />
performance standard when assessed in an urban design capacity.<br />
Wall materials and openings<br />
7.53 Mr Gjerde considers that at street level, the proposal largely satisfies the design<br />
criteria. Above verandah level, the project includes significant areas of glazing that will<br />
be either recessed behind the balustrades or concealed behind the fixed louvers.<br />
7.54 Mr Gjerde’s initial review raised concerns with the proposed operable louver system.<br />
In order to satisfy this performance standard, it is considered the walls should appear<br />
solid. Based on the additional information provided by the applicant on 28 March<br />
2012, Mr Gjerde considers the spacing of the louvers should be tightened up so that<br />
the screen element is meant to read as a variation on a solid wall element. Mr Gjerde<br />
does not consider this will be reading and that 80mm spacing is the maximum he<br />
would consider given the relative thinness of the louver blades. Mr Gjerde considers<br />
the key is the appearance of the screen and not the extent to which people inside the<br />
building are able to see out and that the design guide is about protecting the character<br />
of Jackson Street.<br />
7.55 Mr Gjerde notes in his review of 29 March 2012, that the screen is suggested to be<br />
sliding and has queried where it will slide to and how the building will appear then. Mr<br />
Gjerde considers the screen must be stationary in order to create a sense of order in<br />
these facades. He also notes that the louvers are now somewhat deeper than the<br />
frame. His expectations, based on the initial drawings, are that the louvered screen<br />
will have a definite and substantial frame around each panel. This will require the<br />
details put forward in the additional information provided by the applicant on 28 March<br />
2012 to be modified. Due to this report being required for circulation, Mr Gjerde<br />
considered this could be addressed by a condition of consent.<br />
7.56 In responding to the applicant’s query as to whether the roof top balustrades on the<br />
northern, eastern and western facades could be either timber or the same material as<br />
the louvers, Mr Gjerde considers the project will be at odds with its surroundings in<br />
this sense and that his suggestion is to use timber above roof level was to limit the<br />
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<br />
report, Mr Gjerde still had serious concerns and would encourage further dialogue<br />
with the applicant about this matter. Mr Gjerde has asked that a final design of the<br />
balustrading at roof level be agreed by the applicant (consent holder) and <strong>Council</strong><br />
officers/advisors as a condition of consent.<br />
7.57 In my view, this element of the design is important and should be considered by the<br />
committee during the hearing. Alternatively, a condition of consent could be imposed<br />
(and has been included in section 11 of this report should the committee consider it<br />
appropriate) but I would advise against this approach for this application.<br />
7.58 In reference to the side walls on the south and west elevation, Mr Gjerde considers<br />
they comprise of punched fenestration in solid walls which meets the expected design<br />
standard.<br />
7.59 At the time of releasing this report, it is apparent that <strong>Council</strong>’s Consultant Urban<br />
Design Expert still has concerns relating to the louvers and roof top balustrades.<br />
Given these concerns, I believe it is necessary to explore the matter in more depth at<br />
the hearing.<br />
Silhouette, parapets, and cornices<br />
7.60 In summarising Mr Gjerde’s assessment, whilst the designs on the principal elevation<br />
do not include a parapet, he considers the design can be judged appropriate without<br />
one as the language of the building is contemporary. On balance, I consider the<br />
proposal to meet these performance standards.<br />
Verandahs<br />
7.61 In his assessment, Mr Gjerde notes the proposal includes a verandah along the<br />
Jackson Street frontage set at about the height of the verandah on the building to<br />
remain. This will provide for continuity of shelter and help link the buildings three<br />
dimensionally. Given Mr Gjerde’s comments on the clear verandah in his initial review,<br />
the applicant has amended the proposal so that the verandahs are not fully glazed.<br />
On balance, I consider the proposal will be consistent with these performance<br />
standards.<br />
Under verandahs<br />
7.62 Mr Gjerde agrees with the statement made by the applicant in their assessment of<br />
environmental effects and that the under verandah characteristics of the proposal are<br />
sound. Given Mr Gjerde’s comments, I consider the proposal to meet these<br />
performance standards.
