6800(56(7 9,//$*(6 (//(56/,( /,0,7(' - Auckland Counciltemp.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/ratesbuildingproperty/consents/get... · 6xpphuvhw 9loodjh (oohuvolh /lplwhg $sulo +duulvrq

SUMMERSET VILLAGES (ELLERSLIE) LIMITED

PROPOSED APARTMENTS

8 HARRISON ROAD, ELLERSLIE

AMENDED ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

April 2017

4030.02

Summerset Village (Ellerslie) Limited April 2017 8 Harrison Road, Ellerslie Job No: 4030.02

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1 THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY DETAILS 1 1.1 Application Details 1

2 SITE DESCRIPTION 3

3 PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND 3 3.1 The Proposal 3 3.2 Background – Summerset Retirement Villages 4 3.3 Existing Consents 5

4 REASON FOR THE APPLICATION 5 4.1 Unitary Plan 5 4.2 Legacy Plans 5 4.3 National Environmental Standard for Contaminated Sites 6 4.4 Bundling of consents 6 4.5 Activity Status 6

5 ASSESSMENT 6 5.1 Schedule 4 6 5.2 Assessment of Effects - s104(1)(A) 7

5.2.1 Permitted Baseline Assessment 7 5.2.2 Existing Environment 7 5.2.3 Activities Permitted by the Plan 7 5.2.4 Unimplemented Consents 7 5.2.5 Written Approvals 7 5.2.6 Effects on the Environment 8

5.3 Relevant Provisions of Planning Instruments – s104(1)(b) 17 5.3.1 UNitary Plan Regional Policy Statement 17 5.3.2 UNitary Plan – Objectives and Policies 18 5.3.3 Unitary Plan – Assessment Criteria 20

5.4 Other Matters – s104(1)(c) 22

6 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 22 6.1 Part 2 23

6.1.1 Section 5 – Purpose 23 6.1.2 Section 6 – Matters of National Importance 23 6.1.3 Section 7 – Other Matters 23 6.1.4 Section 8 – Treaty of Waitangi 23

6.2 Notification 23 6.2.1 Public Notification 23 6.2.2 Limited Notification 25 6.2.3 Special Circumstances 27

6.3 Section 104B 27 6.4 Section 108 27 6.5 Section 125 27 6.6 Monitoring of Effects 27

7 CONCLUSION 28


Scott Wilkinson Planning Page ii

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 Certificate of Title

Attachment 2 Engineering Report

Attachment 3 Written Approvals

Attachment 4 Urban Design Assessment

Attachment 5 Landscape and Visual Assessment

Attachment 6 Traffic Effects Assessment

Attachment 7 Arborist Report

Attachment 8 Acoustic Report

FIGURES

Figure 1: Locality Plan

Figure 2: Zoning Map

Figure 3: Adjacent Properties


Scott Wilkinson Planning Page iii

ISSUE AND REVISION RECORD

Status Final

Revision No. 2

Project No. 4030.02

Date of Issue April 2017

File Name AEE-8 Harrison Rd-final.docx

Prepared by Andrew Wilkinson (BPlan Hons, MNZPI) Planning Consultant | Director Reviewed by Andy Calder (BPlan Hons, Assoc. NZPI) Planning Consultant Approved by Andrew Wilkinson (BPlan Hons, MNZPI) Planning Consultant | Director

LIMITATIONS

This Assessment of Environmental Effects report has been prepared for the project at 8 Harrison Road, Ellerslie, for the purposes of a land use resource consent application and in accordance with the requirements of the Fourth Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991. No responsibility is accepted by Scott Wilkinson Planning Limited or its directors or employees for the use of any part of this report in any other context or for any other purpose.

This report is for use by Summerset Villages (Ellerslie) Limited and the Auckland Council only, and should not be used or relied upon by any other person or for any other project.


Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 1

Executive Summary

This report has been prepared as an amended document to that initially submitted to Council when the application was lodged. The report has been amended as since that initial lodgement the Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in Part 2016 (Unitary Plan) has been made “Operative in Part”, which has included a zone change for the land, and means that consent matters need to now include those under the Unitary Plan, while matters under the legacy District Plan fall away. As the application is to be limited notified, so as to avoid potential confusion, it is considered that the application AEE should be refreshed to take account of the changes under the Unitary Plan.

It should also be noted that with the exception of an adjustment to the internal basement layout, the proposed plans for the development remain consistent with that originally lodged with Council.

In terms of the internal basement, it has been revised in design and layout, and no longer extends beneath the road fronting wing of the building. There is a consequential reduction in the volume of earthworks proposed, including the excavation of less basalt.

1 THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY DETAILS

1.1 APPLICATION DETAILS

Site Address 8 Harrison Road, Ellerslie

Name of Applicant Summerset Village (Ellerslie) Limited

Address for Service Scott Wilkinson Planning P O Box 37359 Parnell AUCKLAND 1151

Attention: Andrew Wilkinson Email: [email protected]

Tel: (09) 354-4166 Mob: 021 619 571

Legal Description Lot 2 DP 190689

refer Attachment 1

Site Area 3.877ha

Zoning Mixed Housing – Urban

Road Classification Local Road

Designation/Overlays Aquifer – Mt Wellington Volcanic Aquifer

Volcanic Viewshafts & Height Sensitive Areas



Figure 1: Locality Plan Source: Auckland Council GIS Viewer

Figure 2: Zoning Map Source: Auckland Council Geomaps

Application Site

Application Site



2 SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is a large, irregular shaped landholding of approximately 3.87ha that is contained within a single Certificate of Title.

The site was until recently occupied by the St John’s Ambulance training facility and a series of building structures from previous uses and parking areas on the western side of the site, adjoining Harrison Road. This western side of the site has a gentle contour, with a slight fall towards a man-made stormwater pond at the centre of the site.

The consent holder is in the process of undertaking site development in accordance with approved resource consents R/LUC/2013/3861 and R/LUC/2013/3865. Indeed, the first of the units on the site are now being occupied.

The area of the site that is affected by this application is situated in the south-western portion of the site. This portion was originally proposed to be occupied by 18 individual townhouses, however upon review of the proposal, and reflection on the high demand for housing in the Ellerslie area, the proposal has been revised to maximise the intensity of units on the site and thereby accommodate more people.

3 PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND

3.1 THE PROPOSAL

The applicant seeks resource consent to construct a 75-unit apartment complex to form part of the consented retirement village on the site. The apartment building will be comprised of five levels and one basement level.

The floors of each building will comprised the following:

Basement level: 48 carparks and manoeuvring space; two storage rooms, a plant room and services room.

Level one: 25 carparks and manoeuvring space; a plant room; three rubbish spaces, and two storage rooms; five 2 bedroom apartments; two 3 bedroom apartments.

Levels two and three: One 1 bedroom apartment; fourteen 2 bedroom apartments; Four 3 bedroom apartments.

Levels four and five: One 1 bedroom apartment; eleven 2 bedroom apartments; three 3 bedroom apartments.

Each apartment will have its own private deck space accessible from its main living area.

In terms of site preparation works, the estimated quantities of earthworks are 4,010m3 of cut and 430m3 of fill, along with the removal of 3,185m3 of unsuitable material from the site. This will be undertaken over an area of 0.41 hectares and will entail cut depths of up to 2.5m for the basement levels. These volumes include approximately 1,020m3 of basalt rock excavation over an area of



approximately 800m2 to a maximum depth of 2.5m. 1

The apartments will be constructed of pre-cast concrete panels (or similar) with concrete floors and steel frames. They will have a painted plaster finished with aluminium joinery and metal balustrades. The southern façade of apartment will be acoustically treated and appropriate glazing installed to ensure internal noise levels achieve the required standards. Mechanical ventilation will also be installed consistent with that to be undertaken for the consented Apartment A building on site.

Access to the apartments will be via the existing Harrison Road two-way central boulevard. A loop road through the site will provide access directly to the underground basement parking.

Parking will be provided at a rate of 1 car park per unit within the basement and level one of the building.

Riley Consultants Limited has prepared an engineering report detailing how the proposal will be serviced (refer Attachment 2).

