Planners Report.pdf - Hutt City Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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. <strong>Council</strong>’s EHO considered that regardless of the location of the garden whether it is on the ground or the roof, it would still be treated in the same manner under the Resource Management Act. While the applicant has proposed a condition of consent requiring compliance with section 16 of the Resource
Management Act, I do not consider this to be of assistance given that section 16 is applicable to any activity irrespective of conditions of consent. 7.102 In her submission, Ms Adam requested a concrete block wall between her property at 41 Tory Street and the subject site rather than the proposed close-boarded timber fence to mitigate against vehicle noise. The applicant has agreed to this request and has proposed a condition of consent accordingly. 7.103 The applicant has proposed a condition of consent requiring compliance with the relevant noise standards of the District Plan when measured at or within the boundary of any site. I consider this will ensure adverse noise effects are avoided. 7.104 On balance, I consider the adverse noise effects will be acceptable subject to the proposed conditions of consent. Reverse sensitivity 7.105 In establishing new residential apartments along Jackson Street, this may result in reverse sensitivity issues for the new residents given the predominant commercial and retail nature of the local environment. To address this, the applicant has advised they will adopt specific noise insulation standards for habitable rooms as a condition of consent. This proposal has been reviewed by an Environmental Health Officer who is satisfied with this measure. 7.106 Given that the applicant has adopted conditions of consent that are supported by <strong>Council</strong>’s Environmental Health Officer, the reverse sensitivity effects are considered to be no more than minor. Temporary construction effects 7.107 The applicant proposes to incorporate mitigation measures to address the effects associated with the demolition and construction works. These mitigation measures include development of a construction management plan prior to the commencement of works. This plan would detail how the traffic, noise, and dust effects associated with the demolition and construction works will be controlled. 7.108 The applicant has advised the proposal will comply with the New Zealand Standard for construction noise. I have suggested that compliance is a condition of consent in section 11 of this report.
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 and 24: 7.77 In summary, Council’s Consul
Page 25: Privacy effects 7.88 It is consider
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?