Signs and lighting<br />
7.63 In his assessment, Mr Gjerde considers the night time views of the Jackson Street<br />
façade will be dramatic as a consequence of the louvered screens in front of the<br />
windows. As the louvers are fixed in place, lighting will remain consistent. I consider<br />
the proposal to meet these performance standards.<br />
7.64 In summarising the proposal, Mr Gjerde finds the proposal to be generally favourable<br />
when assessed against the design guide performance standards with a few<br />
outstanding issues being the height of the stairwell and some of the wall materials<br />
proposed.<br />
7.65 With the exception of the wall materials for the roof top balustrades and the louvers<br />
which requires further discussion and consideration at the hearing, on balance I do<br />
not consider these outstanding issues to be of enough significance in the overall<br />
proposal to recommend decline.<br />
Traffic effects<br />
7.66 The proposal has been assessed by <strong>Council</strong>’s Consultant Traffic Engineer Bill<br />
Barclay. He has also reviewed the submissions that raised traffic concerns and has<br />
provided comments on these matters. The relevant assessments are attached as<br />
Appendix 5.<br />
7.67 In his assessment on 19 October 2011, Mr Barclay noted that all vehicle access is<br />
currently from two vehicle crossings on the Tory Street frontage, one of which will<br />
close as part of the development. The remaining access will be modified but in his<br />
assessment, access will be able to comply with District Plan requirements for width,<br />
number and distance from an intersection.<br />
7.68 As there are more than four spaces, all movement to and from the site are required to<br />
be a forward direction. While this will be achieved for cars, it will not be achieved for<br />
larger service vehicles. Mr Barclay considers that in view of the small size of retail<br />
tenancies and the sheltered nature of Tory Street that the non-compliance can be<br />
accepted in this instance. I concur with this assessment.<br />
7.69 Turning to parking effects, retailing is required to provide parking in accordance with a<br />
graduated scale. As there will be less than 500m 2 gross floor area (GFA) of retailing,<br />
no parking is required for the retail tenancies.<br />
7.70 For the residential activities, each new residential dwelling requires two spaces<br />
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<br />
will not have effects which are more than minor. He states that a common<br />
experience with apartments along Jackson Street is that residents typically have<br />
either no cars or only one per dwelling. Mr Barclay expects no more than a small<br />
shortfall of off-street residential parking as a result.<br />
7.71 I acknowledge the concerns raised by the submitters that the proposal will result in<br />
increased pressure for parking demand as a result of this proposal; however I<br />
consider the adverse effects of the reduced parking to be acceptable. I agree with Mr<br />
Barclay’s comments that Jackson Street residents’ typically have either no cars or one<br />
per dwelling. I consider the non-compliance is further alleviated by availability to public<br />
transport in the local environment.<br />
7.72 Upon considering the effects of the parking non-compliance, Mr Barclay confirmed his<br />
support for the proposal and I concur with his assessment. I therefore consider the<br />
adverse effects associated with parking to be acceptable.<br />
7.73 In considering the layout of the parking spaces, <strong>Council</strong> is guided by Australian<br />
Standard AS2890.1-1993 or its successor AS/NZS 2890.1-2004. Mr Barclay notes<br />
that the proposal fails to meet the minimum module width of 11.2m but that parking<br />
stalls have a generous width of 2.7m or more. Mr Barclay acknowledges there may be<br />
some inconvenience for users of the site but considers the layout to be workable and<br />
acceptable. I concur with this assessment.<br />
7.74 In considering the loading and unloading effects, the gate opening is 6m wide<br />
enabling easier access than the originally proposed 3m wide access.<br />
7.75 For retail activities with a GFA of 2000m 2 or less, the District Plan requires facilities to<br />
be provided for at least a maximum-size rigid truck. <strong>Council</strong> usually interprets this to<br />
be an 11.0m long truck. The applicant’s intention is that this will enter from Tory Street<br />
and stand in the car park aisle. Mr Barclay considers the proposed loading and<br />
unloading facilities to be acceptable. I concur with his assessment.<br />
7.76 Further to his assessments, Mr Barclay reviewed the submission by Mr Allen and Ms<br />
Doig. He notes that the submission raises concerns about the adequacy of parking<br />
arrangements on the site. As per his assessment of 17 January 2012, the number of<br />
car parks complies with the District Plan. Mr Barclay states that in relation to servicing,<br />
service vehicles will be able to stand in the car park aisle while making deliveries<br />
keeping effects to a minimum. In summarising his review, Mr Barclay confirmed his<br />
support of the proposal.
