Planners Report.pdf - Hutt City Council

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