A landscape concept has been developed, and is consistent with the treatment for the balance consented development. For the new apartment building, a feature internal courtyard is proposed with pedestrian access into the northern and southern wings of the apartment building provided from this space. The established Pohutukawa trees around the southern and western boundaries will be complemented with boundary hedging. Additionally, for the new building a change to the boundary treatment is proposed, with a greater proportion of solid walling proposed along the Harrison Road frontage but punctuated by ‘pool’ style’ fencing. Planting will be located in front of the wall. The landscape treatment is outlined within landscaping plan prepare by Natural Habitats an annexed as within the folio of plans.

Three townhouse units that were to be located on the eastern side of the internal lake are no longer proposed to be constructed. It is proposed to amend the site plan to remove these townhouses as part of the subject application.

3.2 BACKGROUND – SUMMERSET RETIREMENT VILLAGES

Summerset was founded in 1994 and has grown to become New Zealand’s third largest retirement village operator and second largest developer of villages. Summerset currently operates 21 villages across the country, with a number of additional sites set to be developed in the near future.

Summerset develops and operates villages that provide a continuum of care, with villages containing independent and assisted living units (villas and apartments) and care facilities (rest home and hospital level care) for those who require greater assistance. The services available include nursing and medical service, provision of meals and maintenance of the units and grounds.

The average age of a resident entering Summerset’s villages is 81 years. Retirement villages typically attract 80% of their residents from within 5-10kms from their home as this enables them to remain close to family, friends and familiar amenities. Most Summerset residents are still driving when they enter a village but, on average cease driving after three years and use public transport or the Summerset van to get around.

1 When originally lodged, the basement involved cuts of up to 4.5m in depth through the majority of the building footprint; however, this has been reduced in both depth and area to the figures noted above.



Summerset’s villages provide a range of communal facilities such as a restaurant, library, swimming pool, bowling lawn, hair and beauty salon, and gardens. All of these amenities are available for residents at the existing Ellerslie village.

3.3 EXISTING CONSENTS

Summerset has four existing consents applying to the site that it is in the process of giving effect to. Consents R/LUC/2013/3861 and R/REG/2013/3981 were granted providing land use and regional approvals for site establishment works, including base earthworks and vegetation removal. Consents R/LUC/2013/3865 and R/REG/2013/3978 were granted providing land use and regional approvals for the construction of all buildings on site and the associated stormwater components.

As noted in section 2 above, site development is well underway on site in accordance with these consents.

4 REASON FOR THE APPLICATION

4.1 UNITARY PLAN

The proposal requires resource consent under the Unitary Plan for the following reasons:

Within the Mixed Housing Urban zone, Integrated residential development is classified as a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rules (A8) and (A34) of Table H5.4.1. The application requires consideration accordingly.

The proposed building will infringe the 11m maximum building height of standard H5.6.4, with the building having a height of up to 8.1 metres above the permitted limit. Pursuant to Rule C1.9 (2), this requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity.

The development includes earthworks over an area of 4,100m2 involving a total volume (cut and fill) of 7,195m3 and will therefore exceed the limit of 2,500m2 and 2,500m3 for earthworks, and therefore requires consideration as a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to (A4) and (A8) of Table E12.4.1.

The proposed works will exceed the Construction Noise Standard for short periods of time pursuant to Rule E25.6.27. Pursuant to Rule (A2) of Table E25.4.1 this requires consideration as a restricted discretionary activity.

4.2 LEGACY PLANS

When originally lodged the application was made seeking consents under the Auckland City District Plan: Isthmus Section and the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land, Water.

Subsequent to the application being lodged and processing commencing, the Unitary Plan became ‘operative in part’ (by way of public notice on 15 November 2016 under Clause 20, Schedule 1 to the RMA), and the legacy plan provisions have become inoperative. Effectively, the legacy operative plans fall away, noting in particular, that the Unitary Plan zoning is no longer under appeal (appeal withdrawn), and the activity status for integrated residential development is not subject to



appeal.

4.3 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD FOR CONTAMINATED SITES

The site is identified on the Council’s records as being contaminated. Consent is therefore required as a Restricted Discretionary activity pursuant to Regulation 8(3) of the National Environmental Standard for Contaminated Soils (NES) for disturbance of land that may have accommodated an activity or industry described in the Hazardous Activities and Industries List.

4.4 BUNDLING OF CONSENTS

The accepted planning practice under the Act for multiple consents is that the more stringent planning status should apply to the entire application. However, in some circumstances the different aspects of an application can be unbundled and this practice has been upheld in the Courts. Generally, it is accepted that where an activity that requires consent is integral to another activity that also requires consent, they should be bundled. In this case, it is considered appropriate to bundle the reasons for consent together.

4.5 ACTIVITY STATUS

Overall, the proposal requires consideration as a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

5 ASSESSMENT

5.1 SCHEDULE 4

Schedule 4 of the Act specifies the information and matters that must be included any resource consent application. Clause 7 sets out the matters that must be addressed by an assessment of environmental effects and these must include the following:

(a) any effect on those in the neighbourhood and, where relevant, the wider community, including any social, economic, or cultural effects:

(b) any physical effect on the locality, including any landscape and visual effects:

(c) any effect on ecosystems, including effects on plants or animals and any physical disturbance of habitats in the vicinity:

(d) any effect on natural and physical resources having aesthetic, recreational, scientific, historical, spiritual, or cultural value, or other special value, for present or future generations:

(e) any discharge of contaminants into the environment, including any unreasonable emission of noise, and options for the treatment and disposal of contaminants:

(f) any risk to the neighbourhood, the wider community, or the environment through natural hazards or the use of hazardous substances or hazardous installations.



5.2 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS - S104(1)(A)

5.2.1 PERMITTED BASELINE ASSESSMENT

In terms of effects on the environment, section 104(2) of the Act has established that the correct approach to defining those effects is by way of reference to those activities permitted by a plan. This forms part of the permitted baseline which has evolved through case law and defines the environment against which a proposed activity’s degree of adverse effect is gauged. The permitted baseline comprises non-fanciful activities and their constituent effects that would be permitted as of right by the Unitary Plan and the effects of activities enabled by an unimplemented consent. Section 104(2) enables the consent authority to disregard an adverse effect of an activity on the environment if a plan permits an activity with that effect.

5.2.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The existing environment has been described in Section 2 of this application. Please refer back to this description.

5.2.3 ACTIVITIES PERMITTED BY THE PLAN

Under the Mixed Housing Urban provisions of the Unitary Plan, construction of up to two dwellings on a site is a permitted activity, subject to compliance with bulk and location, outlook, outdoor living space and other on-site amenity standards (‘Standards to be complied with’) as set out at Table H5.4.1.

Additionally, earthworks of up to 500m² and 250m3, in compliance with permitted construction noise limits, can also be carried out as of right.

5.2.4 UNIMPLEMENTED CONSENTS

The applicant has resource consent to develop the entire site with a retirement village approved resource consent R/LUC/2013/3861. This included a mixture of mainly two and three bedroom apartments in three separate apartment blocks (124 apartments), two and three bedroom townhouses/villas (62), and a main building that contains apartments (23), care apartments (43) and car beds (79). Residential car parking was provided as part of this resource consent as garage parking within the separate villages and townhouses, and as covered parking beneath the apartment building and main building, along with additional visitor and staff parking throughout the site.

The applicant is in the process of giving effect to this resource consent (noting that construction has commenced), with the exception of 18 townhouses/villas which are in the location of the proposed apartment building being considered in this application, and three other townhouses that are positioned to the east of the pond within the site.

It is therefore considered the unimplemented portions of this consent that are in the process of being given effect to should be taken into account in the consideration of this application.

5.2.5 WRITTEN APPROVALS

Written approval has been provided by St Johns Ambulance services, as the owner/occupier of the property at 10 Harrison Road, as have AML (20 Leon Leicester Avenue) and Fulton Hogan (4 Reliable Way), which is appended within Attachment 3. Effects on these parties must therefore be



disregarded.

