Planners Report.pdf - Hutt City Council

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