Planners Report.pdf - Hutt City Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Activity Area, Area 1. In addition, the proposal has been reviewed by <strong>Council</strong>’s Heritage Conservator who supports the proposal and by <strong>Council</strong>’s Consultant Urban Design Expert who generally supports the proposal. Given their assessments of the proposal against the design performance standards, I consider the visual amenity effects on the immediate commercial/business environment to be no more than minor. 7.84 In considering the visual amenity effects on the owners and occupiers of 28 Tory Street, I acknowledge the new building will increase the prominence of the subject site when viewed from this property. But I consider Tory Street itself provides separation distance from this property that the visual amenity effects will be acceptable. Further, it is noted that no visual amenity concerns were raised by the owner of this property in their submission. 7.85 In turning to the visual amenity effects on the owners and occupiers of 39 Tory Street, Mr Allen and Ms Doig consider the proposal will affect their visual amenity given that it will be to the north of their property and will increase visual obtrusiveness. I note their concerns and agree that the proposal will result in the subject property becoming more apparent due to the increase of building bulk. But I do not consider this to be to a degree that is unacceptable. From 39 Tory Street, the proposed building will be set back approximately 18m which is buffered by the dwelling at 41 Tory Street. I consider this separation distance to provide mitigation of the building bulk when viewed from this property and the existing dwelling and garage at 41 Tory Street will further contribute to this mitigation. 7.86 In addressing the visual amenity effects on the owners and occupiers of 41 Tory Street, Ms Adam considers the visual outlook will be affected on the north facing side of her property and that the proposal will undermine the appeal of her property. While I do not dispute the increase of building bulk will increase the visual prominence of the site when viewed from this property, I would not consider the effects to be unacceptable. Visual outlook and views are not intrinsically protected by the District Plan in this activity area – I consider the role of the permitted activity conditions for sites abutting residential activity areas is to manage the bulk and location of buildings. With the exception of the 11m height which comprises of a small protrusion of the stairwells, I consider the proposal is represents a form of development that is anticipated by the District Plan. I therefore consider the visual amenity effects on 41 Tory Street to be acceptable. 7.87 On balance, the adverse visual amenity effects that may arise from the proposal are considered to be acceptable.
Privacy effects 7.88 It is considered that a residential development above ground floor level can be anticipated in the Petone Commercial Activity Area. The permitted activity conditions for Area 1 provide guidance in considering whether the proposal will be consistent with the outcomes sought for sites abutting residential areas. 7.89 While noting the proposal does not comply with the 10m height requirement for sites abutting residential activity areas, the non-compliance is generated by the stairwells which given the intermittent use of such an area, is not considered to generate a privacy effect on the adjoining residential properties that would be unacceptable. It is also noted the roof top garden is set back from the edge of the roof which means views for people on the roof down to the neighbours’ properties are very limited. 7.90 Apartments 3 and 4 will have balconies that face towards the south. While these balconies are small and therefore unlikely to support a large group of people, there is potential for reduced privacy for the occupants of the dwellings at 39 and 41 Tory Street as a result of overlooking from users of the balconies. 7.91 While I consider there will be some degree of overlooking for the occupants of 39 and 41 Tory Street, the privacy effects are considered acceptable and are anticipated by the District Plan. However, should the committee consider it necessary to further address the submitters concerns, I believe there is scope for a condition that the final location or treatments of windows on the southern façade of the new building to be subject to the approval of the Team Leader, Resource Consents. Such a condition would seek to ensure occupants of the south-facing apartments are still afforded adequate light and that an acceptable level of privacy of the southern residential neighbours is maintained. 7.92 The adverse privacy effects on the owners and occupiers of 28 Tory Street are considered to be acceptable. This property is across the road from the subject site and while the new apartments will be visible from this property, the separation distance provides sufficient mitigation of potential privacy effects on this property. Shading and daylight effects 7.93 It is considered the proposal will not cause shading nor detract from existing daylight levels for the owners and occupiers of 28 Tory Street. This property is well separated from the subject site by approximately 20m such that any adverse shading or daylight effects will be no more than minor. 7.94 The adverse shading and daylight effects for the owners and occupiers of 39 Tory Street are considered to be acceptable. The applicant has provided shading diagrams
Page 1 and 2: Officer’s section 42A report for
Page 3 and 4: 2.11 Apartment 6 would be located i
Page 5 and 6: Site history 3.11 The existing ware
Page 7 and 8: As six new apartments are proposed,
Page 9 and 10: 6.0 Submissions 6.1 The application
Page 11 and 12: policies and rules are of particula
Page 13 and 14: Heritage effects 7.11 To assist Cou
Page 15 and 16: Building modulation 7.23 Mr Bowman
Page 17 and 18: 7.37 Mr Bowman considers the colour
Page 19 and 20: Building modulation 7.51 Mr Gjerde
Page 21 and 22: Signs and lighting 7.63 In his asse
Page 23: 7.77 In summary, Council’s Consul
Page 27 and 28: Management Act, I do not consider t
Page 29 and 30: 8.0 Relevant plan provisions Distri
Page 31 and 32: and protection of natural and physi
Page 33 and 34: at least 48 hours prior to any phys
Page 35 and 36: Compliance with this performance st
Page 37 and 38: Appendix 1 Huttview map of affected
Page 39 and 40: Appendix 3 Assessment by Council’
Page 41 and 42: Appendix 5 Assessments by Council

Planners Report.pdf - Hutt City Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?