5.2.6 EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

5.2.6.1 AMENITY/CHARACTER EFFECTS

On-site Amenity

Residents of the proposed apartment building and within the wider retirement village site will experience a high level of on-site amenity and this is a key attribute of retirement village living. The residents will have a range of physical amenities such as a library, swimming pool and bowling green that are part of the consented development that is being given effect to. The internal design of the village reflects Summerset’s years of experience in the industry and compliance with best practice standards that have been developed in relation to the placement of seats, gradients of footpaths and the general landscape setting. The re-formed pond will be a key feature of the site and the development has been designed to maximise the use and enjoyment of this area, and is within close walking distance of the new building proposed.

The overall landscape design will provide interest and diversity and has been designed to reflect the specific needs and interests of residents, and has been based on the consented landscape design for the overall development (this is discussed further in section 5.2.6.2 below). Each proposed dwelling or apartment unit has a private outdoor living court or balcony for resident’s enjoyment and screening and landscaping will be used to demarcate these areas and maintain privacy. The size of these areas varies depending on the unit type, location and size.

The range of proposed unit designs provides housing choice and enables residents to purchase a unit which meets their specific needs. Overall, the provision of private outdoor areas, in combination with the communal facilities and access to external services is considered to be suitable, and will contribute to the high level of on-site amenity enjoyed by residents.

Wider character, amenity and urban design effects

The proposal will introduce additional building bulk to the application site, over and above what was proposed as part of the consented development (where 18 townhouses were originally proposed). It is noted that the building will exceed the maximum height for buildings within the Business 4 zone, and will increase the intensity level of people living on the site. It is therefore appropriate to consider the potential character, amenity, dominance and urban design effects of the proposal on the wider environment.

With regards to the scale and form of the building, it is noted that the street front portion of the building will be lower at three levels, which will then step up behind this portion to a total of five levels, with this stepping of the levels being a specific design feature in recognition of the residential activity situated opposite the site. An urban design assessment has been prepared by R A Skidmore Urban Design Limited which is appended as Attachment 4. Ms Skidmore notes within this assessment that the differential scale proposed will provide a suitable transition to the consented Apartment Building A within the southern portion of the site which is a total of seven storeys.

The architectural elements and proposed materials have been designed to complement the consented apartment buildings within the site. The external balconies and screens, as well as the contrasting materials and visual features are intended to break up and soften the visual appearance of the façade and present a residential/domestic character to the street.



The units have been laid out so that they will address the street frontage on Harrison Road. The higher portions of the building are specifically set back from the site frontage in recognition of the residential boundary. The landscaping plan (attached within the Folio of Plans) has been designed to provide a vegetated, green interface with the street and will be consistent with the consented planting for the balance of the street frontage. In this regard it is considered that the building has been designed to respond appropriately to the street frontage and residential properties within the neighbourhood.

In terms of the amenity of neighbouring properties, the adjacent properties to the west of the site are within the Light Industry zone of the Unitary Plan, but lawfully occupied by St John Ambulance services as an office use. The access and car parking has been positioned adjacent to this boundary to ensure that there is a sufficient setback between the apartment building and the property boundary. Established planting along the boundary within the neighbouring property provides a buffer to the site, which includes a number of substantial Pohutukawa trees. These trees are situated within a required yard that applies under the Unitary Plan and can be relied upon as visual mitigation as they are unlikely to be removed.

It is important to note that the applicant sought input from the Auckland Urban Design Express Panel in August 2015 and the scheme has been developed in consideration of feedback received from the panel. The fundamental design changes that were undertaken following this advice are set out in the urban design assessment attached.

Overall, it is considered that the site and surrounding environment is suitable for the proposed apartment building. The building has been specifically designed to complement the existing consented retirement village on the site as well as fit in with the residential character of Harrison Road. The height and scale of the building will be seen within the context of the more substantial main building within the retirement village site, as well as the mixed use nature of the area. The massing, design details, landscaping, and set back of the larger elements of the building from the street frontage will help to ensure that the building does not appear overly dominant in the wider environment.

It is therefore considered that the proposal will have positive urban design elements and the amenity and character effects of the proposal will be no more than minor.

5.2.6.2 LANDSCAPE AND DOMINANCE EFFECTS

In terms of effects on the landscape, a landscape and visual assessment has been prepared by landscape architect Helen Mellsop. This is appended as Attachment 5. Ms Mellsop provides an analysis of the surrounding environment within this assessment noting that the overall landscape of which the site is a part has a mixed industrial, commercial and residential urban character. The visible volcanic cones are important landscape elements, as well as the collections of urban trees in the area, which are mainly restricted to the lower density residential areas on the cones and ridges and public open spaces. Over, Ms Mellsop notes that the surrounding urban landscape has a low level of natural character and a low to moderate level of landscape amenity.

The proposal will introduce additional residential apartments into the landscape, in a building ranging from three and five storeys in height, into an area containing a mixture of commercial, industrial and residential activities. The five storey portion of the building adjoining the St John Ambulance site, and this is the portion that will exceed the 15metre height limit for the Business 4 zone. Ms Mellsop notes that while there is potential for this building to have adverse landscape effects in terms of dominance and shading on the adjoining property to the south, the owners of this property have provided written approval to the application and any effects on them must be



disregarded.

The mixed use nature of the area means that the wider landscape has the ability to accommodate the proposed apartment building, with Ms Mellsop assessing the magnitude of change in the landscape character to be small, and instead the apartment building will form a coherent part of the mixed commercial, industrial and landscape. From closer viewpoints to the north, west and south of the site, Ms Mellsop notes that the building will appear consistent with the scale and nature of existing and consented commercial and residential development, and will not be visually dominating when viewed from public or private land to the north and north west, nor will it detract from the visual amenities or available views within the neighbourhood.

A landscaping plan has been developed by Natural Habitats, which is contained within the Folio of Plans. The overall intent of the plan is to enhance the volcanic forest type in the area and restore ecological connections to Maungarei (Mount Wellington), Waiataurua reserve and the Stonefields development, while also providing amenity for residents. Planting will include volcanic forest type planting (including puriri, Pohutukawa, karaka, rewarea and titoki); productive and orchard landscape (including citrus, plum, apple, feijoa and apricot trees as well as vegetable gardens at communal notes); wetland/ ecological habitat surrounding the central pond; and hedges, planters, and lower growing flowering shrubs along pathways and amenity areas. The landscaping plan is consistent with that approved for the consented retirement village, and will therefore integrate the new landscaping with that being established at the site.

It is considered that the landscaping plan enhances the key urban design outcomes of the proposal, will provide positive internal amenity for residents, and will help to incorporate the building into the surrounding landscape, and enhance the vegetated landscape values of the area.

Overall, it is considered that the landscape and dominance effects of the proposal will be less than minor.

5.2.6.3 TRAFFIC EFFECTS

A traffic effects assessment has been undertaken by Traffic Planning Consultants Limited (TPC) which is appended as Attachment 6, including an addendum dated 20 April 2017. The conclusions of this report are summarised as follows:

Existing Transport Environment

Traffic Flows

The most recent traffic counts available for the Ellerslie-Panmure Highway were recorded by Auckland Transport in February, and identified weekday flows to be almost 25,000 vehicles/day (vpd) with peak hour flows up to about 2200 vehicles/hour (vph). There is no data available for Harrison Road.

As part of the original retirement village application TPC undertook traffic surveys at the intersection of Ellerslie-Panmure Highway and Harrison Road on Thursday 13 September 2012 during the morning peak period (0700 – 0900), the midday period (1200- 1400) and the afternoon peak period (1600 – 1800). The surveys were then updated on Thursday 6 March 2014 and additional surveys were undertaken on Saturday 8 March 2014. The results from these surveys are set out in Tables 2 and 3 and from modelling of the intersection using SIDRA INTERSECTION 6 is set out in Table 4 of the TPC report.

TPC conclude that the intersection is generally operating satisfactorily throughout the day, although queuing and delay does occur from time to time from right turning vehicles. The SIDRA results



indicate average delays of 60 seconds/ vehicle during the AM peak period and 45 seconds/ vehicle during the PM peak period, which typical maximum queues of 3 vehicles on the right turn movement. TPC note that from observation, queues only exist for short periods during the peak hours and quickly dissipate.