7.77 In summary, <strong>Council</strong>’s Consultant Traffic Engineer supports the proposal. On balance,<br />
I concur with Mr Barclay’s assessment and I consider the adverse traffic effects to be<br />
acceptable.<br />
Residential character effects<br />
7.78 The proposal would increase the density of development on the subject site. In this<br />
regard, there is potential for the proposal to detract from the residential character of<br />
the affected parties and the immediate environment. However I note that residential<br />
use above ground floor is a permitted activity in the Petone Commercial Activity Area.<br />
I consider this permitted baseline for the activity (rather than the new buildings<br />
themselves) to be relevant to my assesmsen.t<br />
7.79 Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal does not comply with height requirements<br />
for buildings on sites abutting residentially zoned properties, I concur with the<br />
applicant that that the degree of non-compliance is small and is limited to the<br />
stairwells which provide access to the roof garden. Therefore I do not consider the<br />
height non-compliance to result in unacceptable effects on predominant residential<br />
character to the south of the subject property.<br />
7.80 It is noted the proposal complies with the recession plane and yard requirements on<br />
the adjoining residential boundary with 41 Tory Street despite the height noncompliance<br />
which lends to the consideration that the overall bulk and location of the<br />
building is suitable for a site within the Petone Commercial Activity Area that is<br />
abutting a residential activity area.<br />
7.81 I acknowledge the submitters concern that the retail development is out of character<br />
with the rest of Tory Street but I note that the subject property is zoned Petone<br />
Commercial Activity Area which anticipates retail/commercial development on the<br />
ground floor.<br />
7.82 It is considered a mixed use development for commercial and residential activities can<br />
be anticipated in the Petone Commercial Activity Area. I consider the setback of the<br />
buildings on the subject site from the adjoining residential activities provide a degree<br />
of mitigation of the building bulks potential to visually dominate the wider environment.<br />
I consider that on balance, the proposal will not adversely affect the neighbours to the<br />
south and the wider residential character to the south of the site in a manner that is<br />
unacceptable.<br />
Visual amenity effects<br />
7.83 While I acknowledge there is no relevant permitted baseline, I consider the<br />
development is consistent with the outcomes sought for the Petone Commercial
Activity Area, Area 1. In addition, the proposal has been reviewed by <strong>Council</strong>’s<br />
Heritage Conservator who supports the proposal and by <strong>Council</strong>’s Consultant Urban<br />
Design Expert who generally supports the proposal. Given their assessments of the<br />
proposal against the design performance standards, I consider the visual amenity<br />
effects on the immediate commercial/business environment to be no more than minor.<br />
7.84 In considering the visual amenity effects on the owners and occupiers of 28 Tory<br />
Street, I acknowledge the new building will increase the prominence of the subject site<br />
when viewed from this property. But I consider Tory Street itself provides separation<br />
distance from this property that the visual amenity effects will be acceptable. Further,<br />
it is noted that no visual amenity concerns were raised by the owner of this property in<br />
their submission.<br />
7.85 In turning to the visual amenity effects on the owners and occupiers of 39 Tory Street,<br />
Mr Allen and Ms Doig consider the proposal will affect their visual amenity given that it<br />
will be to the north of their property and will increase visual obtrusiveness. I note their<br />
concerns and agree that the proposal will result in the subject property becoming<br />
more apparent due to the increase of building bulk. But I do not consider this to be to<br />
a degree that is unacceptable. From 39 Tory Street, the proposed building will be set<br />
back approximately 18m which is buffered by the dwelling at 41 Tory Street. I consider<br />
this separation distance to provide mitigation of the building bulk when viewed from<br />
this property and the existing dwelling and garage at 41 Tory Street will further<br />
contribute to this mitigation.<br />
7.86 In addressing the visual amenity effects on the owners and occupiers of 41 Tory<br />
Street, Ms Adam considers the visual outlook will be affected on the north facing side<br />
of her property and that the proposal will undermine the appeal of her property. While<br />
I do not dispute the increase of building bulk will increase the visual prominence of the<br />
site when viewed from this property, I would not consider the effects to be<br />
unacceptable. Visual outlook and views are not intrinsically protected by the District<br />
Plan in this activity area – I consider the role of the permitted activity conditions for<br />
sites abutting residential activity areas is to manage the bulk and location of buildings.<br />
With the exception of the 11m height which comprises of a small protrusion of the<br />
stairwells, I consider the proposal is represents a form of development that is<br />
anticipated by the District Plan. I therefore consider the visual amenity effects on 41<br />
Tory Street to be acceptable.<br />
7.87 On balance, the adverse visual amenity effects that may arise from the proposal are<br />
considered to be acceptable.
