Planners Report.pdf - Hutt City Council
Planners Report.pdf - Hutt City Council
Planners Report.pdf - Hutt City Council
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
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.