Road Safety

TPC investigates the crash record from the area for the five year period from 2010-2014 which show that there have been five crashes reported at the intersection of Ellerslie-Panmure Highway and Harrison Road, three involving right turning vehicles out of Harrison Road, one involving a vehicle turning left onto Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, and one involving a vehicle turning right into Harrison Road.

Three crashes were also reported along Harrison Road, two involving vehicles hitting parked vehicles while manoeuvring, and one involving a motor cyclist losing control in wet conditions.

Traffic Effects of the Proposal

Traffic Generation

The proposal will introduce an additional 75 apartment units to the site, in place of townhouses that are consented to be positioned in the same location as the apartment will be.

TPC predict that the result of the proposed change to the consented development is likely to be a small further increase in the AM peak hour trip generation of 11 vph, increasing to 17 vph through the middle of the day and during the PM peak. Daily vehicle flows will increase by approximately 140-210 vpd.

Based on SIDRA modelling, TPC note that only minor increases in delay and queuing at the Ellerslie-Panmure Highway/Harrison Road intersection will result from the proposal, particularly for the right turn exit onto Ellerslie-Panmure Highway. TPC note that the difference in traffic effects between the consented and proposed amended village development will be barely noticeable.

Safety

TPC note that Harrison Road is generally operating safely under existing flows and the small amount of additional traffic associated with the village will have a less than minor effect on this situation.

The crash record indicates a number of reported crashes that have involved vehicles turning right into and out of Harrison Road and the Ellerslie-Panmure intersection. However, TPC note that the conclusions from the traffic modelling are that the small predicted increases in the number of vehicles making these turning movements will only have a minor impact on delays experienced during peak periods and there should be minimal impact on the operation of the intersection.

Consequently, TPC note that the likely traffic flows from the proposal can be easily accommodated within the existing traffic environment and there will be no detrimental impact on the safe and efficient movement of traffic on the surrounding road network.

Construction Traffic

As part of the original resource consent application, TPC concluded that the surrounding road network has the capacity to accommodate the sorts of traffic volumes that will be associated with the construction phase, and the application of normal construction traffic management measures will ensure that any potential impact on the surrounding area is minimised. This is still relevant with the subject application, as while the timeframe of construction will be altered, the volumes and types of traffic movements will be similar.



Parking

TPC have reviewed the parking provision over the entire site, noting that 291 car parks are required to be provided on the site under the Unitary Plan standards. In total, 357 car parks will be provided, including 73 as part of the subject application.

Loading and Servicing

TPC consider that no specific loading space is required to serve the residential activities within the retirement village. However, the proposed access and driveway arrangements will be suitable to accommodate the occasional delivery vehicle, including rubbish trucks and emergency vehicles.

In terms of rubbish collection, the arrangements of the current consented village will remain, with staff collecting refuse from in front of individual units to a central collection point where trucks will pick it up. A new rubbish collection area is to be provided at the southern end of the proposed apartment building, with a new, separate vehicle access from Harrison Road. It is noted that the service vehicles utilising this crossing will be required to reverse manoeuvre onto the street. It is noted that the access will only be utilised by service vehicles – primarily rubbish trucks, and this will occur relatively infrequently (approximate maximum of once a day). Harrison Road is a local road with relatively low levels of traffic, and there is good visibility in the proximity to the crossing to ensure effects on traffic and pedestrian safety will be less than minor. Furthermore, reverse manoeuvring from a loading space onto a local road is a permitted activity within the Isthmus Plan. It is therefore considered that effects associated with reverse manoeuvring from the new service lane will be less than minor.

Conclusions

TPC not that the proposed development is satisfactory from a traffic planning point of view and conclude that the proposed new apartment building can be accommodated with less than minor adverse effects on the traffic environment and on neighbouring properties.

In this regard, it is considered that the traffic effects of the proposal will be less than minor.

5.2.6.4 EFFECTS ON TREES

In order to establish the apartment building on the site, works will be required to be undertaken within the dripline of a line of Pohutukawa and Titoki trees positioned along the boundary of 10 Harrison Road. A small degree of pruning is also anticipated. In order to assess the potential effects on these trees, a report has been prepared by arborist Mr Craig Webb from GreensceneNZ which is attached as Attachment 7.

This report notes that some pruning will be required to the trees but provided works are undertaken in accordance with accepted arboricultural best practice, as well as a list of recommended conditions, the health and vitality of the trees will not be affected by the proposal.

The recommendations within Mr Webb’s report have been adopted by the applicant and would be accepted as conditions of consent. It is therefore considered that any effects on these protected trees will be less than minor.

5.2.6.5 EARTHWORKS EFFECTS

An engineering report has been prepared by Riley Consultants Limited which is attached as Attachment 2. Part of this report sets out the earthworks proposed for the application and measures proposed to mitigate potential effects resulting from the earthworks.



The report notes that relatively substantial volumes of earthworks are required to be undertaken as part of the subject application in order to form the basement levels and surrounding pavement and landscaping areas. This will include excavation of basalt rock. The estimated quantities of earthworks are 4,010m3 of cut and 430m3 of fill, along with the removal of 3,185m3 of unsuitable material from the site. This will be undertaken over an area of 0.41 hectares and will entail cut depths of up to 2.5m for the basement levels. The volume and depth of earthworks are less than initially proposed due to a reduction in the extent of the basement.

This includes approximately 1,020m3 of basalt rock excavation over an area of approximately 800m2 to a maximum depth of 2.5m. This is also a reduction from that initially proposed. Riley Consultants Limited derived the profile of the basalt rock layer from geotechnical and soakage investigations. Effects associated with rock excavation are assessed in the following section of this report.

In order to control potential erosion and sediment effects associated with the earthworks, erosion and sediment control measures are proposed including perimeter silt fence and a decanting bunk, drained to soakage. The proposed erosion and sediment control measures are shown on engineering plans reference 12215/1-418 within the Engineering Drawings section of the Folio of plans.

The earthworks contract for the works will place specific responsibilities on the contractor for the environmental management of the site. As part of this management, the contractor will be responsible for providing adequate erosion and sediment control measures to protect downstream environments, and all works are proposed to be carried out in accordance with Auckland Council Technical Publication 90 (TP90).

5.2.6.6 VIBRATION AND NOISE EFFECTS

As noted in the section above, approximately 1,020m3 of basalt rock is proposed to be removed from the site to form the basement, being reduced from the initial volume proposed. In order to achieve this, it is proposed to break up the basalt by use of explosive charges, rather than using hydraulic rock breakers. An assessment against the potential noise and vibration effects resulting from the earthworks have been undertaken by Marshall Day Acoustics which is attached as Attachment 8, including addendums prepared subsequent to original lodgement of the application.

The Marshall Day report notes that the reason for employing explosive devices is that experience on-site with excavations for the main building has shown that it produces significantly less effects from noise and vibration than conventional rock breaking, and can be successfully managed within the limits of the original noise and vibration conditions of the consents already in place for the site.

The report notes that with careful design of the blasting process, vibration levels can be limited to below DIN 4150 levels and noise would be far below the construction noise limit of 120 dB Lcpeak. Furthermore, the blasting would be complete in a matter of seconds as opposed to approximately 30 days if traditional measures were employed, thereby avoiding ongoing noise and vibration effects being experienced by neighbours to the site.

Following the blasting, some rock breaking will still be required to clear the edges of the hole; however, because this is primarily at the bottom of the excavated area there will be natural shielding of the noise.

The duration of the additional rock breaking is anticipated to be approximately 2 weeks. The Marshall Day report predicts that there will be periods of time during this phase that will have the potential to exceed 80 dB LAeq, which is above the noise limited of NZS 6803:1999 for long term



construction. It is anticipated that these limits will be exceeded for a period of up to 2 days. This noise will be reduced through noise barriers on the boundaries to adjacent sites, and other mitigation measures and conditions of consent proposed in the Marshall Day report. The applicant agrees to implement these conditions.