Privacy effects<br />
7.88 It is considered that a residential development above ground floor level can be<br />
anticipated in the Petone Commercial Activity Area. The permitted activity conditions<br />
for Area 1 provide guidance in considering whether the proposal will be consistent<br />
with the outcomes sought for sites abutting residential areas.<br />
7.89 While noting the proposal does not comply with the 10m height requirement for sites<br />
abutting residential activity areas, the non-compliance is generated by the stairwells<br />
which given the intermittent use of such an area, is not considered to generate a<br />
privacy effect on the adjoining residential properties that would be unacceptable. It is<br />
also noted the roof top garden is set back from the edge of the roof which means<br />
views for people on the roof down to the neighbours’ properties are very limited.<br />
7.90 Apartments 3 and 4 will have balconies that face towards the south. While these<br />
balconies are small and therefore unlikely to support a large group of people, there is<br />
potential for reduced privacy for the occupants of the dwellings at 39 and 41 Tory<br />
Street as a result of overlooking from users of the balconies.<br />
7.91 While I consider there will be some degree of overlooking for the occupants of 39 and<br />
41 Tory Street, the privacy effects are considered acceptable and are anticipated by<br />
the District Plan. However, should the committee consider it necessary to further<br />
address the submitters concerns, I believe there is scope for a condition that the final<br />
location or treatments of windows on the southern façade of the new building to be<br />
subject to the approval of the Team Leader, Resource Consents. Such a condition<br />
would seek to ensure occupants of the south-facing apartments are still afforded<br />
adequate light and that an acceptable level of privacy of the southern residential<br />
neighbours is maintained.<br />
7.92 The adverse privacy effects on the owners and occupiers of 28 Tory Street are<br />
considered to be acceptable. This property is across the road from the subject site<br />
and while the new apartments will be visible from this property, the separation<br />
distance provides sufficient mitigation of potential privacy effects on this property.<br />
Shading and daylight effects<br />
7.93 It is considered the proposal will not cause shading nor detract from existing daylight<br />
levels for the owners and occupiers of 28 Tory Street. This property is well separated<br />
from the subject site by approximately 20m such that any adverse shading or daylight<br />
effects will be no more than minor.<br />
7.94 The adverse shading and daylight effects for the owners and occupiers of 39 Tory<br />
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<br />
control case for a 10m high building (diagrams attached as Appendix 6). These<br />
shading diagrams demonstrate that additional shading does occur on 39 Tory Street<br />
(when extrapolating the angles) around the winter solstice but the shading that is<br />
associated with the height protrusion over 10m is for a short period of time. I consider<br />
this limited period of shading as a result of the 11m height protrusion to be<br />
acceptable.<br />
7.95 In considering the shading and daylight effects on 41 Tory Street, the shading<br />
diagrams provided indicate there is a degree of shading caused by the proposed<br />
building but I consider this degree of shading to be acceptable. Overall it is considered<br />
that while there will be additional shading on 41 Tory Street associated with the<br />
additional height; I consider this to be acceptable.<br />
7.96 Further, I also note that the building complies with the recession plane requirement on<br />
the southern boundary and the adjoining yard requirements. While the proposal is not<br />
a permitted development in terms of building height, on balance I consider the building<br />
to be consistent with a development anticipated by the District Plan.<br />
7.97 Given the above comments, I consider the potential shading and daylight effects<br />
associated with the proposal on the affected parties to be acceptable.<br />
Noise effects<br />
7.98 It is considered the type of noise that will be generated by the proposal will be typical<br />
domestic noise associated with residential activities and the noise associated with the<br />
new retail/commercial occupants in the ground floor shops. I do not consider that<br />
these activities are high noise generators.<br />
7.99 Whilst mechanical ventilation will be installed, the applicant has advised it will be<br />
domestic in scale and will comply with the District Plan noise limits when measured at<br />
the boundaries of the site.<br />
7.100 The submissions from 39 and 41 Tory Street both raised noise as a concern.<br />
Specifically, Mr Allen and Ms Doig consider that nuisance noise will be generated by<br />
use of the roof garden and that it cannot be mitigated due to the height its produced.<br />
7.101 To address this matter I referred the submission to an Environmental Health Officer<br />
(EHO) for comment. <strong>Council</strong>’s EHO considered that regardless of the location of the<br />
garden whether it is on the ground or the roof, it would still be treated in the same<br />
manner under the Resource Management Act. While the applicant has proposed a<br />
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<br />
applicable to any activity irrespective of conditions of consent.<br />
7.102 In her submission, Ms Adam requested a concrete block wall between her property at<br />
41 Tory Street and the subject site rather than the proposed close-boarded timber<br />
fence to mitigate against vehicle noise. The applicant has agreed to this request and<br />
has proposed a condition of consent accordingly.<br />
7.103 The applicant has proposed a condition of consent requiring compliance with the<br />
relevant noise standards of the District Plan when measured at or within the boundary<br />
of any site. I consider this will ensure adverse noise effects are avoided.<br />
7.104 On balance, I consider the adverse noise effects will be acceptable subject to the<br />
proposed conditions of consent.<br />
Reverse sensitivity<br />
7.105 In establishing new residential apartments along Jackson Street, this may result in<br />
reverse sensitivity issues for the new residents given the predominant commercial and<br />
retail nature of the local environment. To address this, the applicant has advised they<br />
will adopt specific noise insulation standards for habitable rooms as a condition of<br />
consent. This proposal has been reviewed by an Environmental Health Officer who is<br />
satisfied with this measure.<br />
7.106 Given that the applicant has adopted conditions of consent that are supported by<br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s Environmental Health Officer, the reverse sensitivity effects are considered<br />
to be no more than minor.<br />
Temporary construction effects<br />
7.107 The applicant proposes to incorporate mitigation measures to address the effects<br />
associated with the demolition and construction works. These mitigation measures<br />
include development of a construction management plan prior to the commencement<br />
of works. This plan would detail how the traffic, noise, and dust effects associated with<br />
the demolition and construction works will be controlled.<br />
7.108 The applicant has advised the proposal will comply with the New Zealand Standard<br />
for construction noise. I have suggested that compliance is a condition of consent in<br />
section 11 of this report.