All other construction work on the site is predicted by Marshall Day to be able to comply with the limits of NZS 6803:1999.

It considered that the proposed excavation measures are the best practicable option for excavation of the basement and foundations for the proposed apartment. The period of time in which noise may be exceeded will be limited in duration and mitigated by proposed conditions of consent. These mitigation measures will also ensure compliance with vibration requirements. It is therefore considered that effects associated with noise and vibration will be less than minor.

5.2.6.7 INFRASTRUCTURE

Stormwater

The stormwater measures proposed for the application are detailed in the Riley Consultants Limited report at Attachment 2. This report notes that it is proposed to adopt similar stormwater management approached for the subject application area as has been approved under the current consented development. There is approximately 155m2 of new impervious area within the sub-catchment of the entire retirement village area due to the subject application. This is due to the increase roof area of the building, although is not a significant change from the consented development as there will be a net decrease in pavement areas that have the potential to generate contaminants to stormwater runoff.

It is proposed to direct stormwater runoff generated from approximately 1,100m2 of impervious area over the site to two new soakage rockbores, resulting in a net decrease of runoff to the on-site stormwater pond from the original design. Approximately 200m2 of the 1,100m2 will be trafficable pavement area. Due to the limited area, low frequency of use and low potential as a contaminant source, stormwater treatment will be limited to fabricated filter systems incorporated into stormwater cesspits and settling champers within the soakage bore in accordance with Council Soakage Design Manual, with specific engineering details for the soakholes to be provided at Building Consent stage. The proposed layout of the stormwater reticulation to service the apartment block and surrounding area is shown on plant 12214/1-420 appended within the Engineering Drawing section of the Folio of Plans.

Based on the Riley Consultants report, it is considered that appropriate provision will be made for stormwater associated with the proposal such that any potential stormwater effects will be less than minor.

Flooding and Overland Flows

The maximum flood level within the site during a 1% AEP storm event is RL 33.25, with the recommended minimum finished floor level for occupied buildings to be RL 33.75 (500mm freeboard above maximum flood level). The ground floor of the apartment block has a proposed finished floor level of 35m.

The apartment basement finished floor levels are 30.9m and 32.1m. The finished crown level of the internal road between the stormwater ponds and the access ramp to the basement is 33.62m. This will ensure that floodwaters from the pond cannot enter the basement carpark. A 370mm freeboard is provided above the maximum flood levels.



Runoff from the basement ramps will be collected and pumped into the stormwater pond, whilst any water that collects within the basements (such as washdown water) will be pumped to the stormwater system.

Based on the report and recommendations of Riley Consultants Limited, any potential flooding and overland flow effects will be less than minor.

Wastewater

The Riley Consultants Limited report also assesses the wastewater provision of the proposal. It is noted that the expected peak discharge flow for the entire development based on anticipated occupancy is 6.8l/s to the public system. The average dry weather flow is 1.36l/s. The report notes that the on-site pump stations shall be capable of pumping at the peak discharge flow rate, to ensure dry weather flows are not stored on-site. In addition, each pump station will have a 24 hour average dry weather emergency storage, which exceeds the ACRP: Air Land Water requirements.

In this regard, as the peak design and average dry weather flows are less than 15l/s and 3l/s respectively, the discharge from the pump station is a permitted activity under the ACRP: Air Land Water.

It is therefore considered that appropriate provision will be made for wastewater associated with the proposal such that any potential wastewater effects will be less than minor.

Water Supply

Riley Consultants Limited have consulted with Waster Services Limited regarding the water demand resulting from the entire retirement village site based on the revised occupancy rates. Water Services Limited have confirmed that there is sufficient capacity in the upgraded public network for the revisions to the development. Please see correspondence within Appendix C of Riley Consultant Limited’s report.

It has also been previously confirmed that there is adequate flow and pressure within the public reticulation to service the development for fire-fighting purposes. Riley Consultants Limited note that the addition of the subject apartment block to the site, which is independent of the other apartment blocks, will not increase the fire-fighting demands of the development.

In this regard it is considered that the proposal is capable of being adequately services with water supply such that any potential water supply effects will be less than minor.

5.2.6.8 SOIL CONTAMINATION EFFECTS

It is noted that the subject site was assessed under the previous application for the retirement village on the site and found to have contained potentially contaminated fill. In this regard, as part of this application we are applying for consent under the Soil Contamination NES for soil disturbance on the site.

It is noted that the approved resource consent include a suite of conditions of consent which require accordance with an Environmental Site Management Plan, which was prepared by Riley Consultants in September 2013. The applicant intends to undertake all earthworks involved in the subject application in accordance with the contamination related consent conditions of his consent (conditions 18 to 22 of R/LUC/2013/3861, R/LUC/2013/3865, R/REG/2013/3978 and R/REG/2013/3981).

It is also of importance to note that the vast majority of earthworks proposed as part of this application are to form a basement area and are therefore of depths unlikely to be affected by



contamination.

In this regard it is considered that any potential effects resulting from contaminated soil will be less than minor.

5.2.6.9 REVERSE SENSITIVITY EFFECTS

Reverse sensitivity effects occur when sensitive activities including residential properties, light commercial activities, places of assembly or places where children or the elderly may be present, are allowed to locate where they may be adversely affected by heavy industrial or noxious activities. This has the potential to limit the ability for heavy industry or noxious activities to operate efficiently and with long-term certainty. Allowing sensitive activities in close proximity to noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable industries or activities may not only have adverse effects on the health, safety or amenity values of people but may also adversely affect the economic and safe operations of such industries or activities. Therefore, existing areas of industrial and business activity should not be compromised by the introduction of incompatible uses.

The location of the site is adjacent to commercial activities accessed via Reliable Way. Most of these are of an industrial nature, and therefore consideration is required of the potential reverse sensitivity effects that might result from the development proceeding.

Although the proposal will intensify the extent of residential use in proximity to commercial activities, the separation distance to the activities is comparable to the separation distance to other neighbouring residential activities, and these distances already result in the need some degree of constraint for those activities.

It is also noted that within the Mixed Housing Urban zone residentially based activities are anticipated. Such activities are potentially sensitive to industrial discharges, as they commonly involve outdoor facilities or activities. As such, the nature of the existing environment, as well as the reasonably foreseeable state of the receiving environment as a result of activities that are anticipated for by the zoning, mean that the need for the industrial activities to consider their effects on sensitive activities already exists and will not be unduly exacerbated by the subject application.

It is also of relevance to consider an application made by Fulton Hogan in 2013 for a new air discharge permit for its operations on the site at 4 Reliable Way. While this was being considered by Council, Summerset was in the process of applying for resource consent for the retirement village on the site. At the time, both parties submitted in opposition to each other’s applications, however after negotiations were undertaken, agreements were reached in relation to the imposition of covenants and other obligations on both parties, including a ‘no complaints’ covenant on Summerset residents. The covenants are contained within Attachment 1. As a result of these agreements, both parties withdrew their submissions on each other’s resource consent applications, and following the approval of the Summerset village on the subject site, Summerset provided written approval to Fulton Hogan’s application.

It is noted that these covenants and obligations will also apply to the proposed apartment building thereby reducing the likelihood of reverse sensitivity effects resulting from this application on the operation of this industrial activity.

It is further noted that it is not the expectation of Summerset that the nearby industrial activities amend or cease their lawful operations on their sites as a result of this application. Instead, the applicant has included measures to reduce the potential adverse effect of the industrial operations on the residents. This includes internal ventilation and extra noise mitigation for units, such as



utilisation of double glazing on windows.

Overall, it is considered that any adverse reverse sensitivity effects will be less minor in nature in comparison to the existing environment. The applicant proposes measures to mitigate potential effects (with acoustic protection and mechanical ventilation), and it is considered that these measures will appropriately mitigate potential reverse sensitivity effects.

5.2.6.10 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

A cumulative effect is an effect that arises over time or in combination with other effects. In this case, all relevant potential adverse effects have been identified and determined to be no more than minor. This site is considered to be well located for a high density retirement village development as proposed. It is considered that none of the minor effects identified in this proposal are cumulative and as such, they will remain no more than minor.

Overall, it is considered that any adverse cumulative environmental effects will be no more than minor.

5.3 RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF PLANNING INSTRUMENTS – S104(1)(B)

5.3.1 UNITARY PLAN REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT

Chapter B of the Unitary Plan sets out the strategic RMA framework for the identified issues of significance, and resultant priorities and outcomes sought. These align with the direction contained in the Auckland Plan.

The site is zoned Mixed Housing Urban within the Unitary Plan, and is a change of zoning since the initial lodgement of the application, as a consequence of the hearing process.

The regional policy related provisions are contained in Chapter B. That chapter highlights an emphasis upon having compact urban growth that includes the enhancement of the quality of life for individuals and communities, and optimises the efficient use of our existing urban area. It comments on having compact urban environments, the provision of having good design in all development, and creating enduring neighbourhoods, centres and business areas.

The regional policy statement contains provisions in respect of reverse sensitivity (policy B2.5.2(10), which includes comment about managing reverse sensitivity effects on the efficient operation, use and development of existing industrial activities, including the preventing of inappropriate sensitive activities locating or intensifying in or adjacent to heavy industrial zones. As has been addressed in 5.2.6.9 of this report, there are other sensitive activities located in proximity of neighbouring industrial activities, and given the proximity of the other sensitive activities, there is already the need for a degree of control for existing industrial activities.

The proposed development is a form of quality, intensive development that provides housing choice for a specific sector of the community. The proposal will give effect to the strategic objectives that seek to ensure the built environment comprises of a range of different uses and densities while maintaining identity, character and amenity values.

The infrastructure report prepared by Riley Consultants sets out the erosion and sediment control measures that will be employed during the construction phase, along with the stormwater methodology which will ensure that the proposal will be consistent with those matters relating to natural resources (B7).

Overall, the proposal is considered to assist with the compact urban growth within the region, and



will have a good design, notwithstanding being located in proximity to some industrial activity. The proposal is considered that the proposal will be consistent with the objectives set out in the regional policy statement.

5.3.2 UNITARY PLAN – OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

The Unitary Plan sets out the objectives, policies, methods and rules by which the Council seeks to manage the natural and physical environment. The relevant objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria considered in the following sections of this report.

Clause H5 provides the objectives and policies for the Mixed Housing Urban zone. The following objectives and policies apply:

H5.2. Objectives

(1) Land near the Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone and the Business – Town Centre Zone, high-density residential areas and close to the public transport network is efficiently used for higher density residential living and to provide urban living that increases housing capacity and choice and access to public transport.

(2) Development is in keeping with the neighbourhood's planned urban built character of predominantly three-storey buildings, in a variety of forms and surrounded by open space.

(3) Development provides quality on-site residential amenity for residents and adjoining sites and the street.

(4) Non-residential activities provide for the community’s social, economic and cultural well-being, while being compatible with the scale and intensity of development anticipated by the zone so as to contribute to the amenity of the neighbourhood.

H5.3. Policies

(1) Enable a variety of housing types at higher densities, including low-rise apartments and integrated residential development such as retirement villages.

(2) Require the height, bulk, form and appearance of development and the provision of sufficient setbacks and landscaped areas to achieve an urban built character of predominantly three storeys, in a variety of forms.

(3) Encourage development to achieve attractive and safe streets and public open spaces including by:

(a) providing for passive surveillance

(b) optimising front yard landscaping

(c) minimising visual dominance of garage doors.

(4) Require the height, bulk and location of development to maintain a reasonable standard of sunlight access and privacy and to minimise visual dominance effects to adjoining sites.

(5) Require accommodation to be designed to:



(a) provide privacy and outlook; and

(b) be functional, have access to daylight and sunlight, and provide the amenities necessary to meet the day-to-day needs of residents.

(6) Encourage accommodation to have useable and accessible outdoor living space.

(7) Restrict the maximum impervious area on a site in order to manage the amount of stormwater runoff generated by a development and ensure that adverse effects on water quality, quantity and amenity values are avoided or mitigated.

(8) Provide for non-residential activities that:

(a) support the social and economic well-being of the community;

(b) are in keeping with the with the scale and intensity of development anticipated within the zone;

(c) avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on residential amenity; and

(d) will not detract from the vitality of the Business – City Centre Zone, Business – Metro Centre Zone and Business – Town Centre Zone.

(9) Enable more efficient use of larger sites by providing for integrated residential development.

Comments:

The proposed apartment building expands on an already consented retirement village which contains a variety of health care facilities, care services, and amenities which require the employment of people external to the site. The provision of an additional 75 independent-living residential units will further increase the employment opportunities available within the village (health care workers, support staff, gardeners and the like).

At a high level, the proposal will introduce a well-designed apartment building onto the site which has been specifically designed to meet the needs of the elderly demographic, and provide residents with a comfortable, safe and healthy living environment. The proposal is considered to assist with the broader regional level objectives that specifically encourage compact residential and mixed use developments.

As addressed within the effects assessment of this report, the proposal is considered to appropriately respond to the site and surrounding environment while avoiding, remedying or mitigating any potential adverse effects. It is therefore considered that a quality of amenity can be achieved on the application site and maintained within the surrounding environment.

It is noted that the apartments will be on a site that is already consented for a retirement village which included 18 residential units in the place of the proposed apartments, while a seven-storey apartment block forms a significant part of the development in the south-eastern corner. The site also adjoins a large area of residential activity and as such, is at an interface between commercial and industrial land as well as residential. It is therefore considered that the entire application site acts as a transition between the activities.

At 3.8ha, the site is ideally suited to enabling integrated residential development, and the current proposal seeks to make more efficient use of a portion of the site (from that originally consented to) by carefully designing a layout for the western portion of the site that incorporates 75 units



within one apartment block.

Noting the transition that the site has to residential activity on the northern side of the road, and light industry to the south, the presented form of the building, with three stories to the front and five stories behind, can provide a higher density of development whilst achieving an attractive massing, street frontage and overall site spaciousness.

The proposal is part of an overall planned retirement village development that is currently being constructed, and includes a range of facilities for residents at the site. It is considered that the proposal will continue to provide a high quality of amenity for residents on site, whilst appropriately limiting effects for neighbouring residents.

In summary, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the applicable objectives and policies.

5.3.3 UNITARY PLAN – ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

5.3.3.1 INTEGRATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

The application is for the establishment of additional ‘integrated residential development’ on site, which is a listed restricted discretionary activity. Added to this, the proposal will infringe the maximum height for the Mixed Housing Urban zone, which also falls as restricted discretionary activity.

Integrated Residential Development is listed as a restricted discretionary activity, for which specific criteria is provided in the Unitary Plan. the matters of discretion are set out in Clause H5.8.1(3) and the assessment criteria in H5.8.2(3). And are as follows:

It is noted that the proposed units on the southern side of the building will have associated outlook areas that does not comply with the outlook requirements of standard H5.6.12, with specific regard to containing the outlook space depth of 6m within the application site for the principal living room. However, the proposal is able to achieve a minimum of 5.2m on site, with the remainder within the required yard of the property at 10 Harrison Road. It is considered that the degree to which the proposal fails to comply with the standard is minimal and will still afford appropriate outlook for residents. Noting the yard requirements of the adjacent site, the likelihood is that there will be a reasonable separation to any future development of that site. It is further noted that the approval of 10 Harrison Road has been provided.

The originally consented building coverage (roof area) was to be 15,682m2 (which equates to approximately 40.4%). The approved villa variation reduced that amount to 13,262m2 (34.2%), and for this new apartment block the building coverage will be approximately 13,663m2 (35.2%). The resultant coverage is considered to be commensurate with that found in the adjacent residential environment.

The originally consented development was to result in 26,335m2 of impervious surface, while for the villa variation that was reduced to 24,510m2, and will only be increased by 39m2 for this current apartment application (total proposed impervious area of 24,549m2). At approximately 63%, but only 39m2 greater than previously approved, the additional area is considered inconsequential for the overall form and scale of the development. It is noted that as part of the villa variation, approval was given for (regional) stormwater discharges and diversion consents, with the proposed impervious surface having been considered and consented to in anticipation of this current application (knowing that this application had



been lodged with Council).