7.109 As mitigation measures will be imposed through a construction management plan as<br />
construction will be temporary, the temporary construction effects are considered to<br />
be acceptable subject to conditions of consent.<br />
Earthworks effects<br />
7.110 The proposed earthworks will be up to 1m in depth across the site to allow for the<br />
foundations of the proposed building to be constructed. In total, approximately 150m 3<br />
of material will be removed.<br />
7.111 The site is considered to be highly modified and has little of its original natural<br />
character remaining. The earthworks are low in height and are being undertaken to<br />
create suitable foundations for the proposed building. Upon completion of the building,<br />
all areas subject to earthworks will be either covered by the proposed building or will<br />
be covered by seal as part of the car parking area. No areas of earthworks will remain<br />
exposed.<br />
7.112 No areas of historical significance (notwithstanding the building at 352 Jackson Street)<br />
are situated on the subject property. The earthworks will not affect the historic values<br />
of the building at 352 Jackson Street.<br />
7.113 The proposal has been reviewed by the Wellington Tenths Trust who did not present<br />
any concerns in terms of culturally significant sites being present on the site.<br />
7.114 Subject to suitable conditions of consent for erosion and sediment control measures<br />
being in place, I consider the adverse earthworks effects to be acceptable.<br />
Positive effects<br />
7.115 I consider the proposal will have positive effects. By demolishing the existing building<br />
at 350 Jackson Street and constructing the proposed building, the Jackson Street<br />
frontage will be reinforced with a consistent building setback similar to immediately<br />
adjoining sites. As noted in Mr Bowman’s assessment, the scale and width of the new<br />
building are similar to that of the building at 352 Jackson Street.<br />
Conclusion of the assessment of environmental effects<br />
7.116 On balance, the adverse effects that may arise from the development are considered<br />
to be acceptable or mitigated subject to suitable conditions of consent.
8.0 Relevant plan provisions<br />
District Plan<br />
8.1 I agree with and adopt the applicant’s assessment of the relevant objectives and<br />
policies in section 3.3 (pages 13-19) of the assessment of effects with the exception of<br />
the consideration relating to 14A (iii) 1.1.2:<br />
8.2 14A(iii) 1.1.2 Adequate Car Parking Provision in the Petone Commercial Activity Area<br />
Objective<br />
To provide adequate car parking in a safe and visually attractive manner, to<br />
maintain the safety and amenity values of the area.<br />
Policies<br />
(a) That sufficient parking spaces be provided using a graduated scale for<br />
retailing activities, commercial services and licenced premises.<br />
(b) That on site parking be provided in a safe and visually attractive manner to<br />
enhance the safe and efficient operation of the roading system.<br />
(c) That on street parking be provided in a safe and visually attractive manner to<br />
enhance the safe and efficient operation of the roading system.<br />
While the proposal does not comply with the minimum on-site parking requirements<br />
for a residential development in the Petone Commercial Activity Area, I consider that<br />
adequate parking for the anticipated needs of the occupants is being provided.<br />
Further, <strong>Council</strong>’s Consultant Traffic Engineer supports the proposal and considers<br />
that it is typical of Jackson Street residents to only require one parking space per<br />
dwelling.<br />
8.3 In summary, I consider that when balanced against the actual and potential effects,<br />
the proposed and suggested conditions of consent, and the objectives and policies of<br />
the District Plan, that overall the proposal will not be inconsistent with the outcomes<br />
sought for the Petone Commercial Activity Area (Area 1).<br />
8.4 Rules 5B 2.1.3.1 (a) and (b) state the matters contained in sections 104 and 105, and<br />
in Part II of the Act shall apply and the degree of compliance or non-compliance with<br />
any relevant Permitted Activity Conditions are assessment matters for discretionary<br />
activities.<br />
8.5 Assessment in accordance with section104 is contained within section 7 of this<br />
report. Part II assessment can be found in section 9.