The proposal will result in the overall site achieving approximately 37% landscaping, which will ensure that there is a site maintains a spacious appearance.

The engineering reports provided for the application confirm that capacity of infrastructure to service the development. Stormwater discharges have previously been approved, while all other infrastructure requirements are shown to have satisfactorily been met.

The proposal has been designed to ensure that the front, side and rear yards are complied with. Compliance with these standards is also indicative of the development being able to achieve an appropriate level of spaciousness.

Although the development will exceed the maximum height for the zone, the design has specifically sought to have a three-storey development at the street frontage, consistent with the anticipated number of floors for the zone. The additional height is as a result of the two extra floors proposed along the western and southern wings. In this regard, as noted in section 5.2.6.1, the three-level wing fronting the road will act as a visual and physical buffer to the five level elements stepping up behind it. This stepping of the levels is a specific design feature in recognition of the residential activity situated opposite the site. Ms Skidmore’s urban design assessment notes that the differential scale proposed will provide a suitable transition to the consented Apartment Building A within the southern portion of the site which is a total of seven storeys.

The overall site, at 3.8 ha is ideally suited towards providing for integrated residential development. On an overall site basis, the development (including consented buildings), will have a range of building heights that respond to the context of the location.

The proposal meets Unitary Plan parking requirements, and the supporting TIA (and addendums) from TPC have not highlighted any concerns with either the parking or traffic effects of the development proposed.

Overall, it is considered that although the proposal does result in the infringement of certain standards, the layout of the proposal is one that responds well to the context of the surrounding environment, having a comparable height and setback to neighbouring residences, and placing the additional bulk closer to the commercial zoning that is adjacent (where that neighbour has provided written approval).

Overall, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant matters for consideration and will achieve the purpose of the standards that require consideration, and may lead to a better outcome, while the assessment, and that in section 5.3.2 above, also demonstrates that the proposal will be consistent with the relevant objectives and policies.

5.3.3.2 NOISE AND VIBRATION

As noted in the section above, approximately 1,020m3 of basalt rock is proposed to be removed from the site to form the basement. As has been covered earlier, it is proposed to break up the basalt by use of explosive charges, rather than using hydraulic rock breakers, with assessment having been carried out by Marshall Day Acoustics (refer Attachment 8, including addendums provided since lodgement).

As noted in section 5.2.6.6 above, the Marshall Day report notes that the reason for employing



explosive devices is that experience on-site with excavations for the main building has shown that it produces significantly less effects from noise and vibration than conventional rock breaking, and can be successfully managed in a manner consistent with the original noise and vibration conditions of the consents already in place for the site.

Furthermore, the blasting would be complete in a matter of seconds as opposed to approximately 30 days if traditional measures were employed, thereby avoiding ongoing noise and vibration effects being experienced by neighbours to the site. As noted above, the applicant proposes to use the same blasting contractor and the same methodology as was utilised for previous blasting on the application site. Two blasts may be required for the works, but this will need to be confirmed by the contractor as the earthworks progress.

In terms of construction vibration standards inE25.6.30(1), and in particular sub-clause (b), given the 20m separation distance between the closest rock breaking activities and the St Johns building to the south, the activities are predicted to comply. Further, it is noted that the applicant has prepared a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan to manage the components of the proposal that emit noise and vibration effects.

Following the blasting, some rock breaking will still be required to clear the edges of the hole, however, because this is primarily at the bottom of the excavated area there will be natural shielding of the noise.

The duration of the additional rock breaking is anticipated to be approximately 2 weeks. The Marshall Day report predicts that there will be periods of time during this phase that will have the potential to exceed 80 dB LAeq, which is above the noise limited of NZS 6803:1999 for long term construction. It is anticipated that these limits will be exceeded for a period of up to 2 days. This noise will be reduced through noise barriers on the boundaries to adjacent sites, and other mitigation measures and conditions of consent proposed in the Marshall Day report. The applicant agrees to implement these conditions.

All other construction work on the site is predicted by Marshall Day to be able to comply with the limits of NZS 6803:1999.

It considered that the proposed excavation measures are the best practicable option for excavation of the basement and foundations for the proposed apartment. The period of time in which noise may be exceeded will be limited in duration and mitigated by proposed conditions of consent. These mitigation measures will also ensure compliance with vibration requirements. It is therefore considered that effects associated with noise and vibration will be consistent with the relevant assessment matters contained in E25.8.2.

5.4 OTHER MATTERS – S104(1)(C)

Section 104(1)(c) allows the consideration of any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application. In this case, it is considered that there are no other matters relevant to the consideration of this proposal..

6 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991



6.1 PART 2

6.1.1 SECTION 5 – PURPOSE

Section 5 identifies the purpose of the Act as being the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. This is defined as managing the use of natural and physical resources in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, cultural and economic well-being while sustaining those resources for future generations, protecting the life supporting capacity of ecosystems, and avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment.

The application of section 5 involves an overall broad judgement of whether a proposal would promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Such a judgement allows for the comparison of potentially conflicting considerations and the scale or degree of them, and their relative significance in the final outcome. In this case, there is a possible tension between the applicant’s desire to establish an activity that provides for the community’s social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and the desire to protect residential character and amenity and existing businesses. These all need to be weighed up in order to make a balanced judgment that will achieve the overall sustainable management purpose of the Act.

As concluded within section 5 of this report, any adverse effects associated with the proposal are considered to be minor. Accordingly, the application is considered to be an example of the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, and one which is consistent with allowing people and communities to provide for their social and economic wellbeing.

6.1.2 SECTION 6 – MATTERS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

Section 6 of the Act sets out a number of matters of national importance which are required to be given regard to. It is considered that there are no particular matters of national importance that will be affected by the proposed activity. Overall, the proposal will not affect any matters under section 6 of the Act.

6.1.3 SECTION 7 – OTHER MATTERS

Section 7 identifies a number of “other matters” to be given particular regard by the Council in the consideration of any assessment for resource consent, and includes reference to the efficient use of natural and physical resources, and the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values.

The proposal is considered to have less than minor adverse effects beyond the site boundaries and will not reduce the amenity or the quality of the local area. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with section 7 matters.

6.1.4 SECTION 8 – TREATY OF WAITANGI

Section 8 requires the Council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is considered that the proposal raises no Treaty issues.

6.2 NOTIFICATION

6.2.1 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Under section 95A, as inserted under section 76 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and



Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009, the Council has discretion whether to publicly notify an application for resource consent. An application is required to be publicly notified if:

The council decides under section 95D that the activity will have or is reasonably likely to

have adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor; or

If the applicant requests it; or

If a rule or national environmental standard requires it.

In this case, the latter two provisions do not apply (i.e. the applicant does not request public notification, nor does a rule or national standard require notification).

Section 95D sets out the tests for defining whether adverse effects referred to in section 95A are likely to be more than minor. In this regard, as relevant to this application, the Council must:

disregard effects on persons who own or occupy the land in, or over that which the activity will occur, or any land adjacent to that land;

disregard any effect on a person who has given written approval to the application.

In this case, it is the writer’s view that ‘adjacent land’ includes the properties listed below and as identified in the following aerial photograph. The effects on these owners and occupiers have been disregarded under section 95D:

6 Harrison Road

1/6 Harrison Road

6B – 6G Harrison Road

8/9 – 11/9 Harrison Road

10 Harrison Road

1-20/11 Harrison Road

1-13/13 Harrison Road

1B – 23 / 15 Harrison Road

55A and 55B Ferndale Road

57 and 57A Ferndale Road

63, 2/63 and 3/63 Ferndale Road

1-5/65 Ferndale Road

67B Ferndale Road

69 Ferndale Road

71 Ferndale Road

73, 2/73 and 3/73 Ferndale Road

5 Reliable Way

These properties are identified in Figure 3 below:



This report includes an analysis of the potential effects of the proposal in 5.2.6 against the matters for which consent is required, and it is considered that the proposal may result in adverse effects, but that such effects will be minor.

In addition, and as per section 95D, the Council must disregard effects of other tenants or landowners within the subject site.

Therefore, it is our view that public notification in accordance with section 95 of the Act is not required in this instance.

6.2.2 LIMITED NOTIFICATION

Section 95B requires that if a consent authority does not publicly notify an application, it must decide (in terms of sections 95E and 95F) if there are any affected persons in relation to the activity. This includes consideration of those persons who own or occupy ‘adjacent land’.

As noted in section 5.2.5 of this report, St John Ambulance who owns and occupies 10 Harrison Road, has provided written approval to the proposal, as have AML (20 Leon Leicester Avenue) and Fulton Hogan (4 Reliable Way). Accordingly, effects on these parties must be disregarded.

The effects on other potentially affected persons are considered below:

9/13, 10/13, 13/13, 1A/15, and 1B/15 Harrison Road

The properties at 9/13, 10/13, 13/13, 1A/15, and 1B/15 Harrison Road is positioned to the north and north-west of the application site, directly across the road. The properties are relatively densely developed, with each of the stand-alone dwelling units being double or three storied in height and occupying a large proportion of their nominated areas, with minimal outdoor living space or yard setbacks. The dwellings each front onto Harrison Road, or the internal cul-de-sac known as Harrison Mews.

This density and layout of development is prominent in this area, with many of the neighbouring landholdings displaying the same characteristics (such as 11 Harrison Road, and 15 Harrison Road).

Adjacent properties:



It is noted that units 9, 10, 13 and 14 within this site will have the most obvious view of the application site as these dwellings front onto Harrison Road and are directly opposite the proposed new apartment building.

The proposed apartment building has been specifically designed to have the larger building elements internal to the site or adjacent to the commercial property at 10 Harrison Road, stepping down to a smaller scale at the residential interface. The building will therefore be three storeys fronting onto Harrison Road, but will then increase to five storeys which subsequently breach the maximum height control. The lower storeys will be one storey taller than the units on 13 Harrison Road, but at a height enabled by the development controls for the lot.

Existing street trees along the Harrison Road frontage will help to provide some screening in order to break up the visual effect of the apartment building when viewed from these residential properties and this will be reinforced by the landscaping plan for the development which aims to provide a green interface with the street. The architectural elements of the building design, such as the verandahs and screens, will further help to mitigate against potential visual amenity and dominance effects.

The building height and form will result in a minor degree of potential adverse dominance and amenity effects for those dwellings situated immediately adjacent the application site. It is noted that all of the proposed mitigation measures will help to reduce the potential dominance and amenity effects of the proposal, so that the effects will be no more than minor.

Other persons

The portion of the application site that will be developed as part of this application is sufficiently separated from all other properties such that any potential character, amenity and dominance effects on these parties are less than minor.

In terms of traffic effects, the TPC traffic report assesses the potential traffic effects on adjacent properties, noting that the only external change from the consented development will be the addition of a new service access at the south western corner of the site which is to be located close to the cul-de-sac head of Harrison Road, and will have sufficient separation from the driveway serving the neighbouring property to ensure there will be no undue conflict between turning vehicles and no detrimental impact on pedestrian safety. Use of the new access will be restricted to service vehicles only, so the number of vehicle movements to and from the site at this point will be very low.

In terms of noise effects, though rock breaking will breach the noise standards for construction activities, it is noted that this will be for a short duration (approximately 2 days) and will be temporary in nature. The noise will be reduced through noise barriers on the boundaries to adjacent sites, and other mitigation measures and conditions of consent proposed in the Marshall Day report, and importantly the effects of duration will be minimised the proposed blasting. The applicant agrees to implement these conditions. It is therefore considered that the noise effects on adjacent properties will be less than minor due to the temporary duration.

The potential reverse sensitivity effects on industrial properties in the area have been assessed within section 5.2.6.9 and will be less than minor.

Therefore, and without the written approval of those neighbours at 9/13, 10/13, 13/13, 1A/15, and 1B/15 Harrison Road, the applicant accepts that the application should proceed on a “limited notified” basis under section 95B, and that the application be served on those persons outlined above.



6.2.3 SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Section 95A(4) states that a consent authority may publicly notify an application if it decides that special circumstances exist in relation to an application.

“Special circumstances” have been defined by the Court of Appeal as those that are unusual or exceptional, but they may be less than extraordinary or unique (Peninsula Watchdog Group (Inc) v Minister of Energy [1996] 2 NZLR 529).

In Murray v Whakatane DC [1997] NZRMA 433, Elias J stated that circumstances which are “special” will be those which make notification desirable, notwithstanding the general provisions excluding the need for notification. In determining what may amount to “special circumstances” it is necessary to consider the matters relevant to the merits of the application as a whole, not merely those considerations stipulated in the tests for public or limited notification.

In Urban Auckland and Ors v Auckland Council [2015] NZHC 1382 the High Court found that special circumstances existed where new relevant information may have been obtained from the public through the notification process.

In this case, the preceding assessment has shown that the effects will be no more than minor. It is further considered that given the preceding assessment, and previous consents applying to the site, there would be no new information that would be gained by public notification. Accordingly, public notification in this regard is therefore not required.

6.3 SECTION 104B

The proposal has been considered in terms of the relevant provisions of sections 104 and 104B. This assessment has concluded that the proposal will have no more than minor adverse effects on the environment, will satisfy all relevant assessment criteria and will be consistent with the objectives and policies of the Unitary Plan.

6.4 SECTION 108

The applicant undertakes to avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential adverse effects of the proposal on the environment, including those effects likely to arise during the construction period. Accordingly, the applicant accepts the imposition of the Council’s standard conditions of consent relating to the matters for which consent is required in this case (e.g. compliance with approved plans), in addition to specific matters relating under section 108 of the Act.

6.5 SECTION 125

Section 125 of the Act provides for resource consents to be valid for the timeframe specified on the consent, or, if no timeframe is specified, for five years. In relation to this proposal, the applicant seeks the standard timeframe of five years to give effect to the resource consent once granted.

6.6 MONITORING OF EFFECTS

Once granted, the Council is required to monitor the exercise of resource consents under section 35 of the Act.

Given the limited nature of adverse effects on the environment, it is considered that there is only



a limited need for monitoring in relation to this proposal. The applicant accepts a reasonable monitoring fee in accordance with the Council’s standard monitoring fee system and that the Council may carry out its monitoring functions by way of inspections of the site during development of the proposal.

7 CONCLUSION

The applicant seeks resource consent to construct 75 new apartments at 8 Harrison Road, Mount Wellington.

The proposal has been assessed in this report as resulting in no more than minor adverse effects on the environment, and as such will not be contrary with the objectives and policies of the Auckland Unitary Plan. The assessment also indicates the proposal will be consistent with relevant assessment criteria.

The proposal particularly aligns with the general direction of the regional policy statement and will promote the overall intensification of residential activity within Mount Wellington locality, while maintaining an appropriate level of amenity for residents of the development.

The proposal is therefore considered to be consistent with the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991. The granting of the resource consent for the proposal would provide for an appropriate activity on this site with adverse effects on the environment which are no more than minor, and is likely to result in positive effects on the overall amenity and character of the locality.

Consent, subject to appropriate conditions, can therefore be supported. Hence, in accordance with section 95 of the Act, it is considered that the Council is able to process this application without notification or service on any parties additional to those noted in the application, and can grant consent under section 104B.

ATTACHMENT 1

Certificate of Title

ATTACHMENT 2

Engineering Report

ATTACHMENT 3

Written Approvals

ATTACHMENT 4

Urban Design Assessment

ATTACHMENT 5

Landscape and Visual Assessment

ATTACHMENT 6

Traffic Effects Assessment

ATTACHMENT 7

Arborist Report

ATTACHMENT 8

Acoustic Report

Documents

6800(56(7 9,//$*(6 (//(56/,( /,0,7(' - Auckland Counciltemp.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/ratesbuildingproperty/consents/get... · 6xpphuvhw 9loodjh (oohuvolh /lplwhg $sulo +duulvrq