8.6 The relevant permitted activity conditions are those relating site coverage, maximum<br />
height of buildings, landscaping and screening, sites abutting residential activity<br />
areas, and General Rules compliance.<br />
8.7 I note the proposal would have complied with the site coverage requirement (100%),<br />
landscaping and screening requirements for outdoor storage and service areas, side<br />
yard, rear yard, screening of outdoor storage and servicing areas, screening of car<br />
parking areas, servicing hours, and the maximum noise requirements contained within<br />
the General Rules Chapter.<br />
8.8 The proposal would not have complied with the maximum height of buildings,<br />
landscaping and screening of car parks, number of car parks, and the design<br />
standards for parking contained within the General Rules Chapter. While noting these<br />
non-compliances, I do not consider the degree of non-compliance with these rules to<br />
be unacceptable. I consider that when balanced against the effects, objectives and<br />
policies, and the Part II assessment, the adverse effects will be acceptable.<br />
Other plans<br />
8.9 I have given regard to the relevant national environmental standards; other<br />
regulations; national policy statements; New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010;<br />
regional policy statement/proposed regional policy statement; or plan/proposed plan.<br />
8.10 I do not consider that any of the above plans affect <strong>Council</strong>’s consideration of the<br />
proposal.<br />
Other matters<br />
8.11 The site and circumstances within this proposal are considered to be sufficiently<br />
unique such that if the committee were to grant consent, that a precedent would not be<br />
set.<br />
8.12 There are no other matters that need to be had regard to.<br />
9.0 Part II of the Act<br />
9.1 Part II sets out the purpose and principles of the Act (section 5); matters of national<br />
importance the consent authority must recognise and provide for when determining a<br />
resource consent (section 6); other matters the consent authority must have particular<br />
regard to (section 7); and provision for the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (section<br />
8).<br />
9.2 The purpose of the Act as set out in section 5 is to promote “the sustainable<br />
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<br />
people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing<br />
and for their health and safety while… avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse<br />
effects of activities on the environment.”<br />
9.3 In determining the proposal against section 5 of the Act, I adopt the applicant’s<br />
assessment in section 3.4 of the application (pages 19-20).<br />
9.4 As discussed in section 7 of this report, it is considered the proposal has positive<br />
effects.<br />
9.5 Given the above factors, the proposal is considered that the proposal is consistent with<br />
section 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991.<br />
9.6 Section 6 of the Act lists matters of national importance. I adopt the applicant’s<br />
assessment in section 3.4 on page 20 of the application. I add to this assessment that<br />
the proposal has been reviewed by <strong>Council</strong>’s Consultant Heritage Conservator Ian<br />
Bowman who supports the proposal.<br />
9.7 Section 7 of the Act lists a number of other matters that <strong>Council</strong> shall have particular<br />
regard to when considering such an application. Under section 7 the following matters<br />
are considered applicable:<br />
(b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:<br />
(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:<br />
(f)<br />
Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:<br />
It is considered that the proposal is not contrary to section 7 of the Act for the reasons<br />
discussed in the assessment of effects and discussed on page 20 of the application.<br />
9.8 It is considered section 8 of the Act requires that the <strong>Council</strong>, in achieving the purpose<br />
of the Act, in managing the use, development and protection of the natural and<br />
physical environment, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It<br />
is considered the proposal is not contrary to section 8 of the Act. It is noted the subject<br />
site is not adjacent to any land subject to the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Act<br />
2009 that would warrant notification of the application to the Port Nicholson Settlement<br />
Trust. However, the proposal was reviewed by the Wellington Tenths Trust who did<br />
not present any concerns with the development.<br />
9.9 Overall I consider the proposed mixed use development at 350-352 Jackson Street<br />
and 43 Tory Street will be consistent with Part II of the Resource Management Act<br />
1991.
10.0 Conclusion<br />
10.1 Resource consent is sought to demolish the existing building at 350 Jackson Street, to<br />
construct a three storey building at 350 Jackson Street and 43 Tory Street, and to<br />
undertake alterations to the existing building at 352 Jackson Street, Petone. The<br />
proposal is a discretionary activity within the Petone Commercial Activity Area (Area<br />
1).<br />
10.2 The adverse effects that may arise from the proposal are considered to be<br />
acceptable. The development is considered to be an anticipated outcome on the<br />
subject property, will not result in unacceptable character, amenity, and visual effects<br />
on the affected parties and has been assessed favourably by <strong>Council</strong>’s Consultant<br />
Heritage Conservator, Urban Design Expert (with the exception of the rooftop<br />
balustrades and louvers), Traffic Engineer and an Environmental Health Officer.<br />
10.3 I have suggested appropriate conditions for the consent which will further mitigate any<br />
potential adverse effects on the affected parties associated with the proposal pursuant<br />
to section 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991.<br />
10.4 I have considered the proposal against the relevant objectives and policies of the<br />
District Plan for the Petone Commercial Activity Area, the Transport Chapter, the<br />
Heritage Chapter, and the Earthworks Chapter. I have mostly adopted the applicant’s<br />
assessment and consider the proposal to be consistent with these objectives and<br />
policies.<br />
10.5 I have considered the proposal against the relevant provisions of Part II of the<br />
Resource Management Act 1991 and consider that the proposal is consistent with<br />
these provisions.<br />
10.6 I recommend the resource consent is granted pursuant to section 104B of the<br />
Resource Management Act 1991.<br />
11.0 Suggested conditions of consent<br />
If the committee resolves to grant resource consent, the following may be considered<br />
as conditions of that consent:<br />
General<br />
1. To ensure that <strong>Council</strong> monitors the resource consent in accordance with their<br />
requirements, the consent holder shall contact the <strong>Council</strong>’s Environmental<br />
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<br />
the Officer the following:<br />
• The date the work shall commence;<br />
• The name of the contractor(s) and their contact details including phone<br />
number and postal address; and<br />
• The contact details for who will be carrying out the earthworks.<br />
2. Once work commences on the site, a copy of this resource consent decision<br />
shall be available on site at all times and made available upon request.<br />
3. On completion, the proposal must be in general accordance with the information<br />
and drawings submitted with this application and held on the property file for<br />
350 and 352 Jackson Street and 43 Tory Street (Drawings entitled: ‘Preliminary<br />
Study, 350 – 352 Jackson Street, Coast Edge Limited, pages 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 2.3<br />
and 2.11 dated September 2011 and 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 dated 19<br />
December 2011 and Option C dated 19 December 2011. Further information is<br />
held on the Insol Ltd document titled Solaris End Fixing – 110mm Blade Size,<br />
page ss) 7 and the LouverTec document titled 125 Louverline Weatherboard<br />
Panel Centre of Blade Pivot, page 5.06).<br />
Construction<br />
4. Prior to the commencement of any site development works on the site, the<br />
consent holder shall submit a Construction Management Plan to the <strong>Council</strong>, for<br />
the approval of the Team Leader Resource Consents. This Construction<br />
Management Plan shall contain the following information:<br />
• Details of the sediment and dust control measures to be implemented on<br />
site;<br />
• The measures which will be adopted to mitigate any resulting effects<br />
from construction traffic;<br />
• The measures which will be adopted to mitigate any resulting effects<br />
from noise; and<br />
• The measures which will be adopted to mitigate any resulting effects<br />
from vibration.<br />
All construction works (and associated activities) shall be undertaken in<br />
accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan.<br />
5. All development and construction shall be undertaken in such a manner as to<br />
comply with the provisions of NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise.<br />
6. If Taonga (treasure or prized possession, including a natural resource, having<br />
tangible value) is discovered in any part of the site, the consent holder is to<br />
contact the Tenths Trust on 04 473 2502, the New Zealand Historic Places
Trust and <strong>Hutt</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>Council</strong> within 24 hours. The consent holder is to cease all<br />
work in that area until a site inspection is carried out by iwi representatives and<br />
<strong>Council</strong> staff and approval to continue is given by the Team Leader Resource<br />
Consents.<br />
Earthworks<br />
7. The consent holder shall install and maintain sediment control measures in<br />
compliance with Greater Wellington regional council’s erosion and sediment<br />
control guidelines (issued in April 2003).<br />
8. The consent holder shall deposit all unwanted spoil in a <strong>Council</strong>-approved<br />
landfill by the conclusion of site works.<br />
Noise<br />
9. The consent holder shall ensure that noise levels from the electronic gate and<br />
the mechanical plant installed on the site do not exceed the following noise<br />
limits when measured at or within the boundary of any residential site other than<br />
the site on which the consented activities takes place:<br />
Daytime<br />
Monday to Saturday 7.00am to 10.00pm 60dBA L 10<br />
Sunday (all day) 45dBA L 10<br />
Nighttime<br />
Monday to Saturday 10.00pm to 7.00am 45dBA L 10<br />
Sunday (all night) 10.00pm to 7.00am 45dBA L 10<br />
10.00pm to 7.00am 75dB L AFmax<br />
Measurements shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of NZS<br />
6801:2008 Acoustics - Measurement of Environmental Sound. Measured sound<br />
levels shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of NZS 6802:2008<br />
Acoustics – Environmental Noise.<br />
Note: this includes all air conditioning units, heat pumps, etc.<br />
10. The wall along the southern boundary of the site shall be 2m high and<br />
constructed from concrete blocks.<br />
Noise insulation<br />
11. Any habitable room in a building used by a noise sensitive activity shall be<br />
protected from noise arising from outside the building by ensuring the external<br />
sound insulation level achieves the following minimum performance standard:<br />
DnT,w + Ctr > 30 dB1
Compliance with this performance standard shall be achieved by ensuring<br />
habitable rooms are designed and constructed in a manner that:<br />
(a) accords with the schedule of typical building construction set out in<br />
Appendix Central Commercial 7 – Noise Insulation Construction<br />
Schedule; or<br />
(b) accords with an acoustic design certificate signed by a suitably<br />
qualified acoustic engineer stating the design as proposed will<br />
achieve compliance with the above performance standard.<br />
[1 DnT,w + Ctr is the standardised level difference (outdoor to indoor) and<br />
is a measure of the airborne sound insulation provided by the external<br />
building envelope (including windows, walls, ceilings and floors where<br />
appropriate)].<br />
Traffic<br />
12. That a minimum of six on-site parking spaces shall be provided.<br />
13. All servicing of the retail stores on 350 Jackson Street and 43 Tory Street shall<br />
be undertaken from the on-site car parking area and shall occur between the<br />
hours of 8am and 6pm.<br />
Lighting<br />
14. There shall be no lights on the site positioned in a manner which will shine<br />
directly into any of the neighbouring residential properties.<br />
15. Any lightspill from the site shall not exceed 8 lux when measured at the<br />
residential boundaries of the site.<br />
Privacy<br />
16. Prior to the commencement of construction, the consent holder shall submit<br />
plans for approval that show the proposed positioning or treatment of windows<br />
on the south-facing façade. The location of the windows shall take into account<br />
the privacy effects of the residential properties to the south. This plan is to be<br />
considered by the Team Leader, Resource Consents.<br />
Rubbish collection<br />
17. Rubbish collection shall only occur between the hours of 8am and 6pm.<br />
Wall materials<br />
18. Prior to the commencement of construction, the consent holder shall submit a<br />
design for the roof top balustrades and the louvers on the principal facades to<br />
be considered by the Team Leader, Resource Consents.
12.0 Notes<br />
If the committee resolves to grant resource consent, the following may be considered<br />
as notes on the consent:<br />
• Prior to the commencement of construction, the consent holder is advised to seek<br />
approval for an encroachment licence from <strong>Council</strong>’s Roading and Traffic Division<br />
for the balconies over the road reserve.<br />
• The applicant for resource consent, consent holder or any person who made a<br />
submission on the application may also appeal this decision to the Environment<br />
Court within 15 working days of notice of the decision being received.<br />
• Prior to any construction works, the consent holder is advised to seek an<br />
archaeological authority from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.<br />
• This resource consent is subject to payment of a Development Contribution Fee<br />
under the <strong>Council</strong>'s Development and Financial Contributions Policy.<br />
• In accordance with section 125 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the<br />
consent lapses if not given effect to within five years from the date of the<br />
application being granted.<br />
• This resource consent is specific to the application received by <strong>Council</strong>. Any<br />
changes to the proposal may require a new resource consent and additional<br />
application fee.<br />
• Plans submitted with the application have only been checked for compliance with<br />
the <strong>City</strong> of Lower <strong>Hutt</strong> District Plan.<br />
• Any building work associated with the proposed activity should not commence until<br />
a building consent has been obtained under the Building Act 2004.<br />
• The consent holder is reminded that this resource consent is not a licence to<br />
create adverse effects. You still have a duty under the Act to avoid, remedy or<br />
mitigate adverse effects. Notwithstanding any resource consents held, section 17<br />
of the Act continues to apply and will take enforcement action where necessary.<br />
• <strong>Council</strong> may issue an abatement notice if the conditions of this resource consent<br />
are not complied with. Contravention of an abatement notice may incur a fine up to<br />
$300,000 or two years imprisonment for a natural person and a fine of up to<br />
$600,000 to a person other than a natural person.
Appendix 1<br />
<strong>Hutt</strong>view map of affected parties
Appendix 2<br />
Chairperson’s pre-hearing meeting report and conditions tabled by applicant at meeting
Appendix 3<br />
Assessment by <strong>Council</strong>’s Consultant Heritage Conservator
Appendix 4<br />
Assessments by <strong>Council</strong>’s Consultant Urban Design Expert
Appendix 5<br />
Assessments by <strong>Council</strong>’s Consultant Traffic Engineer
Appendix 6<br />
Shading diagrams